42470 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves special local regulations 

issued in conjunction with a regatta or 

marine parade. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add a temporary § 100.35T07–0503 

to read as follows: 

§ 100.35T07–0503 Special Local 

Regulations; Fajardo Offshore Festival II, 

Rada Fajardo, Fajardo, Puerto Rico. 

(a) Regulated Areas. The following 

regulated areas are established as 

special local regulations. All 

coordinates are North American Datum 

1983. 

(1) Race Area. All waters of Rada 

Fajardo encompassed within an 

imaginary line connecting the following 

points: starting at Point 1 in position 

18°21.357 N, 65°37.203 W; thence 

southeast to Point 2 in position 

18°21.334 N, 65°37.112 W; thence 

northeast to Point 3 in position 

18°22.365 N, 65°36.585 W; thence 

northwest to point 4 in position 

18°22.365 N, 65°36.585 W; thence 

southwest to point 5 in position 

18°21.733 N, 65°37.112 W; thence south 

back to origin. All persons and vessels, 

except those persons and vessels 

participating in the high-speed boat 

race, are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the race area. 

(2) Buffer Zone. All waters of Rada 

Fajardo encompassed within an 

imaginary line connecting the following 

points: starting at Point 1 in position 

18°22.492 N, 65°36.515 W; thence 

northeast to Point 2 in position 

18°22.423 N, 65°36.355 W; thence 

southeast to Point 3 in position 

18°21.297 N, 65°37.110 W; thence 

southwest to point 4 in position 

18°21.369 N, 65°37.264 W; thence 

northwest to point 5 in position 

18°21.728 N, 65°37.220 W; thence north 

back to origin. All persons and vessels 

except those persons and vessels 

enforcing the buffer zone are prohibited 

from entering, transiting through, 

anchoring in, or remaining within the 

buffer zone. 

(3) Spectator Area. All waters of Rada 

Fajardo excluding the race areas and 

buffer zone, encompassed within an 

imaginary line connecting the following 

points: starting at Point 1 in position 

18°22.540 N, 65°36.421 W; thence 

southeast to Point 2 in position 

18°22.331 N, 65°36.205 W; thence 

southwest to Point 3 in position 

18°21.199 N, 65°36.995 W; thence west 

to Point 4 in position 18°21.205 N, 

65°37.243 W. All vessels are prohibited 

from anchoring in the spectator area. 

On-scene designated representatives 

will direct spectator vessels to the 

spectator area. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port San Juan in the 

enforcement of the regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Persons and 

vessels may request authorization to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated areas by 

contacting the Captain of the Port San 

Juan by telephone at (787) 289–2041, or 

a designated representative via VHF 

radio on channel 16. If authorization is 

granted by the Captain of the Port San 

Juan or a designated representative, all 

persons and vessels receiving such 

authorization must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port 

San Juan or a designated representative. 

(2) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated areas by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

D.W. Pearson, 

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

Port San Juan. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17581 Filed 7–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0229; A–1–FRL– 

9700–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Determination of 

Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone 

Standard for the Portsmouth-DoverRochester and Manchester Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to make 

four separate and independent 

determinations for two areas in New 

Hampshire. First, with respect to the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42471 

Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, 

(Portsmouth) serious one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the area attained the onehour National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, by the 

applicable deadline of November 15, 

1999. Second, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Portsmouth area 

attained the one-hour ozone standard in 

1999, and continues to attain the 

standard. Third, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Manchester marginal 

one-hour ozone nonattainment area 

attained the one-hour NAAQS, by the 

applicable deadline of November 15, 

1993. Fourth, EPA is proposing to 

determine, that the Manchester area has 

attained the one-hour ozone standard 

since 1993, and continues to attain the 

standard. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2012– 0229 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0229, ’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2012- 

0229. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912, 

telephone number (617) 918–1664, fax 

number (617) 918–0664, email 

Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble: 

I. What is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for these proposed 

actions? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of data for 

purposes of determining attainment of 

the one-hour ozone standard? 

A. How does EPA compute whether an 

area meets the one-hour ozone standard? 

B. EPA’s Analysis of the One-Hour Ozone 

Data for the Portsmouth, NH Serious 

One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

C. EPA’s Analysis of the One-Hour Ozone 

Data for the Manchester, NH Marginal 

One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

IV. What is the effect of the proposed 

determinations? 

V. Proposed Determinations 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area attained the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS by the deadline 

of November 15, 1999. This proposed 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured and certified air quality 

monitoring data for the 1997–1999 

ozone seasons showing that the area had 

an expected ozone exceedance rate 

below the level of the now revoked onehour ozone NAAQS during that period 

and therefore attained the standard by 

its applicable deadline. EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the 

Portsmouth, NH area is currently 

attaining the standard based on 

complete, certified and quality-assured 

ozone monitoring data since 1999 and 

continues to attain the standard based 

on the most recent three years of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ozone monitoring data (2009–2011). If 

EPA finalizes its determination, that the 

area is currently attaining the one-hour 

standard, in accordance with EPA’s 

interpretation under the Clean Data 

Policy, it will relieve the area of the 

obligation to submit one-hour ozone 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Manchester, NH 

marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment 

area attained the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable deadline of 

November 15, 1993. This proposed 

determination is based upon complete, 

certified, quality-assured ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the 1991– 

1993 ozone seasons showing that the 

area had an expected ozone exceedance 

rate below the level of the now revoked 

one-hour ozone NAAQS during that 

period, and that the area attained the 

standard by its applicable deadline. EPA 

is also proposing to determine that the 

Manchester, NH area has attained the 

one-hour ozone standard since 1993, 

and continues to attain the standard 

based on the most recent three years of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42472 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1, 

69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004. 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ozone monitoring data (2009–2011). 

II. What is the background for these 

proposed actions? 

EPA designated the Portsmouth, NH 

serious one-hour ozone nonattainment 

area as nonattainment for the one-hour 

ozone standard following the enactment 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990. Most areas of the 

country that EPA designated 

nonattainment for the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS were classified by operation of 

law as marginal, moderate, serious, 

severe, or extreme, depending on the 

severity of the area’s air quality 

problem. (See CAA sections 107(d)(1)(C) 

and 181(a).) The Portsmouth, NH onehour ozone nonattainment area was 

classified as serious. The one-hour 

ozone attainment deadline for the area 

was November 15, 1999. The 

Portsmouth, NH area has both an 

approved 15 Percent Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) plan and a Post-96 RFP 

plan. (See 63 FR 67405, December 7, 

1998; and 67 FR 18493, April 16, 2002.) 

The area does not have an approved 

one-hour attainment demonstration, or 

one-hour contingency measures, but if 

EPA finalizes its proposed one-hour 

determinations, there would be no 

requirement for the Portsmouth, NH 

area to submit or implement one-hour 

ozone contingency measures for failure 

to attain the standard or for the 

Portsmouth, NH area to submit or 

implement a one-hour attainment 

demonstration. 

In addition, EPA designated the 

Manchester, NH one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area as marginal for the 

one-hour ozone standard. The one-hour 

ozone attainment deadline for this area 

was November 15, 1993. Marginal areas 

had very few CAA requirements. For 

example one-hour ozone marginal areas 

did not have to prepare or submit 

attainment demonstrations, RFP or 

contingency measures. Table 1 lists the 

cities and towns in the Portsmouth and 

Manchester, NH one-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. (See also 40 CFR 

81.330.) 

TABLE 1—LIST OF CITIES AND TOWNS FOR THE PORTSMOUTH AND MANCHESTER, NH AREAS

Area County Cities and towns included Classification 

Manchester, NH Area ............. Merrimack (all) ....................... Allenstown, Andover, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Canterbury, Chichester, Concord, Danbury, Dunbarton, Epsom, 

Franklin, Henniker, Hill, Hooksett, Hopkinton, Loudon, 

New London, Newbury, Northfield, Pembroke, Pittsfield, 

Salisbury, Sutton, Warner, Webster, Wilmot.

Marginal. 

Hillsborough (part) ................. Antrim, Bedford, Bennington, Deering, Francestown, 

Goffstown, Greenfield, Greenville, Hancock, Hillsborough, 

Lyndeborough, Manchester, Mason, New Boston, New 

Ipswich, Petersborough, Sharon, Temple, Weare, Windsor.

Marginal. 

Rockingham (part) ................. Auburn, Candia, Chester, Deerfield, Epping, Fremont, 

Northwood, Nottingham, Raymond.

Marginal. 

Portsmouth, NH Area .............. Rockingham (part) ................. Exeter, Greenland, Hampton, New Castle, Newfields, 

Newington, Newmarket, North Hampton, Portsmouth, 

Rye, Stratham.

Serious. 

Strafford (all) .......................... Barrington, Dover, Durham, Farmington, Lee, Madbury, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, Rochester, Rollinsford, 

Somersworth, Strafford.

Serious. 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA 

promulgated for the first time a new 

standard for ozone based on an 8-hour 

average concentration (the ‘‘1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS’’). EPA designated and 

classified most areas of the country 

under the eight-hour ozone NAAQS in 

an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 

23858). EPA designated Southern New 

Hampshire as nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This area is 

known as the Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (SE), NH area. At the time 

of eight-hour designations, the BostonManchester-Portsmouth (SE), NH area 

did not meet the one-hour ozone 

standard. The Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (SE), NH area is composed 

of portions of three separate one-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas: (1) The 

Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area; (2) the BostonLawrence-Worcester, MA-NH one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area; and (3) the 

Manchester, NH marginal one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. This 

proposed action concerns the 

Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, and the 

Manchester, NH marginal one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. The BostonLawrence-Worcester, MA-NH one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, was the 

subject of a previous Federal Register 

notice that determined the BostonLawrence-Worcester, MA-NH one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area attained the 

one-hour NAAQS by its attainment date 

(see 77 FR 31496, May 29, 2012). 

On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final 

rule (69 FR 23951) entitled ‘‘Final Rule 

To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 1,’’ referred to as the 

Phase 1 Rule. Among other matters, this 

rule revoked the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS in most areas of the country, 

effective June 15, 2005. (See 40 CFR 

50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996; and 70 FR 

44470, August 3, 2005.) The Phase 1 

Rule also set forth how anti-backsliding 

principles will ensure continued 

progress toward attainment of the eighthour ozone NAAQS by identifying 

which one-hour requirements remain 

applicable in an area after revocation of 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Although 

EPA revoked the one-hour ozone 

standard (effective June 15, 2005), eighthour ozone nonattainment areas remain 

subject to certain one-hour antibacksliding requirements based on their 

one-hour ozone classification.1 The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit 

subsequently determined that EPA 

should have retained certain additional 

measures as one-hour ozone antibacksliding requirements. These include 

one-hour ozone contingency measures 

under section 172(c)(9), which are to be 

implemented in the event an area fails 

to attain by its one-hour ozone 

attainment date. South Coast Air 

Quality Management District v. EPA, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42473 

472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) rehearing 

denied 489 F.3d 1245. EPA has since 

added one-hour ozone contingency 

measures as an applicable requirement 

in 40 CFR 51.900(o). (See 77 FR 28424, 

May 14, 2012). 

EPA is proposing two separate and 

independent determinations for the 

Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. First, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the area 

attained the one-hour ozone standard by 

its attainment deadline, the end of the 

1999 ozone season, and second, that the 

area continues to attain that NAAQS. If 

EPA finalizes its proposed 

determinations, there would be no 

requirement for the Portsmouth, NH 

area to submit or implement one-hour 

ozone contingency measures for failure 

to attain that standard. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Manchester, NH 

marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment 

area attained the one-hour ozone 

standard by its attainment date, the end 

of the 1993 ozone season, and that the 

area continues to attain that NAAQS. 

Since the Manchester, NH area is a 

marginal nonattainment area for the 

one-hour ozone standard, the area has 

no CAA-required contingency measures 

for failure to attain the one-hour 

NAAQS. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of data for 

purposes of determining attainment of 

the one-hour ozone standard? 

A. How does EPA compute whether an 

area has attained the one-hour ozone 

standard? 

Although the one-hour ozone NAAQS 

as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9 includes 

no discussion of specific data handling 

conventions, EPA’s publicly articulated 

position and the approach long since 

universally adopted by the air quality 

management community is that the 

interpretation of the one-hour ozone 

standard requires rounding ambient air 

quality data consistent with the stated 

level of the standard, which is 0.12 parts 

per million (ppm). 40 CFR 50.9(a) states 

that: ‘‘The level of the national one-hour 

primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for ozone * * * is 

0.12 parts per million. * * * The 

standard is attained when the expected 

number of days per calendar year with 

maximum hourly average 

concentrations of 0.12 parts per million 

* * * is equal to or less than 1, as 

determined by appendix H to this part.’’ 

Thus, compliance with the NAAQS is 

based on comparison of air quality 

concentrations with the standard and on 

the number of days that standard has 

been exceeded, adjusted for the number 

of missing days. 

For comparison with the NAAQS, 

EPA has communicated the data 

handling conventions for the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS in guidance documents. 

As early as 1979, EPA issued guidance 

stating that the level of our NAAQS 

dictates the number of significant 

figures to be used in determining 

whether the standard was exceeded. 

The stated level of the standard is taken 

as defining the number of significant 

figures to be used in comparisons with 

the standard. For example, a standard 

level of 0.12 ppm means that 

measurements are to be rounded to two 

decimal places (0.005 rounds up), and, 

therefore, 0.125 ppm is the smallest 

concentration value in excess of the 

level of the standard. (See, ‘‘Guideline 

for the Interpretation of Ozone Air 

Quality Standards,’’ EPA–450/4–79– 

003, OAQPS No. 1.2–108, January 

1979.) EPA has consistently applied the 

rounding convention in this 1979 

guideline. See, 68 FR 19111, April 17, 

2003; 68 FR 62043, October 31, 2003; 

and 69 FR 21719, April 22, 2004. Then, 

EPA determines attainment status under 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS on the basis 

of the annual average number of 

expected exceedances of the NAAQS 

over a three-year period. (See, 60 FR 

3349, January 17, 1995 and ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ at 57 FR 13506, April 16, 1992 

(‘‘General Preamble’’).) EPA’s 

determination is based upon data that 

have been collected and quality-assured 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. To account for missing 

data, the procedures found in appendix 

H to 40 CFR part 50 are used to adjust 

the actual number of monitored 

exceedances of the standard to yield the 

annual number of expected exceedances 

(‘‘expected exceedance days’’) at an air 

quality monitoring site. We determine if 

an area meets the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS by calculating, at each monitor, 

the average expected number of days 

over the standard per year (i.e., ‘‘average 

number of expected exceedance days’’) 

during the applicable 3-year period. See, 

the General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992. The term ‘‘exceedance’’ 

is used throughout this document to 

describe a daily maximum ozone 

measurement that is equal to or exceeds 

0.125 ppm which is the level of the 

standard after rounding. An area 

violates the ozone standard if, over a 

consecutive 3-year period, more than 3 

days of expected exceedances occur at 

the same monitor. For more information 

please refer to 40 CFR 50.9 ‘‘National 

one-hour primary and secondary 

ambient air quality standards for ozone’’ 

and ‘‘Interpretation of the one-hour 

Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone’’ (40 CFR part 50, appendix H). 

B. EPA’s Analysis of the One-Hour 

Ozone Data for the Portsmouth, NH 

Serious One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

Table 2 shows a summary of one-hour 

ozone data for all the ozone monitors in 

the Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area for the period 

1997–2011. In short, if the three-year 

average expected exceedance rate, 

shown in the far right column, is less 

than or equal to 1.0, the site meets the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS. If all sites in 

the area are shown to meet the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS, it can be determined 

that the area has attained the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—AVERAGE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE RATE FOR THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD IN THE PORTSMOUTH, NH 

SERIOUS NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR 1997–2011 

AQS No. Site name Years 

Actual exceedance days over 

0.124 ppm ozone 

3-Year average 

expected exceedance rate 

33–015–0012 ............................................ Rye-Harbor State Park ............................. 1997–1999 

1998–2000 

2 

0 

0.7 

0.0 

1999–2001 1 0.3 

2000–2002 2 0.7 

2001–2003 2 0.7 

Site relocated to Science Center 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42474 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—AVERAGE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE RATE FOR THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD IN THE PORTSMOUTH, NH 

SERIOUS NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR 1997–2011—Continued 

AQS No. Site name Years 

Actual exceedance days over 

0.124 ppm ozone 

3-Year average 

expected exceedance rate 

33–015–0016 ............................................ Rye-Seacoast Science Center ................. 2003–2005 

2004–2006 

2005–2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2006–2008 0 0.0 

2007–2009 0 0.0 

2008–2010 0 0.0 

2009–2011 0 0.0 

33–015–0013 ............................................ Brentwood-South Road ............................ 1998–2000 

1999–2001 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

2000–2002 0 0.0 

2001–2003 0 0.0 

Site Discontinued 

33–015–0009 ............................................ Portsmouth-Vaughan Street ..................... 1997–1999 

1998–2000 

2 

1 

0.7 

0.3 

Site relocated to Port Authority 

33–015–0015 ............................................ Portsmouth-Port Authority ........................ 2001–2003 2 0.7 

Site relocated to Peirce Island 

33–015–0014 ............................................ Portsmouth-Peirce Island ......................... 2003–2005 

2004–2006 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

2005–2007 0 0.0 

2006–2008 0 0.0 

2007–2009 0 0.0 

2008–2010 0 0.0 

2009–2011 0 0.0 

33–017–3002 ............................................ Rochester-Rochester Hill Road ................ 1997–1999 

1998–2000 

1 

0 

0.3 

0.0 

1999–2001 0 0.0 

2000–2002 1 0.3 

2001–2003 1 0.3 

Site Discontinued 

As shown in Table 2, the Portsmouth, 

NH serious one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area attained the onehour ozone NAAQS at the end of the 

1999 ozone season, since the three 

ozone monitors (Rye-Harbor State Park, 

Portsmouth-Vaughan Street, and 

Rochester-Rochester Hill Road) had 

expected exceedance rates below 1.0. 

Thus EPA is proposing to determine 

that, based on the 1997–1999 complete, 

quality-assured and certified ozone data 

in the Air Quality System (AQS) 

database, the Portsmouth, NH serious 

one-hour ozone nonattainment area met 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS, by the 

attainment deadline of November 15, 

1999. EPA is also proposing to 

determine that the area has remained in 

attainment of the one-hour NAAQS ever 

since. 

C. EPA’s Analysis of the One-Hour 

Ozone Data for the Manchester, NH 

Marginal One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

Table 3 shows the results of one-hour 

ozone data for all the ozone monitors in 

the Manchester, NH marginal one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area for the period 

1991–2011. In short, if the three-year 

average expected exceedance rate, 

shown in the far right column, is less 

than or equal to 1.0, the site meets the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS. If all sites in 

the area are shown to meet the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS, it can be determined 

that the area has attained the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 3—AVERAGE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE RATE FOR THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD IN THE MANCHESTER, NH 

MARGINAL ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR 1991–2011 

AQS No. Site name Years 

Actual exceedance days over 

0.124 ppm ozone 

3-Year expected 

exceedance rate 

33–011–0016 ............................................ Manchester-Hartnett Park ........................ 1991–1993 

1992–1994 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

1993–1995 0 0.0 

1994–1996 0 0.0 

1995–1997 0 0.0 

1996–1998 0 0.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42475 

TABLE 3—AVERAGE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE RATE FOR THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD IN THE MANCHESTER, NH 

MARGINAL ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR 1991–2011—Continued 

AQS No. Site name Years 

Actual exceedance days over 

0.124 ppm ozone 

3-Year expected 

exceedance rate 

1997–1999 0 0.0 

Site relocated to Commercial Street 

33–011–0019 ............................................ Manchester-North Commercial Street ...... 1999–2000 0 * 

Site relocated to Pearl Street 

33–011–0020 ............................................ Manchester-Pearl Street .......................... 2001–2003 

2002–2004 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

2003–2005 0 0.0 

2004–2006 0 0.0 

2005–2007 0 0.0 

2006–2008 0 0.0 

2007–2009 0 0.0 

2008–2010 0 0.0 

33–013–0007 ............................................ Concord-Storrs Street .............................. 1992–1993 

1992–1994 

0 

0 

* 

0.0 

1993–1995 0 0.0 

1994–1996 0 0.0 

1995–1997 0 0.0 

1996–1998 0 0.0 

1997–1999 0 0.0 

1998–2000 0 0.0 

1999–2001 1 0.3 

2000–2002 1 0.3 

2001–2003 1 0.3 

Site relocated to Hazen Drive 

33–013–1007 ............................................ Concord-Hazen Drive ............................... 2004–2006 

2005–2007 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

2006–2008 0 0.0 

2007–2009 0 0.0 

2008–2010 0 0.0 

2009–2011 0 0.0 

* Three year average expected exceedance rate cannot be calculated because the site has less than 3 years of data. For this area the two 

sites with an asterisk both have no exceedances for the time period in question. 

As shown in Table 3, the Manchester, 

NH marginal one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area attained the onehour ozone NAAQS at the end of the 

1993 ozone season, since the one 

monitor (Manchester-Hartnett Park) 

with three years of data had an expected 

exceedance rate below 1.0. The other 

site (Concord-Storrs Street) began in 

1992 and had no exceedance in either 

1992 or 1993. Thus, EPA is proposing to 

determine that, based on the 1991–1993 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ozone data in the AQS database, the 

Manchester, NH marginal one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area met the onehour ozone NAAQS, by its attainment 

deadline of November 15, 1993. Based 

on data from 1993–2011, EPA proposes 

to determine that the area has continued 

in attainment of the one-hour NAAQS 

ever since. 

IV. What is the effect of the proposed 

determinations? 

If EPA finalizes its proposed 

determination that the Portsmouth and 

Manchester, NH areas attained the onehour ozone standard by their respective 

deadlines, there are no consequences for 

failure to attain that standard. For the 

Portsmouth, NH area, it would 

discharge any obligation with respect to 

contingency measures triggered by a 

failure to attain by the one-hour ozone 

attainment deadline. In addition, if EPA 

finalizes its determination that the 

Portsmouth, NH one-hour ozone area 

continues to attain the standard, under 

EPA’s ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

interpretation, which was first 

articulated for the one-hour standard 

and then codified for the eight-hour 

ozone standard (40 CFR 51.918), that 

determination suspends the Portsmouth, 

NH area’s obligation to submit 

attainment-related requirements for the 

one-hour ozone standard, including 

contingency measures. See, for example, 

determination of one-hour ozone 

attainment for Baton Rouge, (75 FR 

6570, February 10, 2010). 

V. Proposed Determinations 

For the reasons set forth in this notice, 

EPA is proposing four separate and 

independent determinations. First, EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

Portsmouth, NH serious one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area met the applicable 

deadline of November 15, 1999, for 

attaining the one-hour NAAQS for 

ozone, based on 1997–1999 complete, 

certified and quality-assured ozone 

monitoring data. If EPA finalizes this 

determination, it would discharge any 

obligation with respect to contingency 

measures triggered by a failure to attain 

by the one-hour ozone attainment 

deadline. Second, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Portsmouth, NH area 

is currently attaining the standard based 

on complete, certified and qualityassured ozone monitoring data since 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1999 and continues to attain the 

standard based on the most recent three 

years of complete, quality assured ozone 

monitoring data. A final determination, 

by EPA, that the area is currently 

attaining the one-hour standard would 

relieve the area of its obligation to 

submit one-hour ozone contingency 

measures. Third, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Manchester, NH 

marginal nonattainment area met the 

applicable deadline of November 15, 

1993, for attaining the one-hour NAAQS 

for ozone. This proposed determination 

is based upon complete, certified, 

quality-assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 1991–1993 

monitoring period showing that the area 

had an expected ozone exceedance rate 

below the level of the now revoked onehour ozone NAAQS during that period 

and therefore attained the standard by 

its applicable deadline. Fourth and last 

with respect to the Manchester, NH 

area, EPA is proposing to determine, 

that the area has attained the one-hour 

ozone standard since 1993, and 

continues to attain the standard based 

on the most recent three years of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ozone monitoring data. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. EPA will 

consider these comments before final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make 

determinations of attainment based on 

monitored air quality data, and/or does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these actions do not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 28, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17621 Filed 7–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 1206013412–2211–01] 

RIN 0648–BB97 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Amendment 35 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

management measures described in 

Amendment 35 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) 

prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council). If 

implemented, this rule would establish 

sector annual catch limits (ACLs) and 

sector annual catch targets (ACTs) for 

greater amberjack; revise the sector 

accountability measures (AMs) for 

greater amberjack; and establish a 

commercial trip limit for greater 

amberjack. Additionally, Amendment 

35 would modify the greater amberjack 

rebuilding plan. The intent of 

Amendment 35 is to end overfishing of 

greater amberjack, modify the greater 

amberjack rebuilding plan and help 

achieve optimum yield (OY) for the 

greater amberjack resource in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2012–0107’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit 

electronic comments via the Federal 

e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

‘‘Instructions’’ for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Rich Malinowski, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

N/A in the required field if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

To submit comments through the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, enter ‘‘NOAA– 

NMFS–2012–0107’’ in the search field 

and click on ‘‘search.’’ After you locate 

the document ‘‘Fisheries of the 

Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South 

Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf 

of Mexico; Amendment 35,’’ click the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ link in that row. 

This will display the comment Web 

form. You can then enter your submitter 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS