82 FR 30812 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 126 (July 3, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 126 (July 3, 2017)
| Page Range | 30812-30814 | |
| FR Document | 2017-13860 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 30812-30814] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![30812 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 126 / Monday, July 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a I. Background
• does not have Federalism portion of a state implementation plan
implications as specified in Executive (SIP) submission from the State of Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA states to submit SIPs meeting the
1999); or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for ambient applicable requirements of section
• is not an economically significant ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield 110(a)(2) within three years after
regulatory action based on health or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for promulgation of a new or revised
safety risks subject to Executive Order the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone national NAAQS or within such shorter period
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); ambient air quality standards (NAAQS as the EPA may prescribe. Section
• is not a significant regulatory action or ‘‘standards’’). The SIP submission is 110(a)(2) requires states to address
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR intended to revise a portion of the structural SIP elements such as
28355, May 22, 2001); State’s ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP that, more requirements for monitoring, basic
• is not subject to requirements of broadly, provides for implementation, program requirements, and legal
Section 12(d) of the National maintenance, and enforcement of the authority that are designed to provide
Technology Transfer and Advancement standards. We are taking comments on for implementation, maintenance, and
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this proposal and plan to follow with a enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP
application of those requirements would final action. submission required by these provisions
be inconsistent with the CAA; and DATES: Any comments must arrive by
is referred to as the infrastructure SIP.
• does not provide EPA with the August 2, 2017. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation
discretionary authority to address, as upon states to make a SIP submission to
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
appropriate, disproportionate human the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
health or environmental effects, using but the contents of individual state
OAR–2017–0265 at http://
practicable and legally permissible submissions may vary depending upon
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
methods, under Executive Order 12898 the facts and circumstances. This
Rory Mays at mays.rory@epa.gov. For
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). proposed rule pertains to infrastructure
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
In addition, the SIP is not approved SIP requirements for ambient air quality
follow the online instructions for
to apply on any Indian reservation land monitoring.
submitting comments. Once submitted, Each of the NAAQS revisions
or in any other area where EPA or an
comments cannot be edited or removed applicable to this proposed rule
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
from Regulations.gov. For either manner triggered the requirement for states to
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of of submission, the EPA may publish any
Indian country, the rule does not have submit infrastructure SIPs, including
comment received to its public docket. provisions for ambient ozone
tribal implications as specified by Do not submit electronically any
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, monitoring. On July 18, 1997, the EPA
information you consider to be revised the form and levels of the
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose Confidential Business Information (CBI)
substantial direct costs on tribal primary and secondary ozone standards
or other information whose disclosure is to an 8-hour average of 0.08 parts per
governments or preempt tribal law. restricted by statute. Multimedia million (ppm).1 On March 12, 2008, the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be EPA revised the levels of the primary
Environmental protection, Air accompanied by a written comment. and secondary 8-hour ozone standards
pollution control, Incorporation by The written comment is considered the to 0.075 ppm.2 The EPA has issued
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, official comment and should include guidance on infrastructure SIP
Reporting and recordkeeping discussion of all points you wish to requirements for the 2008 ozone and
requirements, Volatile organic make. The EPA will generally not other NAAQS that informs the states’
compounds. consider comments or comment development and the EPA’s evaluation
contents located outside of the primary of ambient ozone monitoring.3
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA
Dated: June 15, 2017. other file sharing system). For requires states to provide for the
V. Anne Heard, additional submission methods, please establishment and operation of ambient
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. contact the person identified in the FOR air quality monitoring to (i) monitor,
[FR Doc. 2017–13858 Filed 6–30–17; 8:45 am] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
For the full EPA public comment policy, data available to the EPA Administrator
information about CBI or multimedia upon request. The EPA’s implementing
submissions, and general guidance on regulations for ambient monitoring
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION making effective comments, please visit regulations for the various NAAQS are
AGENCY http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ found in 40 CFR part 58. Among the
commenting-epa-dockets. requirements for ozone monitoring, 40
40 CFR Part 52 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b)
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0265; FRL–9964–44– Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA requires that ‘‘within an [ozone]
Region 9] Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@ network, at least one [ozone] site for
epa.gov. each MSA, or [Combined Statistical
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Approval and Promulgation of Air SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Area (CSA)] if multiple MSAs are
Quality State Implementation Plans; Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’
California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 1 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
Requirements 2 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Table of Contents 3 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA,
Agency (EPA). I. Background ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
ACTION: Proposed rule. II. Ozone Monitoring Evaluation and Plan Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
Proposed Action 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ September 13, 2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM 03JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_30938/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 126 / Monday, July 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 30813
involved, must be designated to record that NAAQS.7 Regarding a lawsuit filed elementary school (AQS ID: 06–029–
the maximum concentration for that by the Sierra Club, in May 2017 the U.S. 5002). This ozone monitor site
particular metropolitan area’’ and 40 District Court for the Northern District relocation had not been approved by the
CFR 58.14(b) requires that of California entered a partial consent EPA at the time of the EPA’s 2014
‘‘modifications to the [State and Local decree directing the EPA to, among partial disapproval of California’s 2007
Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS)] other things, sign a final rule approving and 2014 infrastructure SIPs. CARB
network for reasons other than those a SIP revision, promulgate a FIP, or a states that the EPA has now approved
resulting from the periodic network combination thereof for CAA section the site relocation 13 and includes a
assessments . . . must be reviewed and 110(a)(2)(B) for the Bakersfield MSA for copy of the letter as Appendix C to the
approved by the Regional the 2008 ozone NAAQS by December 2016 CARB Staff Report.
Administrator.’’ The San Joaquin Valley 15, 2017.8 As discussed further in We have reviewed the statements
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone section II of this proposed rule, the EPA CARB made in its 2016 Bakersfield
and 2008 ozone NAAQS includes proposes that California has submitted a Ozone Monitoring SIP, the EPA’s 2016
several MSAs and one CSA. Generally, SIP revision that adequately resolves the approval letter, and CARB’s 2016 site
the highest ozone concentrations in the underlying SIP deficiency with respect relocation request.14 Given the logistical
San Joaquin Valley have occurred in the to monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA constraints and factors considered by
central and southern portions of the for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone CARB, the EPA concluded that the
nonattainment area, but in recent years, NAAQS. Arvin Di Giorgio site provides the most
the highest ozone concentrations have II. Ozone Monitoring Evaluation and similar concentrations from similar
occurred in the central portion of the Proposed Action sources to the Arvin-Bear Mountain
valley (i.e., within the Fresno CSA, Blvd. site and fulfilled the federal
which includes all of Fresno and The California Air Resources Board regulatory requirement that such
Madera counties). (CARB) submitted the ‘‘Staff Report, replacement site be nearby and have the
California made SIP submissions in [C]ARB Review of the San Joaquin same scale of representation. In
2007 and 2014 to, among other things, Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour addition, we found that CARB’s site
address the requirements of section Ozone Standard’’ (‘‘2016 CARB Staff relocation, as approved by the EPA
110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA’s Report’’) on August 24, 2016.9 We found consistent with 40 CFR 58.14, met the
implementing regulations for the 1997 this submission to be complete on substantive requirements for site
ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The December 19, 2016.10 We are proposing relocation under 40 CFR part 58
EPA approved the submissions with action only on the portions of the Appendix D, including the requirement
respect to the ambient monitoring submission that address ambient ozone under section 4.1(b) to designate a site
requirements with one exception: 4 we monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA to record the maximum ozone
partially disapproved the submissions pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B), concentration in the Bakersfield MSA.
for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with and refer to those portions herein as the Since the underlying basis of the
respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ‘‘2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring EPA’s 2014 disapproval has been
ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA, SIP.’’ 11 We find that this submission adequately resolved (i.e., approved site
which includes all of Kern County. Our meets the procedural requirements for relocation for the maximum ozone
partial disapproval was based on the public participation under CAA section concentration site in the Bakersfield
closure of the MSA’s maximum ozone 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. MSA), we propose to approve the 2016
concentration site located at Arvin-Bear The 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP for
Mountain Blvd. (Air Quality System Monitoring SIP notes that states must CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997
(AQS) ID: 06–029–5001),5 without EPA meet federal monitoring regulations as ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. We will
approval of an alternative maximum part of the CAA infrastructure accept comments from the public on
ozone concentration site. requirements and refers to the EPA’s these proposals for the next 30 days.
The EPA’s partial disapproval for disapproval of the State’s infrastructure The deadline and instructions for
ambient ozone monitoring established a SIP for ozone monitoring in the submission of comments are provided
deadline of May 2, 2018, for the EPA to Bakersfield MSA.12 CARB states that it in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at
promulgate a federal implementation had operated an ozone monitor at the the beginning of this preamble.
plan (FIP) or for the State of California Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd. site for 20 In addition, the EPA previously
to submit, and the EPA to approve, an years and that this site had recorded the approved an ozone emergency episode
adequate SIP revision for this ozone highest ozone concentrations in the plan from El Dorado County APCD as
monitoring deficiency for the 1997 Bakersfield MSA. Upon notification in meeting the requirements of CAA
ozone NAAQS.6 With respect to the 2009 that the site lease would not be section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone
2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA’s partial renewed, CARB established a and 2008 ozone NAAQS.15 That action
disapproval explained that a prior FIP replacement site at Arvin’s Di Giorgio
deadline of February 14, 2015, had been 13 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air
7 78 FR 2882 (January 15, 2013).
established by the EPA’s 2013 finding 8 Partial consent decree in Sierra Club v. EPA,
Quality Analysis Office, Region IX, EPA to K.
that California and other states had Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science
Case No. 3:15–cv–04328–JD (U.S. District Court for Division, CARB, May 2, 2016.
failed to submit infrastructure SIPs for the Northern District of California), filed May 23, 14 Letter from K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
2017, pp. 4–6. Planning and Science Division, CARB to Meredith
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
4 81 FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016). See also, 9 Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office,
‘‘California Infrastructure SIP, Overarching CARB to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Region IX, EPA, April 29, 2016. This site relocation
Technical Support Document,’’ EPA, Region IX, Administrator, Region IX, EPA, August 24, 2016. request noted that the Arvin-Bear Mountain Blvd.
September 2014, pp. 11–15. 10 Letter from Elizabeth Adams, Acting Director,
monitor operated for the 21 years and that the
5 The EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) contains Air Division, Region IX, EPA to Richard W. Corey, highest ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield
ambient air pollution data collected by federal, Executive Officer, CARB, December 19, 2016. MSA generally occurred at the Arvin-Bear
state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies 11 2016 CARB Staff Report, Section V.H Mountain Blvd. site or the neighboring Edison site
from thousands of monitors. More information is (‘‘Bakersfield Area Monitor’’), p. 23 and Section VII (AQS ID 060290007). The ozone monitor at the
available at: https://www.epa.gov/aqs. (‘‘Staff Recommendation’’), p. 24. Edison site continues to operate.
6 81 FR 18766 at 18775 (April 1, 2016). 12 Id. 15 81 FR 47300 (July 21, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM 03JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_30938/page/2.svg)
![30814 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 126 / Monday, July 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
resolved a separate, partial disapproval • does not provide the EPA with the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
from the EPA’s 2016 rulemaking on discretionary authority to address identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
California’s 2007 and 2014 disproportionate human health or OAR–2012–0166 at http://
infrastructure SIPs. However, we environmental effects with practical, www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
inadvertently did not remove certain appropriate, and legally permissible instructions for submitting comments.
paragraphs from the California SIP that methods under Executive Order 12898 Once submitted, comments cannot be
reflected the earlier disapproval. Thus, (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
as an administrative matter, we intend In addition, the SIP is not approved EPA may publish any comment received
to use this rulemaking to remove the to apply on any Indian reservation land to its public docket. Do not submit
obsolete paragraphs, specifically 40 CFR or in any other area where the EPA or electronically any information you
52.223(i)(7) and 40 CFR 52.223(l)(7), an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
consider to be Confidential Business
from the California SIP. tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Information (CBI) or other information
Indian country, the rule does not have
III. Statutory and Executive Order whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
tribal implications and will not impose
Reviews Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
substantial direct costs on tribal
Under the Clean Air Act, the governments or preempt tribal law as etc.) must be accompanied by a written
Administrator is required to approve a specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 comment. The written comment is
SIP submission that complies with the FR 67249, November 9, 2000). considered the official comment and
provisions of the Act and applicable should include discussion of all points
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 you wish to make. EPA will generally
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP Environmental protection, Air not consider comments or comment
submissions, the EPA’s role is to pollution control, Incorporation by contents located outside of the primary
approve state choices, provided that reference, Intergovernmental relations, submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping other file sharing system). For
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action requirements. additional submission methods, the full
merely proposes to approve state law as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. EPA public comment policy,
meeting federal requirements and does information about CBI or multimedia
Dated: June 21, 2017.
not impose additional requirements submissions, and general guidance on
beyond those imposed by state law. For Alexis Strauss,
making effective comments, please visit
that reason, this proposed action: Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
[FR Doc. 2017–13860 Filed 6–30–17; 8:45 am]
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory commenting-epa-dockets.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D.
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Section, Air Planning and
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
AGENCY Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
40 CFR Part 52 Environmental Protection Agency,
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0166; FRL–9964–34– Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 4] Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers
• is certified as not having a Air Plan Approval; FL: Revisions to
can be reached via telephone at (404)
significant economic impact on a 562–9089 or via electronic mail at
New Source Review, Definitions and
substantial number of small entities akers.brad@epa.gov.
Small Business Assistance Programs
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Final Rules Section of this Federal
• does not contain any unfunded Agency.
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
mandate or significantly or uniquely ACTION:Proposed rule.
affect small governments, as described implementation plan revision as a direct
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection final rule without prior proposal
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA) is taking direct final because the Agency views this as a
• does not have federalism action to approve changes to the Florida noncontroversial submittal and
implications as specified in Executive State Implementation Plan (SIP) to anticipates no adverse comments. A
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, update definitions and make detailed rationale for the approval is set
1999); administrative edits to regulations for forth in the direct final rule. If no
• is not an economically significant the Plantwide Applicability Limits and adverse comments are received in
regulatory action based on health or Florida’s Small Business Assistance response to this rule, no further activity
safety risks subject to Executive Order program. EPA is proposing to approve is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); portions of a SIP revision submitted by comments, the direct final rule will be
• is not a significant regulatory action the State of Florida, through the Florida withdrawn and all public comments
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Department of Environmental Protection received will be addressed in a
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28355, May 22, 2001); on July 1, 2011, to update definitions subsequent final rule based on this
• is not subject to requirements of and make administrative edits to proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
Section 12(d) of the National Plantwide Applicability Limits and the second comment period on this
Technology Transfer and Advancement Small Business Assistance program. document. Any parties interested in
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because This action is being taken pursuant to commenting on this document should
application of those requirements would the Clean Air Act. do so at this time.
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; DATES: Written comments must be
and received on or before August 2, 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM 03JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_30938/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-14 10:19:57
Document Modified: 2018-11-14 10:19:57
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by August 2, 2017. | |
| Contact | Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR- 2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 30812 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR