Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26697 

River within a shape bounded by the 

following coordinates: 33°55′05′′ N., 

078°00′04′′ W.; 33°54′57′′ N., 078°00′04′′ 

W.; 33°54′56′′ N., 078°00′54′′ W.; 

33°55′04′′ N., 078°00′54′′ W.; thence 

back to the point of origin (NAD 83) in 

Southport, North Carolina. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in 165.23 of this 

part, entry into this zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, North Carolina or her designated 

representatives. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this safety zone 

shall: 

(i) If on scene proceed as directed by 

any commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer on shore or on board a vessel that 

is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, North 

Carolina can be reached through the 

Sector North Carolina Command Duty 

Officer at Sector North Carolina in 

Wilmington, North Carolina at 

telephone number (910) 343–3882. 

(4) The Coast Guard Representatives 

enforcing the safety zone can be 

contacted on VHF–FM marine band 

radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and 

channel 16 (156.8 Mhz). 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced on May 07, 2016, from 

9:30 a.m. through 11:30 a.m., unless 

otherwise cancelled by the COTP. 

Dated: April 19, 2016. 

J.S. Dufresne, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10310 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0468; FRL–9945–17– 

OAR] 

Determinations of Attainment by the 

Attainment Date, Extensions of the 

Attainment Date, and Reclassification 

of Several Areas for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action on 

three separate and independent types of 

determinations for each of the 36 areas 

that are currently classified as 

‘‘Marginal’’ for the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). First, the EPA is determining 

that 17 areas attained the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015, based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ozone monitoring data for 2012–2014. 

Second, the EPA is granting 1-year 

attainment date extensions for eight 

areas on the basis that the requirements 

for such extensions under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations have been met. Third, the 

EPA is determining that 11 areas failed 

to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of July 20, 

2015, and thus are reclassified by 

operation of law as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. States containing 

any or any portion of these new 

Moderate areas must submit State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that 

meet the statutory and regulatory 

requirements that apply to 2008 ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate by January 1, 2017. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 3, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0468 for this action. All documents in 

the docket are listed on http://

www.regulation.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information 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 electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Cecil (Butch) Stackhouse or Mr. H. Lynn 

Dail, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, 

Mail Code C539–01, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. Telephone Mr. 

Stackhouse at (919) 541–5208 or Mr. 

Dail at (919) 541–2363; or both at fax 

number: (919) 541–5315; email 

addresses: stackhouse.butch@epa.gov, 

or dail.lynn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Actions 

A. Determinations of Attainment 

B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment 

Dates 

C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and 

Reclassification 

D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission 

Deadline 

E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination 

and Proposed SIP Call for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS for the New YorkN. New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) 

Nonattainment Area 

II. Final Actions 

A. Determinations of Attainment 

B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment 

Dates 

C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and 

Reclassification 

D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission 

Deadline 

E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination 

and Final SIP Call for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS for the New York-N. New 

Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) 

Nonattainment Area 

III. Environmental Justice Considerations 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

L. Judicial Review 

I. Proposed Actions 

On August 27, 2015, the EPA 

proposed to find that 17 Marginal areas 

attained the 2008 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of July 20, 

2015, based on complete, qualityassured and certified ozone monitoring 

data for 2012–2014. See 80 FR 51992. 

The EPA also proposed to find that eight 

areas met the criteria, as provided in 

CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.1107, to 

qualify for a 1-year attainment date 

extension for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

even though they did not attain the 

NAAQS by the applicable deadline. 

Finally, the EPA proposed to find that 

11 areas failed to attain the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable Marginal 

attainment date and that they did not 

qualify for a 1-year attainment date 

extension. Under CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A), if the EPA determines that 

an area failed to attain a given NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date, the 

area shall be reclassified to a higher 

classification. In the EPA’s August 2015 

proposal, the EPA specified those 11 

areas would be reclassified to Moderate. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26698 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Design value is a statistic that describes the air 

quality status of a given location relative to the level 

of the NAAQS. Design values for a site are the 3- 

year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 

8-hour average ozone concentrations. 

2These determinations were based upon 3 years 

of complete, quality-assured and certified 2012– 

2014 data, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality Statistics (AQS) 

database. Some areas attained the standard earlier 

with 2011, 2012 and 2013 data and maintained the 

standard in 2014, i.e., Knoxville, TX attained the 

standard with 2011–2013 ozone data and continued 

to attain with 2012–2014 data. 

The reclassified areas must attain the 

standard as expeditiously as practicable, 

but in any event no later than July 20, 

2018. 

The EPA proposed two options for 

establishing a deadline for states to 

submit the SIP revisions required for 

Moderate areas once their areas are 

reclassified from Marginal. The first 

option would have required state air 

agencies to submit the required SIP 

revisions as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the 

beginning of the ozone season in 2017 

for each respective area. The second 

option would have required state air 

agencies to submit the required SIP 

revisions as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than January 1, 

2017. After consideration of the 

comments received on these proposed 

options, the EPA is finalizing a due date 

of no later than January 1, 2017, for all 

Moderate area SIP requirements that 

apply to newly reclassified areas. 

A. Determinations of Attainment 

In the proposal, the EPA evaluated 

data from air quality monitors in the 36 

areas classified as Marginal for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in order to determine 

each area’s attainment status as of the 

applicable attainment date of July 20, 

2015. Seventeen of the 36 

nonattainment areas’ monitoring sites 

with valid data had a design value 1

equal to or less than 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm) based on 2012–2014 

monitoring period.2 Thus, the EPA 

proposed to determine, in accordance 

with section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA 

and the EPA’s implementing regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.1103, that the 17 areas 

listed in the following Table 1 attained 

the standard by the applicable 

attainment date for Marginal areas for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT

AREAS THAT ATTAINED THE 2008 

OZONE NAAQS BY THE JULY 20, 

2015, ATTAINMENT DATE

2008 ozone NAAQS 

nonattainment area 

2012–2014 

design value 

(ppm) 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, 

PA ..................................... 0.070 

Baton Rouge, LA .................. 0.072 

Calaveras County, CA .......... 0.071 

Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC .. 0.073 

Chico (Butte County), CA ..... 0.074 

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN ............ 0.075 

Columbus, OH ...................... 0.075 

Dukes County, MA ............... 0.068 

Jamestown, NY .................... 0.071 

Knoxville, TN ........................ 0.067 

Lancaster, PA ....................... 0.071 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR ........... 0.073 

Reading, PA ......................... 0.071 

San Francisco Bay Area, CA 0.072 

Seaford, DE .......................... 0.074 

Tuscan Buttes, CA ............... 0.075 

Upper Green River Basin 

Area, WY ........................... 0.064 

B. Extensions of Marginal Area 

Attainment Dates 

Of the 36 Marginal nonattainment 

areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, there 

are eight areas for which the EPA 

proposed to grant a 1-year attainment 

date extension based on determinations 

that these areas met the requirements for 

an extension under CAA section 

181(a)(5), including compliance with all 

commitments and requirements in the 

applicable implementation plan and 

‘‘clean’’ data in the year preceding the 

attainment year. In addition, for each of 

these areas, at least one state with 

jurisdiction over all or part of the area 

requested such an extension. 

The EPA proposed that eight Marginal 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS failed to attain the NAAQS by 

July 20, 2015, but met the attainment 

date extension criteria of CAA section 

181(a)(5), as interpreted in 40 CFR 

51.1107. The EPA proposed to find that 

all implicated states were meeting the 

obligations and commitments of their 

applicable implementation plans, in 

accordance with CAA section 

181(a)(5)(A), and that, per CAA section 

181(a)(5)(B) and the implementing 

regulations, the 4th highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average 

concentrations for all monitors in each 

area were not greater than 0.075 ppm for 

2014, the year preceding the attainment 

year (see 40 CFR 51.1107). The EPA, 

therefore, proposed to grant a 1-year 

extension of the applicable Marginal 

area attainment date from July 20, 2015, 

to July 20, 2016, for the nonattainment 

areas listed in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS THAT QUALIFY FOR A 1-YEAR ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION FOR THE 2008 

OZONE NAAQS 

2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area 

2012–2014 

design value 

(ppm) 

2014 

4th highest 

daily 

maximum 8-hr 

average (ppm) 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH .................................................................................................................................... 0.078 0.075 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX ............................................................................................................................. 0.080 0.072 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE ............................................................................................ 0.077 0.074 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA .................................................................................................................................. 0.077 0.071 

San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA ................................................................................................... 0.076 0.073 

Sheboygan County, WI ............................................................................................................................................ 0.081 0.072 

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL ................................................................................................................ 0.078 0.072 

Washington, DC-MD-VA .......................................................................................................................................... 0.076 0.069 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26699 

3The 2012–2014 design values for the 11 areas 

did not exceed 0.100 ppm, which is the threshold 

for reclassifying an area to Serious per CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.1103. 

4See Table D–3 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. 

C. Determinations of Failure To Attain 

and Reclassification 

Lastly, the EPA proposed to 

determine that 11 areas (listed in Table 

3) failed to attain the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015 and were not 

eligible for a 1-year attainment date 

extension. For each of these areas, the 

4th highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average for at least one monitor in each 

area was greater than 0.075 ppm for 

2014. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) provides 

that a Marginal nonattainment area shall 

be reclassified by operation of law upon 

a determination by the EPA that such 

area failed to attain the relevant NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date. The 

new classification proposed for each of 

these 11 areas would be the next higher 

classification of ‘‘Moderate’’ under the 

CAA statutory scheme.3

TABLE 3—MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS TO BE RECLASSIFIED AS MODERATE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ATTAIN THE

2008 OZONE NAAQS BY THE JULY 20, 2015, ATTAINMENT DATE

2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area 

2012–2014 

design value 

(ppm) 

2014 

4th highest 

daily 

maximum 8-hr 

average 

(ppm) 

Atlanta, GA .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.077 0.079 

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ................................................................................................................................... 0.081 0.076 

Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO ................................................................................................. 0.082 0.077 

Greater Connecticut, CT .......................................................................................................................................... 0.080 0.077 

Imperial County, CA ................................................................................................................................................ 0.080 0.078 

Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA ............................................................................................................................. 0.084 0.089 

Mariposa County, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 0.078 0.077 

Nevada County (Western part), CA ........................................................................................................................ 0.079 0.082 

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ................................................................................................. 0.085 0.081 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ ................................................................................................................................................... 0.080 0.080 

San Diego County, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 0.079 0.079 

D. Moderate Area SIP Revision 

Submission Deadline 

The EPA also proposed to apply the 

Administrator’s discretion, per CAA 

section 182(i), to adjust the statutory 

deadlines for submitting required SIP 

revisions for reclassified Moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas. CAA section 

182(i) requires that reclassified areas 

meet the applicable plan submission 

requirements ‘‘according to the 

schedules prescribed in connection with 

such requirements, except that the 

Administrator may adjust any 

applicable deadlines (other than 

attainment dates) to the extent such 

adjustment is necessary or appropriate 

to assure consistency among the 

required submissions.’’ Under the 

Moderate area plan requirements of 

CAA section 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.1108, states with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate are provided 3 years (or 36 

months) from the date of designation to 

submit a SIP revision complying with 

the Moderate ozone nonattainment plan 

requirements. For areas designated 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and originally classified as 

Moderate, that deadline was July 20, 

2015, a date that has already passed. 

The EPA, therefore, interpreted CAA 

section 182(i) as providing the authority 

to adjust the applicable deadlines ‘‘as 

necessary or appropriate to assure 

consistency among the required 

submissions’’ for the 11 reclassified 

2008 Marginal ozone nonattainment 

areas. The CAA neither provides 

authority for the EPA to adjust the 

deadline to provide the full 3 years from 

the date of reclassification nor provides 

that the EPA may adjust the attainment 

date. In determining an appropriate 

deadline for the states with jurisdiction 

for these 11 reclassified nonattainment 

areas to submit their Moderate area SIP 

revisions, the EPA proposed two 

options for deadlines. The first 

proposed option would require that 

states submit the required SIP revisions 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than the beginning of the ozone 

season in 2017 for each state. We 

believed that this option would provide 

states additional time that may be 

needed to accomplish planning, 

administrative and SIP revision 

processes. Of the 11 areas proposed for 

reclassification to Moderate, four areas 

have ozone seasons that begin later than 

January 1 (based on ozone monitoring 

season changes finalized with the 2015 

ozone NAAQS) 4 and this option would 

provide 2 additional months past 

January 2017 for those four areas. The 

second proposed option would require 

states submit the SIP revisions as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than January 1, 2017. We believed that 

setting a single specific submittal date 

would establish a consistent deadline 

for all 11 nonattainment areas, similar to 

the single uniform SIP submission 

deadline that would have applied to all 

areas if they had been initially classified 

as Moderate. This option would provide 

states with approximately 9 months 

after these reclassifications are finalized 

to develop complete SIP submissions 

and it is the latest SIP submittal date 

that would be compatible with the date 

by when Moderate area reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) must be in place (i.e., begin no 

later than January 1 of the 5th year after 

the effective date of designation for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, which is, in this 

case, January 1, 2017). 

E. Rescission of Clean Data 

Determination and Proposed SIP Call 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for 

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island 

(NY-NJ-CT) Nonattainment Area 

On June 18, 2012, the EPA issued a 

clean data determination (CDD) for the 

NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, 

suspending the three states’ obligations 

to submit attainment-related planning 

requirements, including the obligation 

to submit attainment demonstrations, 

RACM and reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plans, and contingency measures, 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26700 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

5The EPA offered to hold a public hearing on the 

proposed actions, but no one requested such a 

hearing. 

standard. On May 15, 2014 (79 FR 

27830), the EPA proposed to rescind the 

CDD for the area based on the fact that 

the area was no longer attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the 

EPA proposed a SIP Call for submittal 

of a new ozone attainment 

demonstration for the NY-NJ-CT area for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As an 

alternative to submitting a new 

attainment demonstration for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed to 

permit the relevant states to respond to 

the SIP Call by voluntarily requesting to 

be reclassified to Moderate for the 2008 

ozone standard (see CAA section 

181(b)(3)) and to prepare SIP revisions 

demonstrating how they would attain 

the more stringent 2008 standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than the Moderate area attainment date 

in 2018. The EPA explained in the May 

2014 proposal that, because the 2008 

standard is more stringent than the 1997 

standard, the area would necessarily 

attain the 1997 standard once the area 

adopted a control strategy designed to 

achieve the tighter standard. Moreover, 

where state planning resources were 

constrained, those resources were better 

used focused on attaining the more 

stringent standard. 

In the agency’s August 27, 2015, 

proposal regarding determinations of 

attainment of the 2008 Marginal ozone 

areas, the EPA discussed how its 

proposed actions affected the May 2014 

proposed options for responding to a 

SIP Call for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Specifically, the proposed 

option to permit the relevant states to 

respond to the final SIP Call by 

requesting reclassification to Moderate 

for the 2008 ozone standard [see CAA 

section 181(b)(3)] would consequently 

require that the states submit SIPs 

demonstrating how they would attain 

the more stringent 2008 standard as 

expeditiously as practicable. We 

explicitly noted in the August 2015 

proposal that, if we were to finalize the 

determination that the NY-NJ-CT area 

failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

by the Marginal area attainment date, 

the area would be reclassified by 

operation of law, and thus effectively 

eliminating the need for the three states 

to voluntarily request reclassification. 

The area would then be subject to 

Moderate nonattainment area planning 

requirements, and the subsequent 

submission of Moderate area attainment 

plans for the 2008 ozone standard 

would necessarily satisfy a final SIP Call 

for the NY-NJ-CT area on the 1997 

ozone standard, because an approvable 

plan would demonstrate attainment of a 

more stringent NAAQS. We also noted 

that either of the proposed 2008 ozone 

attainment plan due dates would meet 

the statutory timeframe for the SIP 

revision due subsequent to a SIP Call for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the area. 

II. Final Actions 

The publication of the EPA’s 

proposed rule on August 27, 2015, (80 

FR 51992) started a public comment 

period that ended on September 28, 

2015.5 The comments received during 

this period may be found in the 

electronic docket for this action. A 

majority of commenters supported the 

EPA’s actions as proposed to determine 

that certain areas attained the 2008 

ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, to provide 1-year 

attainment date extensions to the 

identified areas, and to reclassify to 

Moderate the non-attaining areas that do 

not qualify for an attainment date 

extension. Additional significant 

comments pertinent to each proposed 

action are addressed in the following 

appropriate sections. Included in the 

docket for this action is a full summary 

of significant comments received on the 

EPA’s proposal and our responses to 

those comments. To access comments 

and the Response to Comment 

document, please go to http://

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0468, 

or contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

TABLE 4—2008 OZONE MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREA FINAL ACTION SUMMARY

Nonattainment area 

Determination 

of attainment 

by the 

attainment 

date 

Determination 

of failure to 

attain by the 

attainment 

date 

Extension of 

the marginal 

area attainment date to 

July 20, 2016 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA ................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

Atlanta, GA .................................................................................................................................. ........................ X ........................

Baton Rouge, LA ......................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Calaveras County, CA ................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC a ....................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ....................................................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Chico (Butte County), CA ............................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN ................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH ........................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ X 

Columbus, OH ............................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO ..................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Dukes County, MA ....................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Greater Connecticut, CT .............................................................................................................. ........................ X ........................

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X 

Imperial County, CA .................................................................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Jamestown, NY ............................................................................................................................ X ........................ ........................

Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA ................................................................................................. ........................ X ........................

Knoxville, TN b ............................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Lancaster, PA .............................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Mariposa County, CA .................................................................................................................. ........................ X ........................

Memphis, TN-MS-AR c ................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Nevada County (Western part), CA ............................................................................................ ........................ X ........................

New York, N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT .................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE ................................................................ ........................ ........................ X 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26701 

6Letter from Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, 

New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation, addressed to the EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson. June 20, 2012. 

TABLE 4—2008 OZONE MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREA FINAL ACTION SUMMARY—Continued 

Nonattainment area 

Determination 

of attainment 

by the 

attainment 

date 

Determination 

of failure to 

attain by the 

attainment 

date 

Extension of 

the marginal 

area attainment date to 

July 20, 2016 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ ....................................................................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA ...................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X 

Reading, PA ................................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

San Diego County, CA ................................................................................................................ ........................ X ........................

San Francisco Bay Area, CA ...................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ X 

Seaford, DE ................................................................................................................................. X ........................ ........................

Sheboygan County, WI ................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ X 

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL .................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X 

Tuscan Buttes, CA ....................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Upper Green River Basin Area, WY ........................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Washington, DC-MD-VA .............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X 

aOn July 28, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC, nonattainment area for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective August 27, 2015. See 80 FR 44873. On December 11, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the 

South Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective January 11, 2016. 

See 80 FR 76865. The EPA is herein determining that this area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in order to 

satisfy the agency’s obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). bOn July 13, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the Knoxville, TN, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective 

August 12, 2015. See 80 FR 39970. Given that this area was still designated nonattainment as of July 20, 2015, the EPA is herein determining 

that this area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in order to satisfy the agency’s obligation under CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A). cOn February 10, 2016, the EPA proposed to redesignate to attainment the Arkansas portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR, nonattainment area 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7046. On February 11, 2016, the EPA proposed to redesignate to attainment the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7269. 

A. Determinations of Attainment 

Pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.1103, the EPA is 

making a final determination that the 17 

Marginal nonattainment areas listed in 

Table 1 attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date of July 

20, 2105. We received no adverse 

comments on this proposal. 

Once effective, this action satisfies the 

EPA’s obligation pursuant to CAA 

section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based 

on an area’s air quality as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard by that date. The 

effect of a final determination of 

attainment by the area’s attainment date 

is to discharge the EPA’s obligation 

under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), and to 

establish that, in accordance with CAA 

section 181(b)(2)(A), the areas will not 

be reclassified for failure to attain by the 

applicable attainment date. These 

determinations of attainment do not 

constitute a redesignation to attainment. 

Redesignations require states to meet a 

number of additional statutory criteria, 

including the EPA approval of a state 

plan demonstrating maintenance of the 

air quality standard for 10 years after 

redesignation. As for all NAAQS, the 

EPA is committed to working with 

states that choose to submit 

redesignation requests for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

B. Extensions of Marginal Area 

Attainment Dates 

Pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5), the 

EPA is making a final determination to 

grant 1-year attainment date extensions 

of the applicable attainment date from 

July 20, 2015, to July 20, 2016, for the 

8 Marginal nonattainment areas listed in 

Table 2. The EPA received a number of 

comments on its proposal to extend the 

Marginal area attainment dates for the 

areas listed in Table 2. We summarize 

and respond to some of the key 

comments. The docket for this action 

contains a more detailed Response to 

Comment document. 

Comment: One commenter claimed 

that the EPA’s proposed 1-year 

extension of the attainment date for the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

PA-NJ-MD-DE area is unlawful and 

arbitrary because the state of Delaware 

did not request an extension of the 

attainment date. The commenter argued 

that granting an attainment date 

extension to a multi-state area when all 

states have not requested the extension 

is inconsistent with the EPA’s failure to 

grant the state of New York’s most 

recent voluntary reclassification request 

with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.6 The commenter stated that 

there, the EPA refused to grant New 

York’s request because the agency’s 

position was that voluntarily 

reclassifying the area required all states 

with jurisdiction over the multi-state 

area to request the reclassification. The 

commenter noted that in that case the 

EPA interpreted CAA section 182(j)(1) 

‘‘to require coordination and unanimity 

among the affected states,’’ and the 

commenter stated that the provision 

‘‘seemingly has equal bearing’’ on a 

request to extend the attainment date. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that a request for voluntary 

reclassification under CAA section 

181(b)(3) and a request for an extension 

of the attainment date under CAA 

section 181(a)(5) both require 

‘‘unanimity’’ among the affected states. 

The EPA also does not agree that 

granting an extension of the attainment 

date to all states with jurisdiction over 

the Philadelphia multi-state 

nonattainment area is inconsistent with 

its prior reading of CAA section 

182(j)(1). 

The statutory provisions governing 

voluntary reclassifications and requests 

for 1-year attainment date extensions 

differ in key respects regarding the 

question of whether all states in a 

nonattainment area need to request the 

action before the EPA may grant such 

requests. CAA section 181(b)(3), which 

governs voluntary reclassifications, 

states that ‘‘the Administrator shall 

grant the request of any State to 

reclassify a nonattainment area in that 

State [in accordance with the area’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26702 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

design value] to a higher classification’’ 

(emphasis added). The EPA reads that 

provision, and specifically the words 

‘‘in that state,’’ to mean that although 

any state may request a reclassification, 

it can only do so on behalf of its own 

state. The same limiting phrase does not 

appear in the statutory provision 

governing 1-year attainment date 

extensions. That provision, CAA section 

181(a)(5), states, ‘‘Upon application by 

any State, the Administrator may extend 

for 1 additional year’’ the attainment 

date, provided that the state has 

complied with all requirements and 

commitments pertaining to the area in 

its applicable implementation plan and 

the area meets certain air quality 

criteria. Because the statute grants the 

EPA the discretion to extend an 

attainment date ‘‘upon application by 

any State’’ and establishes limiting 

conditions that can be demonstrated as 

satisfied by either a state or by the EPA, 

CAA section 181(a)(5) by its terms does 

not require the consent of every state 

within a multi-state nonattainment area. 

The EPA does, however, interpret that 

provision as requiring all states with 

jurisdiction over the nonattainment area 

to substantively meet the two statutory 

conditions, although we note that the 

provision does not specify who must 

make the demonstration that the 

conditions have been met. 

Interpreting these two provisions to 

permit differing thresholds of state 

‘‘unanimity’’ is particularly reasonable 

given the consequence of the EPA’s 

action in each case. In extending an 

attainment date, the EPA imposes no 

additional obligation upon any state, but 

rather grants areas that are close to 

achieving the air quality standard 1 

additional year to come into 

compliance, provided that the states 

governing that area meet certain criteria. 

A voluntary reclassification, on the 

other hand, can impose significant new 

attainment planning and emission 

reduction obligations. Had Congress 

intended to allow one state to request a 

reclassification on behalf of another 

state, and, therefore, to impose upon 

another state, without that state’s 

consent, all of the resource-intensive 

consequences potentially associated 

with that action, it could have clearly 

stated so. 

The EPA further disagrees with the 

commenter that its prior interpretation 

of CAA section 182(j)(1)—requiring all 

states in a multi-state ozone 

nonattainment area to agree to a 

voluntary reclassification—is 

inconsistent with not requiring such 

consensus in the case of an attainment 

date extension. CAA section 182(j)(1)(A) 

directs states to ‘‘take all reasonable 

steps to coordinate, substantively and 

procedurally, the revisions and 

implementation of [SIPs] applicable to 

the nonattainment area concerned.’’ 

This provision on its face does not 

apply to an attainment date extension 

under CAA section 181(a)(5). Extending 

the attainment date by 1 year does not 

change an area’s SIP submission 

requirements. Therefore, CAA section 

182(j)(1)(A)’s directive to states 

governing a multi-state area to 

coordinate SIP submissions plainly does 

not have bearing on a provision that 

does not alter or affect SIP submissions. 

By contrast, as the EPA has stated, the 

coordination required by CAA section 

182(j)(1)(A) is relevant to a voluntary 

reclassification, which establishes upon 

the states with jurisdiction over the 

nonattainment area new obligations to 

prepare and submit revisions to SIPs. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the states of Delaware and New Jersey 

did not make any claim or 

demonstration that they have complied 

with all requirements and commitments 

in the SIP, and, therefore, granting an 

extension to the multi-state area is not 

warranted. The commenter alleged that 

the EPA implied that an analysis of 

Delaware’s compliance with the CAA 

section 181(a)(5)(A) criteria was 

conducted but that the EPA failed to 

provide any evidence or showing that 

Delaware did in fact comply with all 

requirements and commitments in the 

applicable implementation plan 

pertaining to the Philadelphia 

nonattainment area. 

Response: Given the state and federal 

partnership in implementing the CAA, 

it is not unreasonable for the EPA to 

interpret CAA section 181(a)(5)(A), in 

the absence of a state submitting a 

certification of compliance, for the EPA 

to exercise discretion and conduct an 

independent review of the applicable 

SIP in order to, in this case, determine 

whether Delaware and New Jersey are in 

compliance with the requirements and 

commitments of the federally-approved 

SIP. CAA section 302(q) defines 

‘‘applicable implementation plan’’ as 

the portion (or portions) of the 

implementation plan, or most recent 

revision thereof, which has been 

approved under CAA section 110, or 

promulgated under CAA section 110(c), 

or promulgated or approved pursuant to 

regulations promulgated under CAA 

section 201(d) and which implements 

the relevant requirements of the CAA. 

The Act does not specify what type of 

review is required in order for the states 

or the EPA to demonstrate that the 

condition under CAA section 

181(a)(5)(A) has been met; therefore, the 

EPA reasonably interprets the condition 

to require a review of the relevant, 

applicable approved implementation 

plan provisions, and an application of 

its own knowledge and expertise with 

regard to whether the state is meeting 

those obligations, including a review of 

whether the agency or outside parties 

has identified state noncompliance with 

the obligations. Therefore, in proposing 

to grant a 1-year extension of the 

attainment date for the Philadelphia 

area, and in conjunction with EPA 

Headquarters, the EPA Regional Offices, 

which have particular expertise and 

knowledge of the contents and 

implementation of SIPs, conducted 

reviews of whether Delaware and New 

Jersey are in compliance with their 

applicable implementation plans. 

The EPA reviewed New Jersey’s 

applicable ozone implementation plan 

found at 40 CFR 52.1570 and the most 

recent actions related to New Jersey’s 

applicable ozone implementation plan, 

which include the following EPA 

approvals: 74 FR 22837—‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation plans, 

New Jersey Reasonable Further Progress 

Plans, Reasonable Available Control 

Technology, Reasonably Available 

Control Measures and Conformity 

Budgets’’; 75 FR 45483—‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

Implementation Plan Revision; State of 

New Jersey’’; and 75 FR 80340— 

‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 8- 

hour Ozone Control Measure.’’ Since the 

adoption of these measures, New Jersey 

has also amended its SIP to adopt and 

implement additional emission 

reductions as part of its SIPs to reduce 

regional haze and to meet the NAAQS 

for fine particles. The EPA has reviewed 

the contents of New Jersey’s applicable 

SIPs and notes that there are no pending 

enforcement actions by the EPA or 

outside parties alleging that New Jersey 

has failed to implement its applicable 

plan. 

Similarly, the EPA reviewed 

Delaware’s applicable ozone 

implementation plan found at 40 CFR 

52.420. In our August 2015 proposal, we 

noted a recent proposal to disapprove a 

revision to Delaware’s New Source 

Review (NSR) preconstruction 

permitting program regulation, see 80 

FR 30015 (May 26, 2015). Despite this 

proposed disapproval of a SIP revision, 

we did not believe this proposal to 

disapprove a SIP revision was a bar to 

the EPA granting a 1-year attainment 

date extension for the Philadelphia area 

because there is an underlying approved 

nonattainment NSR SIP. The EPA has 

examined its own internal database of 

the notices required under 40 CFR 

51.161(a), (b) and (d) (relating to a 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26703 

7See memorandum signed by D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Bump Ups and 

Extension Requests for Marginal Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas.’’ U.S. EPA, February 3, 1994. 

8See letter signed by Bart Sponseller, Deputy 

Division Administrator, Air, Waste and 

Remediation & Redevelopment Division, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources addressed to Ms. 

Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 

Region 5. RE: Request for 1-year extension to the 

attainment date for the Sheboygan, WI 

nonattainment area, May 12, 2015. Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0468–0022 at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

9These data are subject to the EPA’s date 

certification requirements of 40 CFR 58.15, which 

require a state to submit its annual data certification 

letter by May 1. 

10The area will qualify for a second 1-year 

extension if, and only if, the average of annual 

fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentrations for 2014 and 2015 is at or below 

0.075 ppm at all monitors in Sheboygan County. 

notice providing for public and the EPA 

comment on permit applications) and 

information posted by the state of 

Delaware. For the period after 

September 11, 2013 (the date on which 

Delaware’s newly expanded offset area 

provisions under state law were 

effective), the EPA has identified no 

permits which triggered the requirement 

for lowest achievable emission rate 

(LAER) and offsets under Delaware’s 

Regulation 1125 relating to ozone 

precursors of volatile organic 

compounds and nitrogen oxides (NOX). 

The EPA found that Delaware had 

undertaken a number of permitting 

actions since September 11, 2013, but 

none of these were subject to sections 

2.5.5 and 2.5.6 of Delaware’s Regulation 

1125. The EPA also did not find any 

incidences of enforcement actions by 

the agency or outside parties alleging 

that Delaware is not meeting its SIP 

obligations. 

Moreover, the commenter has not 

presented any evidence or made any 

demonstration that suggests either New 

Jersey or Delaware is not in compliance 

with their applicable SIP and is, thus, 

unqualified to receive an attainment 

date extension. Based on its review of 

the states’ applicable implementation 

plans and its knowledge and expertise 

of state actions with regard to those 

plans, the EPA is making a final 

determination that both New Jersey and 

Delaware are meeting the conditional 

requirement of CAA section 

181(a)(5)(A). 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the EPA deny Wisconsin’s request 

for a 1-year extension to their 

attainment year for the Sheboygan 

County Marginal ozone nonattainment 

area. The commenter argued that 2015 

preliminary air quality monitoring data 

for the Sheboygan area indicates that the 

area will not attain the standard in 2016, 

and, moreover, that the data also will 

not support a second 1-year extension of 

the attainment date for the Sheboygan 

area. The commenter maintained that 

even if a state meets the two conditions 

provided in CAA section 181(a)(5), the 

EPA retains the discretion to deny a 

request for a 1-year extension, and the 

commenter urged that the EPA should 

exercise its discretion in this case. In 

support, the commenter provided a 

citation to a 1994 EPA memo (Berry 

Memorandum) 7 that cautions states to 

consider whether an attainment date 

extension will ultimately be helpful if 

the area is not likely to attain the 

NAAQS by the extended attainment 

date. The commenter further pointed 

out that Wisconsin has an ‘‘inflexible 

and lengthy process for rulemaking,’’ 

which could further hinder the state’s 

ability to meet the attainment date in 

the future, if the state delays planning 

and implementing additional control 

measures now. The commenter also 

pointed out that the Sheboygan area has 

not made considerable progress towards 

attaining the standard, and that the area 

backslid into nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2012 and 

2013. The commenter suggested that, 

rather than granting a 1-year extension 

of the attainment date, the EPA should 

determine that the Sheboygan area 

failed to meet its Marginal area 

attainment date of July 20, 2015, and, 

therefore, the EPA should reclassify the 

area to Moderate, which will allow the 

state of Wisconsin adequate time to 

achieve emissions reductions to meet 

the new attainment date for a Moderate 

area. 

Response: CAA section 181(a)(5) of 

the CAA, as interpreted by the EPA in 

40 CFR 51.1107, authorizes the EPA to 

grant a 1-year attainment date extension 

upon application by a state if: (1) The 

state has complied with all 

requirements and commitments in the 

applicable SIP, and (2) all monitors in 

the area have a fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average of 0.075 ppm 

or less for the last full year of air quality 

data prior to the attainment date (i.e., 

2014 for an attainment date of July 20, 

2015). Here, Wisconsin has clearly met 

both of the conditions for the Sheboygan 

area. Wisconsin submitted a request to 

the EPA for a 1-year extension of the 

attainment date for the Sheboygan area, 

certifying that Wisconsin had complied 

with all requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the applicable 

implementation plan and that all 

monitors in the area have a fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

of 0.075 ppm or less for 2014, the most 

recent complete year of quality-assured 

and certified data preceding the July 20, 

2015, attainment date.8 The EPA has 

also evaluated the quality-assured and 

certified air quality monitoring data for 

2014 and determined that Sheboygan 

met the air quality requirements of CAA 

section 181(a)(5)(B) and 40 CFR 

51.1107. Although the EPA agrees with 

the commenter that the Administrator 

retains the discretion to deny a state’s 

request for an attainment date extension 

even if the state has met both criteria in 

CAA section 181(a)(5), the agency is 

declining to exercise that discretion 

here. The commenter relies primarily 

upon preliminary air quality data for 

2015 that has not been quality assured 

and certified to contend that the 

Administrator should deny Wisconsin’s 

request here.9 Given that the state meets 

the extension criteria, the Administrator 

is disinclined to deny the state’s request 

based on preliminary data. Moreover, 

the citation from the Berry 

Memorandum that the commenter relies 

upon is directed at cautioning states, in 

deciding whether to request an 

extension, to consider whether a 1-year 

attainment date extension will be 

helpful in achieving the NAAQS and is 

not directed at the Administrator’s 

decision to grant or deny such request. 

The EPA does, however, agree with the 

commenter that, given the air quality 

trends and data presented by the 

commenter, it would be prudent for the 

state to begin preparing for the 

possibility that the area may not attain 

by the July 20, 2016, attainment date, 

and also may fail to meet the 

requirements to get an additional 1-year 

attainment date extension. However, the 

agency does not believe that those 

possibilities are reason enough to deny 

the state’s request for this first 1-year 

attainment date extension, given that 

Wisconsin has met the two statutory 

criteria. Therefore, the EPA declines to 

grant the commenter’s request to find 

that the area failed to attain by July 20, 

2015, and to subsequently reclassify the 

area accordingly. The Sheboygan 

nonattainment area will remain 

classified as Marginal for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS until the EPA (1) 

determines, based on quality assured 

and certified air quality data for 2013– 

2015, that the area did not attain the 

2008 ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2016, 

and does not qualify for an additional 1- 

year extension10 and (2) reclassifies the 

area based on this determination. We 

expect Wisconsin to be taking the 

necessary steps to achieve timely 

attainment and will continue to work 

with the state toward that end. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26704 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

11See Berry Memorandum. 

12See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 160–62 

(D.C. Cir. 2002) (holding that the EPA is not 

permitted to relax mandatory statutory 

requirements for downwind areas on the basis of 

interstate transport). 

Comment: One commenter 

maintained that, in evaluating whether 

a state is in compliance with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to an area pursuant to CAA 

section 181(a)(5)(A), the EPA may not 

rely on a letter from the state certifying 

that the state is meeting this 

requirement. The commenter argued 

that there must be a factual and rational 

basis for the agency to grant 1-year 

extensions and that assertions by the 

states that they are in compliance with 

all requirements and commitments does 

not provide a factual or rational basis 

when there is no evidence that the 

assertion was based on a systematic 

review of compliance or 

noncompliance. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion. CAA section 

181(a)(5) does not specify who must 

make the demonstration as to whether a 

state is complying with all requirements 

and commitments to the area in the 

applicable implementation plan. 

Nothing in the provision explicitly 

prohibits the EPA from relying on 

certified statements from state officials 

that the requirement of CAA section 

181(a)(5)(A) has been met, and nothing 

in the provision supports the 

commenter’s suggestion that the EPA is 

independently required to perform a 

‘‘systematic review of compliance or 

noncompliance’’ of the state’s SIP 

regardless of whether a state official has 

made a certified statement to that effect 

in order to grant an attainment date 

extension. Given the state and federal 

partnership in implementing the CAA, 

it is not unreasonable for the EPA to 

interpret CAA section 181(a)(5)(A) as 

permitting the agency to rely upon the 

certified statements of its state 

counterparts, and the EPA has long 

interpreted the provision to be satisfied 

by such statements.11 In practice, in 

conjunction with a request for an 

extension, a state air agency’s Executive 

Officer, or other senior individual with 

equivalent responsibilities, signs and 

affirms that their state is complying 

with their applicable federally-approved 

SIP. The commenter argues that the 

certifications lack rational or factual 

bases, but has not presented any 

evidence or made any demonstration 

that suggests any of the states receiving 

an attainment date extension are not in 

compliance with their SIPs. Absent such 

a showing, the EPA is disinclined to 

invalidate the certifications made by the 

states. 

C. Determinations of Failure To Attain 

and Reclassification 

Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), 

the EPA is finalizing its proposed 

determinations that the 11 Marginal 

nonattainment areas listed in Table 3 

have failed to attain the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, upon 

the effective date of this rule, these 11 

Marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment 

areas will be reclassified by operation of 

law to Moderate for the 2008 ozone 

standard. The EPA received a number of 

adverse comments on its proposal to 

find that certain Marginal 

nonattainment areas failed to attain and 

to reclassify those areas. We summarize 

and respond to some of the key 

comments later. The docket for this 

action contains a more detailed 

Response to Comments document. 

Comment: A number of commenters, 

while conceding that air quality 

monitoring data factually required the 

EPA to determine that an area failed to 

attain by its attainment date, alleged 

that certain nonattainment areas’ failure 

to attain by the Marginal area attainment 

date was due in large part to the 

influence of transported emissions from 

upwind states. These commenters 

alleged that the EPA has not done 

enough to enforce CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D), which requires states to 

eliminate emissions that significantly 

contribute to, or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. One commenter further noted 

that the EPA’s current strategy with 

regard to ozone transport addresses only 

the revoked 85 parts per billion (ppb) 

standard, and that the EPA has no 

strategy to reduce transport after 2017. 

Response: The agency’s mandatory 

duty to make determinations of 

attainment or failure to attain the 

NAAQS exists regardless of the nature 

or effect of transported emissions on 

monitored air quality data in a given 

nonattainment area.12 Nonetheless, the 

EPA readily acknowledges the role 

interstate transport of precursors to 

ozone pollution plays in the efforts of 

downwind areas to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS. To that end, as commenters 

have alluded to, the agency has taken a 

number of steps to fulfill its statutory 

obligation to enforce CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D), or the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision, including the NOX SIP Call, 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

most recently, the EPA has proposed to 

update CSAPR specifically to address 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS with tightened 

NOX budgets designed to achieve 

emission reductions in upwind states 

before the Moderate area attainment 

date of July 2018. 

D. Moderate Area SIP Revision 

Submission Deadline 

The EPA received a number of 

comments on its two proposed options 

for establishing the Moderate area SIP 

due date that would apply to areas 

newly reclassified under this final 

action. After full consideration of those 

comments and pursuant to CAA section 

182(i), the EPA is finalizing that SIP 

revisions required for the newly 

reclassified Moderate areas must be 

submitted as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than January 1, 

2017. The EPA acknowledges that for 

some states with Moderate 

nonattainment areas reclassified from 

Marginal, meeting this SIP submittal 

deadline may be challenging. The EPA 

is committed to working closely with 

these states to help them prepare their 

SIP revisions in a timely manner. 

We summarize and provide responses 

to the most significant comments on this 

issue later; however, all comments 

received on the proposed options and 

the EPA’s responses are available in the 

Response to Comment document 

located in the docket for this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that the EPA failed to provide a legal 

basis for extending the SIP submittal 

deadlines for Moderate nonattainment 

areas. The commenter believed that the 

EPA made no claim that the 2017 SIP 

submittal deadlines are necessary or 

appropriate to assure consistency among 

the required submissions. The 

commenter also believed that the EPA’s 

proposed extension would interfere 

with the attainment date and contravene 

CAA section 110(l). The commenter 

pointed out that if the EPA finalized the 

SIP submission deadline to coincide 

with the area’s beginning of the ozone 

monitoring season, the consequence 

would be that the EPA would have less 

than 18 months to take action on state 

SIP submittals, as late as July 2018, 

which is very near the attainment date. 

The commenter believed that would be 

far too late for the EPA to require timely 

corrections of SIPs that fail to satisfy the 

requirements and fail to assure timely 

attainment. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter on all aspects of these 

comments. First, we believe that CAA 

section 182(i) clearly provides the 

Administrator the discretion to adjust 

any applicable deadline for reclassified 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26705 

areas (other than attainment dates) to 

the extent such adjustment is necessary 

or appropriate to assure consistency 

among the required submissions. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

implication of the comment that the 

default assumption upon 

reclassification is that the EPA would 

not adjust the Moderate area SIP 

submission deadlines. The fact that 

Congress included CAA section 182(i) 

in the statute indicates that it 

envisioned that upon reclassification, 

deadlines would be adjusted by the 

Administrator in a reasonable fashion. 

This is a particularly reasonable 

interpretation under the facts at issue 

here: The attainment date for Marginal 

areas under the statute and regulations 

was July 20, 2015, and the Moderate 

area SIP submission date for areas 

initially classified as Moderate for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS was also July 20, 

2015. Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), 

the EPA must make determinations of 

attainment and necessary 

reclassifications within 6 months of the 

statutory attainment date. Therefore, 

under the commenter’s interpretation of 

the CAA, upon reclassification 6 months 

after July 20, 2015, states would 

immediately be found to be in default of 

the obligation to submit a Moderate area 

plan, a deadline that had passed 6 

months prior, even though that 

obligation did not apply until the 

moment of reclassification. We do not 

agree that Congress would have 

intended the draconian and absurd 

result of providing states initial notice 

of an obligation and in the same action 

finding them at fault for already failing 

to have met that obligation. Therefore, 

the EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

read CAA section 182(i) in the context 

of the 11 reclassified 2008 Marginal 

ozone areas to provide the 

Administrator the authority to adjust the 

applicable deadline for Moderate area 

attainment plans ‘‘as necessary or 

appropriate to assure consistency among 

the required submissions.’’ 

Moreover, failing to establish new 

Moderate area SIP submission deadlines 

for the 11 areas that we are reclassifying 

in this rulemaking would lead to 

potential inconsistency in required 

submissions among those areas. Under 

the commenter’s interpretation, these 

areas would all have missed their 

deadline to submit a Moderate area plan 

on July 20, 2015. The commenter 

would, therefore, have the EPA begin 

issuing findings of failure to submit 

under CAA section 110(k), which are 

required by statute 6 months following 

the statutory deadline to submit a SIP, 

simultaneously with this action, that is, 

the EPA’s determination that the areas 

failed to attain and reclassification of 

those areas. Following the EPA’s 

issuance of findings of failure to submit 

for the 11 areas, there would be no 

defined statutory or regulatory deadline 

by which to remedy the states’ failures 

to make submittals, except the outside 

limit of 2 years, the deadline for EPA’s 

obligation to implement a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). 

Additionally, if the EPA had not 

affirmatively determined that a state had 

made a complete SIP submittal for an 

area within 18 months from the 

issuance of a finding of failure to 

submit, the offset sanction identified in 

CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply to 

the affected nonattainment area. 

The EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter that establishing a new SIP 

submittal deadline for the reclassified 

areas is in contravention of CAA section 

110(l). CAA section 110(l) requires that 

plan revisions must go through notice 

and public hearing at the state level 

before submission to the EPA, and that 

‘‘the Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress . . . or any 

other applicable requirement of this 

chapter.’’ In order for the EPA’s 

proposed SIP submittal date to be in 

contravention of CAA section 110(l), 

one has to assume that the states will 

submit deficient SIPs and that the EPA 

will not take any kind of corrective 

action on those SIPs until after the 

maximum possible time period 

permitted under the statue to take action 

on such submittals (18 months) has 

passed. Only then could a SIP submittal 

date of more than 18 months prior to the 

attainment date be interpreted as 

interfering with the attainment of the 

NAAQS. The EPA does not believe this 

is a reasonable reading of CAA section 

110(l) or the circumstances of these 

reclassifications and SIP deadline 

adjustments. While the EPA 

acknowledges that the timeline for 

preparation and submittal of SIPs must 

be compressed in order for measures to 

be in place to ensure areas attain by 

their new Moderate area attainment 

date, in establishing the new SIP 

submittal deadlines for these 

reclassified areas, the agency is also 

taking into account the time required for 

states to identify measures, complete the 

public notice and hearing process at the 

state level, and prepare SIP 

submissions. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the EPA’s proposed option to 

align the deadline for SIP revisions with 

the start of the respective nonattainment 

area’s 2017 ozone season. They cited a 

number of reasons this option was 

preferred, including that more time 

would be provided to states to 

accomplish planning, administrative 

and SIP revisions processes in order to 

meet the deadline. They also cited that 

this option would be consistent among 

states in that they would need to submit 

their SIP revisions by their respective 

ozone seasons. However, another 

commenter pointed out that finalizing 

this option would result in SIP 

submittal dates that would be varied 

among the states and, therefore, 

inconsistent. The same commenter also 

stated that setting the SIP deadline for 

the beginning of each area’s ozone 

season would not be compatible with 

ensuring implementation of RACT by 

January 1, 2017, which is the deadline 

established in 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3). 

Response: As noted earlier, of the 11 

areas being reclassified to Moderate, 

there are only four areas located in 

states with ozone seasons that begin 

later than January 1 that could 

potentially benefit from an extra 2 

months to submit their SIP revisions. 

While the EPA recognizes the value of 

additional time (beyond January 1, 

2017) to these states to develop an 

attainment demonstration, an RFP plan, 

and contingency measures, the EPA also 

recognizes the value in establishing a 

single due date for Moderate area SIP 

submissions—including RACT—that 

does not extend beyond the deadline for 

implementing such controls. Thus, the 

EPA is finalizing its second proposed 

option, which requires that states 

submit the required Moderate area SIP 

revisions as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than January 1, 

2017. This approach aligns the SIP 

submittal deadline with the January 1, 

2017, deadline for implementing RACT 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3), for 

each area, and would also ensure that 

SIPs requiring control measures needed 

for attainment, including RACM, would 

be submitted prior to when those 

controls are required to be 

implemented. This option also treats 

states consistently, in keeping with CAA 

section 182(i). The EPA recognizes the 

challenges posed by these very short 

deadlines and is committed to working 

closely with all states to help them 

prepare their SIP revisions, including 

parallel processing, in a timely manner. 

E. Rescission of Clean Data 

Determination and Final SIP Call for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for the New 

York-N. New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJCT) Nonattainment Area 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determination that the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area failed to attain the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26706 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

13The commenter refers to states’ interstate 

transport obligations under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), but the EPA understands these 

citations to in fact refer to the good neighbor 

provision, which is CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

14EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Circuit 2012). 15EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 16EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 

F.3d 118 (D.C. Circuit 2015). 

17 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015). 

2008 standard by the Marginal area 

attainment date of July 20, 2015, and 

must be reclassified to Moderate by 

operation of law in accordance with 

CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). In addition, 

the EPA is also finalizing in this 

rulemaking the proposed rescission of 

its prior CDD for the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area with regard to the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as 

the accompanying SIP Call proposed 

with that rescission. As noted 

previously, in the May 2014 proposal, 

the EPA proposed that one way the 

affected states could respond to the SIP 

Call would be to voluntarily request a 

reclassification under the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and to submit a SIP that meets 

the Moderate area requirements for that 

standard. 

By reclassifying the area by operation 

of law, this final action effectively 

eliminates the need for the three 

affected states to request reclassification 

under this option. However, as 

explained in the agency’s August 27, 

2015, proposal and reiterated later, the 

EPA believes it is appropriate for the 

three states involved to be able to meet 

their obligations under the SIP Call for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS with their 

Moderate area SIP submittal for the 

2008 ozone standard. This final action 

also supersedes the 18 months, which is 

the maximum period allowed under 

CAA section 110(k)(5), that EPA 

proposed to provide the states of New 

York, New Jersey and Connecticut from 

the effective date of a final SIP Call to 

develop and submit to the EPA the 

relevant SIPs for the 1997 or 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As discussed previously, the 

EPA is finalizing that the required SIP 

revisions for these areas shall be 

submitted as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than January 1, 

2017. We also note that this deadline 

meets the statutory timeframe for a SIP 

revision under CAA section 110(k)(5). 

The EPA did not receive adverse 

comments on its August 27, 2015, 

proposal to reclassify the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area to Moderate, nor did 

the EPA receive comments about its 

statement that submitting an attainment 

plan for the 2008 ozone standard would 

satisfy a final SIP Call on the 1997 

ozone standard. We received a number 

of comments on the May 15, 2014, 

proposal (79 FR 27830) to rescind the 

CDD for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area and the 

accompanying SIP Call for attainment 

plans. We summarize later some of the 

significant comments submitted in 

response to the May 15, 2014, proposal 

and our responses. Additionally, we 

have made available a more detailed 

summary of comments and responses in 

a document titled, ‘‘Response to 

Comments: Proposed Rule: Rescission of 

Determination of Attainment and Call 

for Attainment Plans for New York, New 

Jersey and Connecticut for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for the NY-NJ-CT 

1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area,’’ 

which is available in the docket 

associated with this rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter believed 

that CAA section 110(k)(5) either 

compels or provides the EPA the 

authority necessary to expand the 

proposed SIP Call to include any state 

that is shown to significantly contribute 

to the failure of the NY-NJ-CT area to 

attain because these states have failed to 

meet their obligations under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).13 The 

commenter further believed that CAA 

section 110(k)(5) allows the EPA to 

issue a SIP Call to address states’ SIPs 

that are inadequate in mitigating 

transport as described in CAA sections 

176A and 184. The commenter believed 

that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 

EPA v. EME Homer City (134 S. Ct. 1584 

(2014)), compels the EPA to 

immediately issue FIPs for upwind 

states that have failed to take all 

necessary steps to make it feasible for 

any nonattainment area significantly 

impacted by interstate air pollution to 

attain and maintain both the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Finally, the 

commenter noted that the ‘‘CSAPR 

modeling shows that Connecticut 

receives no more than a 0.2 ppb total 

benefit from the CSAPR remedy, which 

is entirely inadequate given the 

overwhelming scope of transport.’’ 

Response: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states to 

prohibit emissions that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to primary and 

secondary NAAQS. In the CSAPR 

promulgated on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 

48207), the EPA found that emissions of 

sulfur dioxide and NOX in 27 eastern, 

midwestern, and southern states 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in one or more downwind 

states with respect to one or more of 

three air quality standards—the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 

2006, and, as relevant here, the ozone 

NAAQS promulgated in 1997. 

For the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

specifically, twenty states are required 

under CSAPR to reduce NOX emissions 

during the ozone season (May through 

September) because they contribute to 

downwind states’ ozone pollution. The 

emission reductions under CSAPR in 

these upwind states will improve ozone 

air quality in downwind states and help 

them attain and maintain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

The timing of CSAPR’s 

implementation was initially affected by 

litigation over the rule. On December 

30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed the 

effectiveness of CSAPR pending 

resolution of judicial review. On August 

21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated 

CSAPR,14 but on April 29, 2014, the 

U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion 

reversing the D.C. Circuit’s 2012 

decision and remanded the case to the 

D.C. Circuit.15 Following the remand, 

on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

granted the EPA’s motion to lift the 

CSAPR stay and toll the CSAPR 

compliance deadlines by 3 years. 

Accordingly, CSAPR Phase 1 

implementation began on January 1, 

2015, with Phase 2 beginning in 2017. 

See CSAPR interim final rule at 81 FR 

13275 (March 14, 2016). Subsequently, 

the D.C. Circuit issued its final ruling as 

to CSAPR, affirming it in most respects 

but invalidating without vacating 

several of the rule’s state-specific 

budgets, including some of the rule’s 

Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets.16

The EPA has since proposed a 

rulemaking to update to the CSAPR 

ozone-season NOX budgets in order to 

address the more stringent 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and to respond to the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand of the Phase 2 ozoneseason NOX budgets.17 As proposed, the 

CSAPR Update ozone-season NOX

budgets would be effective starting in 

2017, effectively replacing CSAPR Phase 

2. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the Supreme Court’s 

decision in EPA v. EME Homer City 

compels the agency to issue new FIPs or 

to expand the scope of the proposed SIP 

Call to address the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The Supreme 

Court did, however, confirm that the 

EPA properly issued the CSAPR FIPs in 

response to disapprovals of SIPs or 

findings of failure to submit SIPs 

implementing states’ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations with regard to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Those FIPs took effect 

and began implementation on January 1, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26707 

18See 76 FR 48210, Federal Implementation 

Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals 

(August 8, 2011). 

2015 pursuant to the D.C. Circuit’s grant 

of the EPA’s motion requesting lifting of 

the stay, so we note that at the time the 

NY-NJ-CT area fell back into 

nonattainment of the 1997 standard, it 

did not have the benefit of CSAPR 

reductions. While the commenter points 

out that modeling conducted for the 

CSAPR rulemaking projected that the 

remedy would provide ‘‘no more than a 

0.2 ppb total benefit,’’ the same 

modeling also predicted that those 

reductions, once implemented, would 

fully resolve nonattainment and 

maintenance problems for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in the receptors 

identified in the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area. For upwind states 

that were linked only to receptors where 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance problems were fully 

resolved under the remedy, the EPA 

found that CSAPR quantified the full 

reduction responsibility for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).18 Therefore, the EPA 

could not expand the scope of the SIP 

Call being issued on the basis that 

upwind states had not fulfilled their 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations as to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS when the EPA has 

already issued a FIP that fully resolves 

the obligations of those states with 

respect to that standard. 

The EPA also does not agree that it 

would be appropriate in this action to 

more broadly apply its 110(k)(5) 

authority to include additional states in 

this SIP Call to address interstate 

pollutant transport as described in 

sections 176A and 184 of the CAA. The 

EPA acknowledges that a number of 

states, including Connecticut and New 

York, submitted a petition under CAA 

section 176A requesting that the EPA 

add additional states to the Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR) that was 

established under section 184 of the 

CAA. The EPA is reviewing that petition 

separately and is not acting on that 

petition in this action. In addition, the 

EPA’s authority to require SIP revisions 

under 110(k)(5) as they relate to 

additional control measures required by 

CAA section 184 applies to only states 

that are currently part of the OTR. 

III. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

The CAA requires that states with 

areas designated as nonattainment 

submit to the Administrator the 

appropriate SIP revisions and 

implement specified control measures 

by certain dates applicable to the area’s 

classification. By requiring additional 

planning and implementation 

requirements for the 11 nonattainment 

areas that we determined failed to attain 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS standard, the 

part of this action reclassifying those 11 

areas from Marginal to Moderate will 

protect all those residing, working, 

attending school, or otherwise present 

in those areas regardless of minority or 

economic status. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) because it makes determinations 

if designated 2008 ozone nonattainment 

areas are either attaining or failing to 

attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 

attainment date along with resulting 

reclassifications or determination to 

grant 1-year attainment date extensions. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rule does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0695. This action to find that the 

Marginal ozone nonattainment areas 

listed in Table 3 failed to attain the 2008 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date, to reclassify those areas as 

Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, 

and to adjust any applicable deadlines, 

does not establish any new information 

collection burden that has not already 

been identified in the existing 2008 

ozone NAAQS Information Collection 

Request number 2347.01. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. Determinations of 

nonattainment and the resulting 

reclassification of nonattainment areas 

by operation of law under section 

181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of 

themselves create any new 

requirements. Instead, this rulemaking 

only makes a factual determination, and 

does not directly regulate any entities. 

This action also establishes the deadline 

by which states will need to submit 

revisions to their SIPs to address the 

new Moderate area requirements, and 

that deadline, if based on the statute, 

would otherwise be more stringent. In 

this final action, the EPA is exercising 

discretion under CAA section 182(i) 

which allows the Administrator to 

provide state air agencies additional 

time to comply with those requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. No tribal areas are 

implicated in the 11 areas that we are 

finding to have failed to meet their 

attainment date. The CAA and the 

Tribal Authority Rule establish the 

relationship of the federal government 

and tribes in developing plans to attain 

the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing 

to modify that relationship. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because this action determines that 11 

areas, identified in Table 3, did not 

attain the 2008 ozone standard by their 

applicable attainment date and to 

reclassify these areas as Moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas and to adjust 

applicable deadlines. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26708 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. The results of this 

evaluation are contained in the section 

of the preamble titled ‘‘Environmental 

Justice Considerations.’’ 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This rule is exempt from the CRA 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability that names specific entities 

where this rule makes factual 

determinations and does directly 

regulate any entities. The 

determinations of attainment and failure 

to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and 

resulting reclassifications), and the 

determination to grant 1-year attainment 

date extensions do not in themselves 

create any new requirements beyond 

what is mandated by the CAA. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of final 

actions that are locally and regionally 

applicable may be filed only in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit. However, the statute 

also provides that notwithstanding that 

general rule, ‘‘a petition for review of 

any action . . . may be filed only in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia if such action is 

based on a determination of nationwide 

scope or effect and if in taking such 

action the Administrator finds and 

publishes that such action is based on 

such a determination.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7607(b)(1). See also Dalton Trucking v. 

EPA, 808 F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2015). 

Because this final action makes findings 

with regard to nonattainment areas 

across the country, interprets the CAA 

and applies such interpretations to 

states and nonattainment areas across 

the country, and establishes SIP 

deadlines for newly reclassified areas in 

different states in a consistent fashion, 

the Administrator finds that this action 

has nationwide scope and effect. 

Therefore, in accordance with CAA 

section 307(b)(1), petitions for review of 

this final action may be filed only in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit by July 5, 

2016. Note, under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings for enforcement. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Designations and 

classifications, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Designations and 

classifications, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: April 11, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, parts 52 and 81, title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart E—Arkansas 

■ 2. Add § 52.174 to read as follows: 

§ 52.174 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

(a) The EPA has determined that the 

Crittenden County Marginal 2008 ozone 

NAAQS nonattainment area attained the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Subpart F—California 

■ 3. Section 52.282 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e) introductory text 

and (e)(1) and (2) to read as follows: 

§ 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(e) Determinations of attainment. 

Effective June 3, 2016. 

(1) Approval of applications for 

extensions of applicable attainment 

dates. Under section 181(a)(5) of the 

Clean Air Act, the EPA is approving the 

applications submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board dated June 1, 2015, 

referencing the District’s letter of May 

19, 2015, for extensions of the 

applicable attainment date for the San 

Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), 

CA 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas from July 20, 2015 to July 20, 

2016. 

(2) Determinations of attainment. The 

EPA has determined that the Calaveras 

County, Chico (Butte County), San 

Francisco Bay Area and Tuscan Buttes 

2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

in California have attained the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard by the July 20, 

2015 applicable attainment date, based 

upon complete quality-assured data for 

2012–2014. Therefore, the EPA has met 

its obligation pursuant to CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the 

area’s air quality data as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. As a result of 

these determinations, the Calaveras 

County, Chico (Butte County), San 

Francisco Bay Area and Tuscan Buttes 

2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

in California will not be reclassified for 

failure to attain by their July 20, 2015, 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

* * * * * 

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 4. Section 52.377 is amended by 

adding paragraph (p) to read as follows: 

§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(p) Rescission of clean data 

determination for the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016, 

the EPA is determining that complete 

quality-assured and certified ozone 

monitoring data for 2012–2014 show the 

NY-NJ-CT 1997 eight-hour ozone 

nonattainment area did not meet 1997 

eight-hour ozone standard. Therefore, 

the EPA is rescinding the clean data 

determination for the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone standard only. The prior 

determination (see paragraph k of this 

section) is in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.918. The prior determination 

suspended the requirements for this 

area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26709 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the standard for 

as long as this area continues to meet 

the 1997 annual eight-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This rescission of the clean 

data determination will result in a SIP 

Call for a new ozone attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the standard, for 

this area only. If the revised plan is 

approved by the EPA as demonstrating 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment for the more stringent 2008 

NAAQS by the Moderate area 

attainment date, and is approved by the 

EPA as containing adequate contingency 

measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then the 

plan would be deemed to have also 

satisfied requirements of the SIP Call 

associated with violations for the 1997 

NAAQS. 

Subpart I—Delaware 

■ 5. Section 52.425 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.425 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(c) The EPA has determined, as of 

June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 

ambient air quality data, the Seaford, DE 

2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment 

area has attained the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 

CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, 

based on the area’s air quality data as of 

the attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Seaford 

nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

Subpart P—Indiana 

■ 6. Section 52.777 is amended by 

adding paragraph (tt) to read as follows: 

§ 52.777 Control strategy: photochemical 

oxidants (hydrocarbons). 

* * * * * 

(tt) Determination of attainment. As 

required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the 

Clean Air Act, the EPA has determined 

that the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Marginal 

2008 ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of July 20, 

2015. 

Subpart S—Kentucky 

■ 7. Section 52.930 is amended by 

adding paragraph (m) to read as follows: 

§ 52.930 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(m) Determination of attainment. The 

EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, 

that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air 

quality data, the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 

2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment 

area has attained the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the 

area’s air quality data as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Cincinnati, OH-KYIN nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

Subpart T—Louisiana 

■ 8. Section 52.977 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.977 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(f) The EPA has determined that the 

Baton Rouge Marginal 2008 ozone 

NAAQS nonattainment area attained the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015. 

Subpart W—Massachusetts 

■ 9. Section 52.1129 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1129 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(k) Determination of attainment for 

the eight-hour ozone standard. Effective 

June 3, 2016, the EPA is determining 

that complete quality-assured and 

certified ozone monitoring data for 2012 

to 2014 show the Dukes County, 

Massachusetts eight-hour ozone 

nonattainment area attained the 2008 

eight-hour ozone standard by its July 20, 

2015 attainment deadline. Therefore, 

the EPA has met the requirement 

pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to 

determine, based on the area’s air 

quality data as of the attainment date, 

whether the area attained the standard. 

The EPA also determined that the Dukes 

County nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

Subpart Z—Mississippi 

■ 10. Add § 52.1273 to read as follows: 

§ 52.1273 Control strategy: Ozone. 

(a) Determination of attainment. The 

EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, 

that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air 

quality data, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR 

2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment 

area has attained the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the 

area’s air quality data as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Memphis, TN-MSAR nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

(b) [Reserved] 

Subpart FF—New Jersey 

§ 52.1576 [Amended] 

■ 11. Section 52.1576 is amended by 

remove paragraph (d). 

■ 12. Section 52.1582 is amended by 

adding paragraph (p) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1582 Control strategy and 

regulations: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(p) Rescission of clean data 

determination for the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016, 

the EPA is determining that complete 

quality-assured and certified ozone 

monitoring data for 2012–2014 show the 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT 1997 eight-hour ozone 

nonattainment area did not meet 1997 

eight-hour ozone standard. Therefore, 

the EPA is rescinding the clean data 

determination for the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone standard only. The prior 

determination (see paragraph (n)(2)) is 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. The 

prior determination suspended the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as this area 

continues to meet the 1997 annual 

eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

rescission of the clean data 

determination will result in a SIP Call 

for a new ozone attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the standard, for 

this area only. If the revised plan is 

approved by the EPA as demonstrating 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment for the more stringent 2008 

NAAQS by the Moderate area 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26710 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

attainment date, and is approved by the 

EPA as containing adequate contingency 

measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then the 

plan would be deemed to have also 

satisfied requirements of the SIP Call 

associated with violations for the 1997 

NAAQS. 

Subpart HH—New York 

■ 13. Section 52.1679 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1679 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(b) Determination of attainment. The 

EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, 

that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air 

quality data, the Jamestown, NY 2008 

ozone Marginal nonattainment area has 

attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, the EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the 

area’s air quality data as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Jamestown, NY 

nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

■ 14. Section 52.1683 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f)(2)(v) and adding 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) Jamestown (consisting of 

Chautauqua County) as of June 3, 2016. 

* * * * * 

(n) Rescission of clean data 

determination for the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016, 

the EPA is determining that complete 

quality-assured and certified ozone 

monitoring data for 2012 to 2014 show 

the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT 1997 eight-hour 

ozone nonattainment area did not meet 

the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. 

Therefore, the EPA is rescinding the 

clean data determination for the 1997 

eight-hour ozone standard only. The 

prior determination (see paragraph 

(f)(2)(viii) of this section) is in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. The 

prior determination suspended the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as this area 

continues to meet the 1997 annual 

eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

rescission of the clean data 

determination will result in a SIP Call 

for a new ozone attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the standard, for 

this area only. If the revised plan is 

approved by the EPA as demonstrating 

reasonable further progress and 

attainment for the more stringent 2008 

NAAQS by the Moderate area 

attainment date, and is approved by the 

EPA as containing adequate contingency 

measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then the 

plan would be deemed to have also 

satisfied requirements of the SIP Call 

associated with violations for the 1997 

NAAQS. 

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 15. Section 52.1779 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1779 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination of attainment. The 

EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, 

that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air 

quality data, the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 

NC-SC 2008 ozone Marginal 

nonattainment area has attained the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 

CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, 

based on the area’s air quality data as of 

the attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 

NC-SC nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

Subpart KK—Ohio 

■ 16. Section 52.1885 is amended by 

adding paragraph (nn) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(nn) Determination of attainment. As 

required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the 

Clean Air Act, the EPA has determined 

that the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN and 

Columbus, OH Marginal 2008 ozone 

nonattainment areas have attained the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015. 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 17. Section 52.2056 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (k), (l), and (m) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2056 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(k) The EPA has determined, as of 

June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 

ambient air quality data, the AllentownBethlehem-Easton, PA 2008 ozone 

Marginal nonattainment area has 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date of July 

20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met 

the requirement pursuant to CAA 

section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based 

on the area’s air quality as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA also determined that the 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA 

marginal nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date pursuant to 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

(l) The EPA has determined, as of 

June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 

ambient air quality data, the Lancaster, 

PA 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment 

area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 

CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, 

based on the area’s air quality as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA also determined that the 

Lancaster, PA Marginal nonattainment 

area will not be reclassified for failure 

to attain by its applicable attainment 

date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A). 

(m) The EPA has determined, as of 

June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 

ambient air quality data, the Reading, 

PA 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment 

area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 

CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, 

based on the area’s air quality as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA also determined that the 

Reading, PA Marginal nonattainment 

area will not be reclassified for failure 

to attain by its applicable attainment 

date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A). 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 18. Section 52.2125 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2125 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination of attainment. The 

EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, 

that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air 

quality data, the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 

NC-SC 2008 ozone Marginal 

nonattainment area has attained the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26711 

CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, 

based on the area’s air quality data as of 

the attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 

NC-SC nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 19. Section 52.2235 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2235 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determination of attainment. The 

EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, 

that based on 2011 to 2013 ambient air 

quality data, the Knoxville, TN and 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 ozone 

Marginal nonattainment areas have 

attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, the EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on an 

area’s air quality data as of the 

attainment date, whether the areas 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Knoxville, TN and 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR nonattainment 

areas will not be reclassified for failure 

to attain by their applicable attainment 

date under section 181(b)(2)(A). 

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 20. Add § 52.2623 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2623 Control strategy and 

regulations: Ozone. 

(a) Determination of attainment. The 

EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, 

that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air 

quality data, the Upper Green River 

Basin Area, WY 2008 ozone Marginal 

nonattainment area has attained the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 

CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, 

based on the area’s air quality data as of 

the attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. The EPA also 

determined that the Upper Green River 

Basin Area, WY nonattainment area will 

not be reclassified for failure to attain by 

its applicable attainment date under 

section 181(b)(2)(A). 

(b) [Reserved] 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 21. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations 

■ 22. Section 81.303 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Arizona-2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the heading entry for ‘‘PhoenixMesa, AZ’’ and the entries for 

‘‘Maricopa County (part)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

ARIZONA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ: 2 ........................................................................................ Nonattainment 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Maricopa County (part) 

T1N, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1N, R2E; T1N, 

R3E; T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E; T1N, R7E; T1N, R1W; 

T1N, R2W; T1N, R3W; T1N, R4W; T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W; T1N, 

R7W; T1N, R8W; T2N, R1E; T2N, R2E; T2N, R3E; T2N, R4E; 

T2N, R5E; T2N, R6E; T2N, R7E; T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E; T2N, 

R10E; T2N, R11E; T2N, R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R13E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R1W; 

T2N, R2W; T2N, R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W; T2N, R6W; T2N, 

R7W; T2N, R8W; T3N, R1E; T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E; T3N, R4E; 

T3N, R5E; T3N, R6E; T3N, R7E; T3N, R8E; T3N, R9E; T3N, 

R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, R11E (except 

that portion in Gila County); T3N, R12E (except that portion in 

Gila County); T3N, R1W; T3N, R2W; T3N, R3W; T3N, R4W; 

T3N, R5W; T3N, R6W; T4N, R1E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; T4N, 

R4E; T4N, R5E; T4N, R6E; T4N, R7E; T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E; 

T4N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R11E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R12E (except that portion 

in Gila County); T4N, R1W; T4N, R2W; T4N, R3W; T4N, R4W; 

T4N, R5W; T4N, R6W; T5N, R1E; T5N, R2E; T5N, R3E; T5N, 

R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N, R6E; N, R8E; T5N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T5N, R10E (except that portion in Gila 

County); T5N, R1W; T5N, R2W; T5N, R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N, 

R5W; T6N, R1E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, 

R2E; T6N, R3E; T6N, R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E; 

T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N, 

R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N, R1W (except 

that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2W; T6N, R3W; T6N, 

R4W; T6N, R5W; T7N, R1E; (except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T7N, R2E (except that portion in Yavapai County); 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26712 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

ARIZONA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

T7N, R3E; T7N, R4E; T7N, R5E; T7N, R6E; T7N, R7E; T7N, 

R8E; T7N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T7N, R1W 

(except that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R2W (except that 

portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R2E (except that portion in 

Yavapai County); T8N, R3E (except that portion in Yavapai 

County); T8N, R4E (except that portion in Yavapai County); 

T8N, R5E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R6E 

(except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R7E (except that 

portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R8E (except that portion in 

Yavapai and Gila Counties); T8N, R9E (except that portion in 

Yavapai and Gila Counties); T1S, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1S, R2E (except that portion in Pinal County 

and in Indian Country); T1S, R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S, 

R6E; T1S, R7E; T1S, R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S, R3W; T1S, R4W; 

T1S, R5W; T1S, R6W; T2S, R1E (except that portion in Indian 

Country); T2S, R5E; T2S, R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, R1W; T2S, 

R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S, R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E; T3S, R1W; 

T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W; T3S, R4W; T3S, R5W; T4S, R1E; T4S, 

R1W; T4S, R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W; T4S, R5W; T5S, R4W 

(Sections 1 through 22 and 27 through 34).

*******

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Section 81.305 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘California-2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Imperial 

County, CA’’, ‘‘Kern County (Eastern 

Kern), CA’’, ‘‘Mariposa County, CA’’, 

‘‘Nevada County (Western part), CA’’, 

and ‘‘San Diego County, CA’’, and ‘‘San 

Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), 

CA’’ and adding a footnote ‘‘5’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

CALIFORNIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * **

Imperial County, CA: 2 .................................................................. ........................ Nonattainment ......... 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Imperial County.

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation 3.

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 3.

Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA: 2 .............................................. ........................ Nonattainment ......... 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Kern County (part).


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26713 

CALIFORNIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

That portion of Kern County (with the exception of that portion 

in Hydrologic Unit Number 18090205—the Indian Wells Valley) east and south of a line described as follows: Beginning 

at the Kern-Los Angeles County boundary and running north 

and east along the northwest boundary of the Rancho La 

Liebre Land Grant to the point of intersection with the range 

line common to Range 16 West and Range 17 West, San 

Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along the range line to 

the point of intersection with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant 

boundary; then southeast, northeast, and northwest along the 

boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Grant to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 11 North, Range 17 West; then 

west 1.2 miles; then north to the Rancho El Tejon Land 

Grant boundary; then northwest along the Rancho El Tejon 

line to the southeast corner of Section 34, Township 32 

South, Range 30 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; 

then north to the northwest corner of Section 35, Township 

31 South, Range 30 East; then northeast along the boundary 

of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the southwest corner 

of Section 18, Township 31 South, Range 31 East; then east 

to the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 31 South, 

Range 31 East; then north along the range line common to 

Range 31 East and Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and 

Meridian, to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 29 

South, Range 32 East; then east to the southwest corner of 

Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 32 East; then north 

along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range 

32 East to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 28 

South, Range 32 East, then west to the southeast corner of 

Section 36, Township 27 South, Range 31 East, then north 

along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range 

32 East to the Kern-Tulare County boundary.

* * * * * **

Mariposa County, CA: 2 Mariposa County ................................... ........................ Nonattainment ......... 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Nevada County (Western part), CA: 2 .......................................... ........................ Nonattainment ......... 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Nevada County (part).

That portion of Nevada County, which lies west of a 

line, described as follows: Beginning at the NevadaPlacer County boundary and running north along the 

western boundaries of Sections 24, 13, 12, 1, Township 17 North, Range 14 East, Mount Diablo Base 

and Meridian, and Sections 36, 25, 24, 13, 12, 

Township 18 North, Range 14 East to the NevadaSierra County boundary.

* * * * * **

San Diego County, CA: 2 ............................................................. ........................ Nonattainment ......... 6/3/16 Moderate. 

San Diego County.

Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians 

of the Barona Reservation 3.

Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo 

Indian Reservation 3.

Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California 3.

Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumayaay Indians 3.

Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel 3.

Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and 

Cosmit Reservation 3.

Jamul Indian Village of California 3.

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 3.

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La 

Posta Indian Reservation 3.

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 3.


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26714 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the 

Manzanita Reservation 3.

Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the 

Mesa Grande Reservation 3.

Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation 3.

Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and 

Yuima Reservation 3.

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon 

Reservation 3.

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California 3.

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 3.

Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of 

Mission Indians 3.

* * * * * **

San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA: 2 .................... ........................ Nonattainment ......... 6/3/16 Marginal.5

San Luis Obispo County (part).

That portion of San Luis Obispo County that lies east 

of a line described as follows: Beginning at the San 

Luis Obispo County/Santa Barbara County boundary 

and running north along 120 degrees 24 minutes 

longitude to the intersection with 35 degrees 27 minutes latitude; east along 35 degrees 27 minutes latitude to the intersection with 120 degrees 18 minutes 

longitude; then north along 120 degrees 18 minutes 

longitude to the San Luis Obispo County/Monterey 

County boundary.

* * * * * **

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

3 Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in this 

table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA 

lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this table. 4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Section 81.306 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Colorado—2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ by revising the entries for 

‘‘Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. CollinsLoveland, CO’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.306 Colorado. 

* * * * * 

COLORADO—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO: 2 ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Adams County.

Arapahoe County.

Boulder County.

Broomfield County.

Denver County.

Douglas County.

Jefferson County.

Larimer County (part).


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26715 

COLORADO—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

That portion of the county that lies south of 

a line described as follows: Beginning at 

a point on Larimer County’s eastern 

boundary and Weld County’s western 

boundary intersected by 40 degrees, 42 

minutes, and 47.1 seconds north latitude, 

proceed west to a point defined by the 

intersection of 40 degrees, 42 minutes, 

47.1 seconds north latitude and 105 degrees, 29 minutes, and 40.0 seconds 

west longitude, thence proceed south on 

105 degrees, 29 minutes, 40.0 seconds 

west longitude to the intersection with 40 

degrees, 33 minutes and 17.4 seconds 

north latitude, thence proceed west on 40 

degrees, 33 minutes, 17.4 seconds north 

latitude until this line intersects Larimer 

County’s western boundary and Grand 

County’s eastern boundary.

Weld County (part).

That portion of the county that lies south of 

a line described as follows: Beginning at 

a point on Weld County’s eastern boundary and Logan County’s western boundary intersected by 40 degrees, 42 minutes, 47.1 seconds north latitude, proceed west on 40 degrees, 42 minutes, 

47.1 seconds north latitude until this line 

intersects Weld County’s western boundary and Larimer County’s eastern boundary.

* * * * * **

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Section 81.307 is amended by 

revising the table for ‘‘Connecticut— 

2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary 

and secondary)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.307 Connecticut. 

* * * * * 

CONNECTICUT—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Greater Connecticut, CT: 2 ................................ ........................ Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Hartford County 

Litchfield County 

New London County 

Tolland County 

Windham County 

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut 3

Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut 3

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJCT: 2......................... Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Fairfield County 

Middlesex County 

New Haven County 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

3 Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in this 

table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA 

lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this table. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 81.308 is amended by 

revising the table for ‘‘Delaware—2008 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.308 Delaware. 

* * * * * 

DELAWARE—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE: 2......................... Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16 Marginal.4

New Castle County 

Seaford: 2

Sussex County ........................ Nonattainment ................................ ........................ Marginal. 

Rest of State: 3

Southern Delaware Intrastate AQCR: (remainder) 

Kent County ........................ Unclassifiable/Attainment 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

3 Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Section 81.309 is amended by 

revising the table for ‘‘District of 

Columbia—2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(Primary and secondary)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.309 District of Columbia. 

* * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Washington, DC-MD-VA: District of Columbia 2 ........................ Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16 Marginal.3

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

3Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Section 81.311 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Georgia—2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Atlanta, GA’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 81.311 Georgia. 

* * * * * 

GEORGIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Atlanta, GA: 2 ..................................................... ........................ Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16 Moderate. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26717 

GEORGIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Bartow County 

Cherokee County 

Clayton County 

Cobb County 

Coweta County 

DeKalb County 

Douglas County 

Fayette County 

Forsyth County 

Fulton County 

Gwinnett County 

Henry County 

Newton County 

Paulding County 

Rockdale County 

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Section 81.314 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Illinois—2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by: 

■ a. Revising the entries for ‘‘ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI’’; 

■ b. Revising the heading entry ‘‘St. 

Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL’’ 

and the entries ‘‘Madison County’’, 

‘‘Monroe County’’, and ‘‘St. Clair 

County’’; and 

■ c. Adding a footnote ‘‘4’’. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 81.314 Illinois. 

* * * * * 

ILLINOIS—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: 2 .......................... ........................ Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Cook County 

DuPage County 

Grundy County (part) 

Aux Sable Township 

Goose Lake Township 

Kane County 

Kendall County (part) 

Oswego Township 

Lake County 

McHenry County 

Will County 

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL: 2 ....... ........................ Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16 Marginal.4

Madison County 

Monroe County 

St. Clair County 

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 30. Section 81.315 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Indiana—2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.315 Indiana. 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26718 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

INDIANA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: 2 .......................... ........................ Nonattainment ................................ 6/3/16. Moderate. 

Lake County 

Porter County 

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 31. Section 81.321 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Maryland—2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ by: 

■ a. Revising the entries for 

‘‘Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NJ-MD-DE’’; 

■ b. Revising the heading entry 

‘‘Washington, DC-MD-VA’’; and 

■ c. Adding a footnote ‘‘4’’. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 81.321 Maryland. 

* * * * * 

MARYLAND—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE: 2......................... Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4

Cecil County ........................................................ ........................ .......................................... ........................

Washington, DC-MD-VA: 2 .......................................... ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal. 4

*******

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 32. Section 81.326 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Missouri—2008—8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ by revising the heading 

entry for ‘‘St. Louis-St. CharlesFarmington, MO-IL’’ and adding a 

footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.326 Missouri. 

* * * * * 

MISSOURI—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL: 2 ................ ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 33. Amend § 81.331 by revising the 

table for ‘‘New Jersey—2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.331 New Jersey. 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26719 

NEW JERSEY—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT: 2 .. ........................ Nonattainment ................. 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Bergen County.

Essex County.

Hudson County.

Hunterdon County.

Middlesex County.

Monmouth County.

Morris County.

Passaic County.

Somerset County.

Sussex County.

Union County.

Warren County.

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE: 2......................... Nonattainment ................. 6/3/16 Marginal.3. 

Atlantic County.

Burlington County.

Camden County.

Cape May County ................................................ ........................

Cumberland County.

Gloucester County.

Mercer County.

Ocean County.

Salem County.

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

3Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 34. Section 81.333 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘New York—2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ by revising the entries for 

‘‘New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-CT’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.333 New York. 

* * * * * 

NEW YORK—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT: 2 ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Moderate. 

Bronx County.

Kings County.

Nassau County.

New York County.

Queens County.

Richmond County.

Rockland County.

Suffolk County.

Westchester County.

Shinnecock Indian Nation 3.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

3 Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in this 

table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA 

lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this table. 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Section 81.336 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Ohio—2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘ClevelandAkron-Lorain, OH’’ and adding a 

footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.336 Ohio. 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26720 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

OHIO—2008—8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH: 2 .................................... ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4

Ashtabula County.

Cuyahoga County.

Geauga County.

Lake County.

Lorain County.

Medina County.

Portage County.

Summit County.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 36. Section 81.339 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Pennsylvania—2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ by revising the entries for 

‘‘Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NJ-MD-DE’’ and ‘‘PittsburghBeaver Valley, PA’’ and adding a 

footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania. 

* * * * * 

PENNSYLVANIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

*******

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE2......................... Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4

Bucks County.

Chester County.

Delaware County.

Montgomery County.

Philadelphia County.

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA2 ................................... ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4

Allegheny County.

Armstrong County.

Beaver County.

Butler County.

Fayette County.

Washington County.

Westmoreland County.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 37. Section 81.344 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Texas—2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘HoustonGalveston-Brazoria, TX’’ and adding a 

footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.344 Texas. 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 26721 

TEXAS—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

*******

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX:2 ............................. ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4

Brazoria County.

Chambers County.

Fort Bend County.

Galveston County.

Harris County.

Liberty County.

Montgomery County.

Waller County.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 38. Section 81.347 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Virginia—2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Washington, 

DC-MD-VA’’ and adding a footnote ‘‘4’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.347 Virginia. 

* * * * * 

VIRGINIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 1

Designation Classification 

Date 2 Type Date 2 Type 

Washington, DC-MD-VA: 2 .......................................... ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4

Arlington County.

Fairfax County.

Loudoun County.

Prince William County.

Alexandria City.

Fairfax City.

Falls Church City.

Manassas City.

Manassas Park City.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Section 81.350 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Wisconsin—2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

secondary)’’ by: 

■ a. Revising the heading entry for 

‘‘Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI’’ and the 

entries for ‘‘Sheboygan County, WI’’; 

and 

■ b. Adding a footnote ‘‘4’’. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 81.350 Wisconsin. 

* * * * * 

WISCONSIN—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: 2 ................................... ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Moderate. 

* * * * * * * 

Sheboygan County, WI: 2 ............................................ ........................ Nonattainment .................. 6/3/16 Marginal.4


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26722 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

WISCONSIN—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Sheboygan County.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * 

4Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–09729 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0014; FRL–9944–82] 

Mefenoxam; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of mefenoxam in 

or on rapeseed subgroup 20A. Syngenta 

Crop Protection, LLC., requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

4, 2016. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 5, 2016, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0014, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2015–0014 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before July 5, 2016. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2015–0014, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/

dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of April 6, 

2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL–9924–00), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 4F8323) by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 410 

Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27419. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.546 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES