[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30812-30814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13860]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265; FRL-9964-44-Region 9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from 
the State of California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') 
requirements for ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield 
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards''). The 
SIP submission is intended to revise a portion of the State's 
``infrastructure'' SIP that, more broadly, provides for implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the standards. We are taking comments 
on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0265 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Rory Mays 
at [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Ozone Monitoring Evaluation and Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting 
the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years 
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter 
period as the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to 
address structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, 
basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to 
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. 
The SIP submission required by these provisions is referred to as the 
infrastructure SIP. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states 
to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the 
contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the 
facts and circumstances. This proposed rule pertains to infrastructure 
SIP requirements for ambient air quality monitoring.
    Each of the NAAQS revisions applicable to this proposed rule 
triggered the requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs, 
including provisions for ambient ozone monitoring. On July 18, 1997, 
the EPA revised the form and levels of the primary and secondary ozone 
standards to an 8-hour average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm).\1\ On 
March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 
8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm.\2\ The EPA has issued guidance on 
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone and other NAAQS that 
informs the states' development and the EPA's evaluation of ambient 
ozone monitoring.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
    \2\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, ``Guidance on Infrastructure 
State Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires states to provide for the 
establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitoring to (i) 
monitor, compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make data available to the 
EPA Administrator upon request. The EPA's implementing regulations for 
ambient monitoring regulations for the various NAAQS are found in 40 
CFR part 58. Among the requirements for ozone monitoring, 40 CFR part 
58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires that ``within an [ozone] network, at 
least one [ozone] site for each MSA, or [Combined Statistical Area 
(CSA)] if multiple MSAs are

[[Page 30813]]

involved, must be designated to record the maximum concentration for 
that particular metropolitan area'' and 40 CFR 58.14(b) requires that 
``modifications to the [State and Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS)] 
network for reasons other than those resulting from the periodic 
network assessments . . . must be reviewed and approved by the Regional 
Administrator.'' The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 
ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS includes several MSAs and one CSA. 
Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley 
have occurred in the central and southern portions of the nonattainment 
area, but in recent years, the highest ozone concentrations have 
occurred in the central portion of the valley (i.e., within the Fresno 
CSA, which includes all of Fresno and Madera counties).
    California made SIP submissions in 2007 and 2014 to, among other 
things, address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA's 
implementing regulations for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 
EPA approved the submissions with respect to the ambient monitoring 
requirements with one exception: \4\ we partially disapproved the 
submissions for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA, which includes all of 
Kern County. Our partial disapproval was based on the closure of the 
MSA's maximum ozone concentration site located at Arvin-Bear Mountain 
Blvd. (Air Quality System (AQS) ID: 06-029-5001),\5\ without EPA 
approval of an alternative maximum ozone concentration site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 81 FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016). See also, ``California 
Infrastructure SIP, Overarching Technical Support Document,'' EPA, 
Region IX, September 2014, pp. 11-15.
    \5\ The EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air 
pollution data collected by federal, state, local, and tribal air 
pollution control agencies from thousands of monitors. More 
information is available at: https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's partial disapproval for ambient ozone monitoring 
established a deadline of May 2, 2018, for the EPA to promulgate a 
federal implementation plan (FIP) or for the State of California to 
submit, and the EPA to approve, an adequate SIP revision for this ozone 
monitoring deficiency for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\6\ With respect to the 
2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA's partial disapproval explained that a prior 
FIP deadline of February 14, 2015, had been established by the EPA's 
2013 finding that California and other states had failed to submit 
infrastructure SIPs for that NAAQS.\7\ Regarding a lawsuit filed by the 
Sierra Club, in May 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California entered a partial consent decree directing the 
EPA to, among other things, sign a final rule approving a SIP revision, 
promulgate a FIP, or a combination thereof for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) 
for the Bakersfield MSA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by December 15, 
2017.\8\ As discussed further in section II of this proposed rule, the 
EPA proposes that California has submitted a SIP revision that 
adequately resolves the underlying SIP deficiency with respect to 
monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 81 FR 18766 at 18775 (April 1, 2016).
    \7\ 78 FR 2882 (January 15, 2013).
    \8\ Partial consent decree in Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 3:15-
cv-04328-JD (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
California), filed May 23, 2017, pp. 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Ozone Monitoring Evaluation and Proposed Action

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the ``Staff 
Report, [C]ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 
8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2016 CARB Staff Report'') on August 24, 
2016.\9\ We found this submission to be complete on December 19, 
2016.\10\ We are proposing action only on the portions of the 
submission that address ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA 
pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B), and refer to those portions 
herein as the ``2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP.'' \11\ We find 
that this submission meets the procedural requirements for public 
participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to 
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX, EPA, 
August 24, 2016.
    \10\ Letter from Elizabeth Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, 
Region IX, EPA to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, 
December 19, 2016.
    \11\ 2016 CARB Staff Report, Section V.H (``Bakersfield Area 
Monitor''), p. 23 and Section VII (``Staff Recommendation''), p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP notes that states must 
meet federal monitoring regulations as part of the CAA infrastructure 
requirements and refers to the EPA's disapproval of the State's 
infrastructure SIP for ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA.\12\ 
CARB states that it had operated an ozone monitor at the Arvin-Bear 
Mountain Blvd. site for 20 years and that this site had recorded the 
highest ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA. Upon notification 
in 2009 that the site lease would not be renewed, CARB established a 
replacement site at Arvin's Di Giorgio elementary school (AQS ID: 06-
029-5002). This ozone monitor site relocation had not been approved by 
the EPA at the time of the EPA's 2014 partial disapproval of 
California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs. CARB states that the 
EPA has now approved the site relocation \13\ and includes a copy of 
the letter as Appendix C to the 2016 CARB Staff Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis 
Office, Region IX, EPA to K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning 
and Science Division, CARB, May 2, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the statements CARB made in its 2016 Bakersfield 
Ozone Monitoring SIP, the EPA's 2016 approval letter, and CARB's 2016 
site relocation request.\14\ Given the logistical constraints and 
factors considered by CARB, the EPA concluded that the Arvin Di Giorgio 
site provides the most similar concentrations from similar sources to 
the Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. site and fulfilled the federal regulatory 
requirement that such replacement site be nearby and have the same 
scale of representation. In addition, we found that CARB's site 
relocation, as approved by the EPA consistent with 40 CFR 58.14, met 
the substantive requirements for site relocation under 40 CFR part 58 
Appendix D, including the requirement under section 4.1(b) to designate 
a site to record the maximum ozone concentration in the Bakersfield 
MSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Letter from K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and 
Science Division, CARB to Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality 
Analysis Office, Region IX, EPA, April 29, 2016. This site 
relocation request noted that the Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. monitor 
operated for the 21 years and that the highest ozone concentrations 
in the Bakersfield MSA generally occurred at the Arvin-Bear Mountain 
Blvd. site or the neighboring Edison site (AQS ID 060290007). The 
ozone monitor at the Edison site continues to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the underlying basis of the EPA's 2014 disapproval has been 
adequately resolved (i.e., approved site relocation for the maximum 
ozone concentration site in the Bakersfield MSA), we propose to approve 
the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) 
for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. We will accept comments from 
the public on these proposals for the next 30 days. The deadline and 
instructions for submission of comments are provided in the DATES and 
ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this preamble.
    In addition, the EPA previously approved an ozone emergency episode 
plan from El Dorado County APCD as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS.\15\ That 
action

[[Page 30814]]

resolved a separate, partial disapproval from the EPA's 2016 rulemaking 
on California's 2007 and 2014 infrastructure SIPs. However, we 
inadvertently did not remove certain paragraphs from the California SIP 
that reflected the earlier disapproval. Thus, as an administrative 
matter, we intend to use this rulemaking to remove the obsolete 
paragraphs, specifically 40 CFR 52.223(i)(7) and 40 CFR 52.223(l)(7), 
from the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 81 FR 47300 (July 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law 
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 21, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-13860 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P