82 FR 47145 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring Requirements

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 195 (October 11, 2017)

Page Range		47145-47147
FR Document		2017-21777
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.
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47145-47147]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47145

OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, APPROVED BUT NOT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE—Continued
State
State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date Explanation
date

200–0110 .......... Public Interest Representation 4/16/2015 10/11/2017, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
200–0120 .......... Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest 4/16/2015 10/11/2017, [Insert
Federal Register
citation].

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

EPA-APPROVED OREGON STATE DIRECTIVES
State effective
State citation Title/subject EPA approval date Explanation
date

Directive 1–4–1–601 .............. Operational Guidance for the 10/23/1992 11/1/2001, 66 FR 55112.
Oregon Smoke Manage-
ment Program.
ODEQ–LRAPA Stringency Di- DEQ analysis and rec- 4/16/2015 10/11/2017, [Insert Federal
rective, Attachment B. ommendations regarding Register citation].
which of the proposed rules
that the EQC should re-
quire LRAPA to implement
directly.

EPA-APPROVED MANUALS
State
Name Adoption date effective EPA approval date Explanation
date

ODEQ Source Sampling Manual ... 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 10/11/2017, [Insert Federal Reg- Volumes I and II for purposes of
ister citation]. the limits approved into the SIP.
ODEQ Continuous Emissions Mon- 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 10/11/2017, [Insert Federal Reg- For purposes of the limits ap-
itoring Manual. ister citation]. proved into the SIP.

* * * * * ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION or ‘‘standards’’). The SIP submission is
AGENCY intended to revise a portion of the
■ 3. Section 52.1987 is amended by
State’s ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP that, more
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 40 CFR Part 52 broadly, provides for implementation,
§ 52.1987 Significant deterioration of air maintenance, and enforcement of the
quality. [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0265; FRL–9969– standards.
18—Region 9]
(a) The Oregon Department of This rule is effective on
DATES:
Environmental Quality rules for the Approval and Promulgation of Air November 13, 2017.
prevention of significant deterioration of Quality State Implementation Plans;
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
air quality (provisions of OAR Chapter California; Ambient Ozone Monitoring
docket for this action under Docket ID
340, Divisions 200, 202, 209, 212, 216, Requirements
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0265. All
222, 224 (except 0510(3) inter-pollutant AGENCY: Environmental Protection documents in the docket are listed on
offset ratios), 225, and 268, as in effect Agency (EPA). the https://www.regulations.gov Web
on April 16, 2015, are approved as ACTION: Final rule. site. Although listed in the index, some
meeting the requirements of title I, part information is not publicly available,
C, subpart I of the Clean Air Act for SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection e.g., Confidential Business Information
preventing significant deterioration of Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of (CBI) or other information whose
air quality. a portion of a state implementation plan disclosure is restricted by statute.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

* * * * * (SIP) submission from the State of Certain other material, such as
[FR Doc. 2017–21803 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA copyrighted material, is not placed on
or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for ambient the Internet and will be publicly
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield available only in hard copy form.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for Publicly available docket materials are
the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone national available through https://
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS www.regulations.gov, or please contact

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 Oct 10, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM 11OCR1
47146 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER submit infrastructure SIPs, including sources to the Arvin-Bear Mountain
INFORMATION CONTACT section for provisions for ambient ozone Boulevard site and fulfilled the federal
additional availability information. monitoring. regulatory requirement that such
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA replacement site be nearby and have the
Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA requires states to provide for the same scale of representation. In
Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@ establishment and operation of ambient addition, we found that CARB’s site
epa.gov. air quality monitoring to (i) monitor, relocation, as approved by the EPA
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make consistent with 40 CFR 58.14, met the
Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ data available to the EPA Administrator substantive requirements for site
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. upon request. For the 1997 ozone and relocation under 40 CFR part 58
2008 ozone NAAQS, the San Joaquin Appendix D, including the requirement
Table of Contents Valley nonattainment area includes under section 4.1(b) to designate a site
I. Background several MSAs and one Combined to record the maximum ozone
II. Final Action Statistical Area. concentration in the Bakersfield MSA.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews California made SIP submissions in
2007 and 2014 to, among other things, II. Final Action
I. Background address the requirements of section The underlying basis of the EPA’s
On August 24, 2016, the California 110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA’s 2014 disapproval has been adequately
Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted implementing regulations for the 1997 resolved via the approved site relocation
the ‘‘Staff Report, [C]ARB Review of the ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The for the maximum ozone concentration
San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the EPA approved the submissions with site in the Bakersfield MSA.
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard’’ (‘‘2016 respect to the ambient monitoring Accordingly, the EPA is fully approving
CARB Staff Report’’).1 On July 3, 2017, requirements with one exception: 6 We the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring
we proposed to approve the portions of partially disapproved the submissions SIP for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the
the submission that address ambient for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as
ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
MSA pursuant to CAA section ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA, Act.
110(a)(2)(B),2 and refer to those portions which includes all of Kern County. Our In addition, the EPA previously
herein as the ‘‘2016 Bakersfield Ozone partial disapproval was based on the approved an ozone emergency episode
Monitoring SIP.’’ 3 We proposed to closure of the MSA’s maximum ozone plan from El Dorado County APCD as
approve this SIP submission because we concentration site located at Arvin-Bear meeting the requirements of CAA
determined that it complied with the Mountain Boulevard (i.e., Air Quality section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone
relevant CAA requirements, as outlined System (AQS) ID: 06–029–5001), and 2008 ozone NAAQS.9 That action
below. Our proposed rule contains more without EPA approval of an alternative resolved a separate, partial disapproval
information on the SIP submission and maximum ozone concentration site.7 from the EPA’s 2016 rulemaking on
our evaluation. We provided a 30-day CARB had operated an ozone monitor California’s 2007 and 2014
public comment period on the proposed at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard infrastructure SIPs. However, we
rule, during which we received no site for 20 years, and the highest ozone inadvertently did not remove certain
comments. concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA paragraphs from the California SIP that
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires generally occurred at this site or the reflected the earlier disapproval. Thus,
states to submit SIPs meeting the Edison site (i.e., AQS ID: 06–029–0007), as an administrative matter, we are
applicable requirements of section which continues to operate. Upon removing the obsolete paragraphs,
110(a)(2) within three years after notification in 2009 that the site lease specifically 40 CFR 52.223(i)(7) and 40
promulgation of a new or revised would not be renewed, CARB CFR 52.223(l)(7), from the California
NAAQS or within a shorter period that established a replacement site at the SIP.
the EPA may prescribe. The EPA refers Arvin-Di Giorgio elementary school (i.e.,
III. Statutory and Executive Order
to such SIP submissions as AQS ID: 06–029–5002). This ozone
Reviews
‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This final rule monitor site relocation had not been
pertains to infrastructure SIP approved by the EPA at the time of the Under the Clean Air Act, the
requirements for ambient air quality EPA’s 2014 partial disapproval of Administrator is required to approve a
monitoring. California’s 2007 and 2014 SIP submission that complies with the
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the infrastructure SIPs. provisions of the Act and applicable
form and levels of the primary and Based on the 2016 Bakersfield Ozone federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
secondary ozone standards to an 8-hour Monitoring SIP, CARB’s 2016 site 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm).4 relocation request,8 and the EPA’s 2016 submissions, the EPA’s role is to
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the approval of that relocation request approve state choices, provided that
levels of the primary and secondary 8- (included in the SIP submission as they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm.5 Appendix C to the 2016 CARB Staff Act. Accordingly, this action merely
Each of these NAAQS revisions Report), the EPA concluded that the approves state law as meeting federal
triggered the requirement for states to Arvin-Di Giorgio site provided the most requirements and does not impose
similar concentrations from similar additional requirements beyond those
1 Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, imposed by state law. For that reason,
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

CARB to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 6 81 FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016). this action:
Administrator, Region IX, EPA, August 24, 2016. 7 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires at • Is not a significant regulatory action
2 82 FR 30812 (July 3, 2017).
least one site in each MSA to be designed to capture subject to review by the Office of
3 2016 CARB Staff Report, Section V.H
the maximum ozone concentration in that MSA.
(‘‘Bakersfield Area Monitor’’), p. 23 and Section VII 8 Letter from K. Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Management and Budget under
(‘‘Staff Recommendation’’), p. 24. Planning and Science Division, CARB to Meredith Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
4 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office,
5 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Region IX, EPA, April 29, 2016. 9 81 FR 47300 (July 21, 2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 Oct 10, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM 11OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47147

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, until 60 days after it is published in the § 52.223 [Amended]
January 21, 2011); Federal Register. This action is not a ■ 3. Section 52.223 is amended by
• does not impose an information ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. removing and reserving paragraphs
collection burden under the provisions 804(2). (i)(1), (i)(7), (l)(1), and (l)(7).
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
[FR Doc. 2017–21777 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am]
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
• is certified as not having a this action must be filed in the United BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

significant economic impact on a States Court of Appeals for the
substantial number of small entities appropriate circuit by December 11,
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 2017. Filing a petition for ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); reconsideration by the Administrator of AGENCY
• does not contain any unfunded this final rule does not affect the finality 40 CFR Part 52
mandate or significantly or uniquely of this action for the purposes of judicial
affect small governments, as described review nor does it extend the time [EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0513; FRL–9969–12–
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act within which a petition for judicial Region 7]
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); review may be filed, and shall not
• does not have Federalism postpone the effectiveness of such rule Approval of Missouri Air Quality
implications as specified in Executive or action. This action may not be Implementation Plans; Infrastructure
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, challenged later in proceedings to SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual
1999); enforce its requirements (see section Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National
• is not an economically significant 307(b)(2)). Ambient Air Quality Standard
regulatory action based on health or AGENCY: Environmental Protection
safety risks subject to Executive Order List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Agency (EPA).
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Environmental protection, Air
ACTION: Direct final rule.
• is not a significant regulatory action pollution control, Incorporation by
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR reference, Intergovernmental relations, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
28355, May 22, 2001); Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping Agency (EPA) is approving elements of
• is not subject to requirements of requirements. a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Section 12(d) of the National Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. revision from the State of Missouri for
Technology Transfer and Advancement the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Dated: September 26, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
application of those requirements would Standard (NAAQS) and two state
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
statutes into the SIP to address the
and Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code requirements relating to conflicts of
• does not provide the EPA with the of Federal Regulations is amended as interest found in section 128 of the
discretionary authority to address, as follows: Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 110 of the
appropriate, disproportionate human
CAA requires that each state adopt and
health or environmental effects, using PART 52—APPROVAL AND submit a SIP for the implementation,
practicable and legally permissible PROMULGATION OF maintenance, and enforcement of each
methods, under Executive Order 12898 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS new or revised NAAQS promulgated by
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred
In addition, the SIP is not approved
continues to read as follows: to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The
to apply on any Indian reservation land
infrastructure requirements are designed
or in any other area where the EPA or Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. to ensure that the structural components
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
Subpart F—California of each state’s air quality management
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
program are adequate to meet the state’s
Indian country, the rule does not have
■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by responsibilities under the CAA.
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal adding paragraph (c)(496) to read as DATES: This direct final rule will be
governments or preempt tribal law as follows: effective December 11, 2017, without
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 further notice, unless EPA receives
§ 52.220 Identification of plan-in part.
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). adverse comment by November 13,
* * * * * 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment,
The Congressional Review Act, 5 (c) * * *
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small we will publish a timely withdrawal of
(496) The following plan was
Business Regulatory Enforcement the direct final rule in the Federal
submitted on August 24, 2016, by the
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Register informing the public that the
Governor’s Designee.
that before a rule may take effect, the (i) [Reserved] rule will not take effect.
agency promulgating the rule must (ii) Additional materials. (A) ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
submit a rule report, which includes a California Air Resources Board (CARB). identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
copy of the rule, to each House of the (1) CARB Resolution 16–8, dated July OAR–2017–0513, to https://
Congress and to the Comptroller General 21, 2016, adopting the ‘‘2016 Ozone www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
of the United States. The EPA will State Implementation Plan for the San instructions for submitting comments.
submit a report containing this action Once submitted, comments cannot be
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Joaquin Valley.’’
and other required information to the (2) ‘‘Staff Report, ARB Review of the edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the EPA may publish any comment received
Representatives, and the Comptroller 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,’’ section to its public docket. Do not submit
General of the United States prior to V.H (‘‘Bakersfield Area Monitor’’) and electronically any information you
publication of the rule in the Federal Appendix C (‘‘U.S. EPA Letter consider to be Confidential Business
Register. A major rule cannot take effect Regarding Arvin Site Relocation’’), only. Information (CBI) or other information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 Oct 10, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11OCR1.SGM 11OCR1
Document Created: 2018-10-25 10:00:52
Document Modified: 2018-10-25 10:00:52
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		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		This rule is effective on November 13, 2017.
Contact		Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR- 2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227, [email protected]
FR Citation		82 FR 47145
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements