[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47145-47147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21777]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265; FRL-9969-18--Region 9]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
approval of 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.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0265. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact

[[Page 47146]]

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
for additional availability information.

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. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On August 24, 2016, 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'').\1\ On July 3, 2017, we proposed to approve the portions of 
the submission that address ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield 
MSA pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B),\2\ and refer to those 
portions herein as the ``2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP.'' \3\ 
We proposed to approve this SIP submission because we determined that 
it complied with the relevant CAA requirements, as outlined below. Our 
proposed rule contains more information on the SIP submission and our 
evaluation. We provided a 30-day public comment period on the proposed 
rule, during which we received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to 
Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX, EPA, 
August 24, 2016.
    \2\ 82 FR 30812 (July 3, 2017).
    \3\ 2016 CARB Staff Report, Section V.H (``Bakersfield Area 
Monitor''), p. 23 and Section VII (``Staff Recommendation''), p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 a shorter period 
that the EPA may prescribe. The EPA refers to such SIP submissions as 
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This final rule pertains to infrastructure SIP 
requirements for ambient air quality 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).\4\ On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the 
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 
ppm.\5\ Each of these NAAQS revisions triggered the requirement for 
states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions for ambient 
ozone monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
    \5\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. For the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone 
NAAQS, the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area includes several MSAs 
and one Combined Statistical Area.
    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: \6\ 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 
Boulevard (i.e., Air Quality System (AQS) ID: 06-029-5001), without EPA 
approval of an alternative maximum ozone concentration site.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 81 FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016).
    \7\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires at least one 
site in each MSA to be designed to capture the maximum ozone 
concentration in that MSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB had operated an ozone monitor at the Arvin-Bear Mountain 
Boulevard site for 20 years, and the highest ozone concentrations in 
the Bakersfield MSA generally occurred at this site or the Edison site 
(i.e., AQS ID: 06-029-0007), which continues to operate. Upon 
notification in 2009 that the site lease would not be renewed, CARB 
established a replacement site at the Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary 
school (i.e., 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.
    Based on the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP, CARB's 2016 
site relocation request,\8\ and the EPA's 2016 approval of that 
relocation request (included in the SIP submission as Appendix C to the 
2016 CARB Staff Report), the EPA concluded that the Arvin-Di Giorgio 
site provided the most similar concentrations from similar sources to 
the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    The underlying basis of the EPA's 2014 disapproval has been 
adequately resolved via the approved site relocation for the maximum 
ozone concentration site in the Bakersfield MSA. Accordingly, the EPA 
is fully approving the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP for CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as 
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
    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.\9\ That 
action 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 are removing the obsolete paragraphs, specifically 40 CFR 
52.223(i)(7) and 40 CFR 52.223(l)(7), from the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735,

[[Page 47147]]

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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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: September 26, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(496) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220   Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (496) The following plan was submitted on August 24, 2016, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board 
(CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 16-8, dated July 21, 2016, adopting the ``2016 
Ozone State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley.''
    (2) ``Staff Report, ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan 
for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' section V.H (``Bakersfield Area 
Monitor'') and Appendix C (``U.S. EPA Letter Regarding Arvin Site 
Relocation''), only.


Sec.  52.223  [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.223 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(i)(1), (i)(7), (l)(1), and (l)(7).

[FR Doc. 2017-21777 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P