Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71551 

records regarding Boiler 8 and Boiler 9 

for at least five years: 

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(ii) All stack test results. 

(iii) Daily records of fuel usage, heat 

input, and data used to determine heat 

content. 

(iv) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(v) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS. 

(vi) Any other records identified in 40 

CFR 60.49b(g) or 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(7) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to the Chief, 

Air Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance Branch, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code 

AE–17J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 

IL 60604–3590. 

(i) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for the limit in paragraph (i)(1) 

no later than the 30th day following the 

end of each calendar quarter. Excess 

emissions means emissions that exceed 

the emissions limit specified in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. The 

reports shall include the magnitude, 

date(s), and duration of each period of 

excess emissions, specific identification 

of each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(ii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

submit quarterly CEMS performance 

reports, to include dates and duration of 

each period during which the CEMS 

was inoperative (except for zero and 

span adjustments and calibration checks 

or when Boiler 8 is not operating), 

reason(s) why the CEMS was 

inoperative and steps taken to prevent 

recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or 

adjustments. 

(iii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

also submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, procedure 1 

(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative 

Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas 

Audits). 

(iv) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by paragraph (i)(7) of this 

section. 

(v) Owner/operator of Boiler 9 shall 

submit reports of any compliance test 

measuring NOX emissions from Boiler 9 

within 60 days of the last day of the test. 

If owner/operator commences operation 

of a continuous NOX emission 

monitoring system for Boiler 9, owner/ 

operator shall submit reports for Boiler 

9 as specified for Boiler 8 in paragraphs 

(i)(7)(i) to (i)(7)(iv) of this section. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29014 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0492; FRL–9757–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Determinations of Attainment for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making a number of 

determinations relating to 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California. 

First, EPA is determining that six 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California 

(Amador and Calaveras Counties, Chico, 

Kern County, Mariposa and Tuolumne 

Counties, Nevada County, and Sutter 

County) (‘‘six CA areas’’) attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) by their 

applicable attainment dates. Second, in 

conjunction with its determinations for 

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties and 

Nevada County, EPA is granting these 

areas one-year attainment date 

extensions. Lastly, EPA is determining 

that the six CA areas and the Ventura 

County 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area in CA have attained and continue 

to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the most recent three years of 

data. Under the provisions of EPA’s 

ozone implementation rule, these 

determinations suspend the 

requirements to submit revisions to the 

state implementation plans (SIP) for 

these areas related to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for as long 

as these areas continue to meet the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on January 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R09–OAR– 

2011–0492. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material) and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., confidential business 

information). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR–2, 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

telephone number (415) 972–3963, or 

email ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

EPA. We are providing the following 

outline to aid in locating information in 

this final rule. 

Table of Contents 

I. What determinations is EPA making? 

II. What is the background for these actions? 

III. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed rule? 

IV. What are the effects of these actions? 

A. Attainment Date Extensions 

B. Determinations of Attainment by Areas’ 

Applicable Attainment Dates 

C. Determinations of Current Attainment 

and 40 CFR 51.918 

V. EPA’s Final Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What determinations is EPA making? 

EPA is making a number of 

determinations with respect to 1997 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas in 

California. First, pursuant to section 

181(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

EPA is determining that the Amador 

and Calaveras Counties (Central 

Mountain Counties), Chico (Butte 

County), Kern County (Eastern Kern), 

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties 

(Southern Mountain Counties), Nevada 

County (Western Nevada County), and 

Sutter County (Sutter Buttes) 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California 

(herein referred to as the ‘‘six CA areas’’) 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

by their respective applicable 

attainment dates. Second, in connection 

with these determinations, EPA is also 

granting, pursuant to section 181(a)(5) 

and 40 CFR 51.907, applications 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) for extensions 

to the applicable attainment dates for 

the Southern Mountain Counties and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Ventura County is classified as a ‘‘serious’’ 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. As such, the applicable attainment date 

for Ventura County is June 15, 2013. 

Western Nevada County nonattainment 

areas. 

The six CA areas have differing 

applicable attainment dates. For Butte 

County and Sutter Buttes, EPA is 

determining that these areas attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard by their 

applicable attainment deadline of June 

15, 2007, based on complete, qualityassured, and certified ambient air 

quality monitoring data for 2004–2006. 

For the Central Mountain Counties and 

Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment 

areas, EPA is determining that they 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

by their applicable attainment deadline 

of June 15, 2010, based on complete, 

quality-assured and certified air quality 

data for 2007–2009. For the Southern 

Mountain Counties and Western Nevada 

County, whose original attainment date 

was June 15, 2010, EPA is granting a 

one-year attainment date extension until 

June 15, 2011 and determining that 

these areas attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by that extended 

attainment date, based on complete, 

quality-assured data for 2008–2010. 

In addition, for all the areas listed 

above and for Ventura County,1 EPA is 

determining, based on complete, 

quality-assured and certified air quality 

monitoring data for 2009–2011, that 

these areas have attained and continue 

to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Preliminary data for 2012 indicate that 

these areas continue to attain the 

NAAQS. Under the provisions of 40 

CFR 51.918, these latter determinations 

suspend the obligation of the State to 

submit certain planning requirements 

related to attainment for as long as the 

areas continue to attain the standard. 

II. What is the background for these 

actions? 

On September 14, 2012, EPA 

published in the Federal Register a 

direct final rule (77 FR 56775) that made 

the same determinations for the same 

areas addressed in today’s final rule. On 

that same date, we also published a 

document (77 FR 56797) that was to 

serve as the proposed rule addressing 

the same actions as the direct final rule 

if we were to withdraw the direct final 

rule in response to receipt of adverse 

comments. 

In our direct final rule, we provided 

background for these actions by 

describing the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (0.08 parts per million averaged 

over an eight-hour time frame), the 

designations and classifications of the 

six CA areas and Ventura County with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (see Table 1 from the direct 

final rule), and the statutory and 

regulatory provisions that allow EPA to 

grant attainment date extensions and 

that act to suspend attainment-related 

SIP submittal obligations. In the direct 

final rule, we also describe the basis 

upon which we evaluate whether an 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and present area-specific 

monitoring network information and 

data in support of our conclusions: That 

two of the six CA areas—the Southern 

Mountain Counties and Western Nevada 

County—qualified for one-year 

extensions of their applicable 

attainment dates; that the six CA areas 

attained by their respective attainment 

dates, that all six CA areas and Ventura 

County have attained the NAAQS based 

on the most recent complete three-year 

monitoring period (2009–2011); and that 

the most recent available ambient data 

for 2012 are consistent with continued 

attainment of the standard. Lastly, we 

explained how, under 40 CFR 51.918, 

the determinations of attainment based 

upon the most recent three-year period 

(2009–2011) suspend attainment-related 

SIP submittal obligations for these areas 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard for so long as the areas 

continue to attain the standard, 

although the areas remain designated 

nonattainment until they are 

redesignated to attainment. Please see 

the direct final rule for detailed 

information concerning the subject 

areas, ozone monitoring networks and 

data, and our review and evaluation. 

In our direct final rule, we indicated 

that, if we received adverse comments, 

then we would publish a withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that the direct final rule will not 

take effect. We received such adverse 

comments and have withdrawn the 

direct final rule. See 77 FR 66715 

(November 7, 2012). In our direct final 

rule, we stated that EPA would respond 

to comments received on the proposed 

rule, but that we would not institute a 

second comment period. In this final 

rule and in responding to comments, we 

continue to rely on the information and 

analysis that were set forth in the direct 

final rule. 

III. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed rule? 

First, EPA received one anonymous 

comment that generally supports the 

proposed actions, while emphasizing 

the need for continued monitoring for 

the ozone standard. Second, and with 

respect only to EPA’s proposed 

determination for the Central Mountain 

Counties, EPA also received two adverse 

comment letters from one individual. 

These were submitted on behalf of the 

Ione Valley Land, Air, and Water 

Defense Alliance (‘‘Ione Valley 

Alliance’’), and expressed concern over 

the proposed determination related to a 

portion (Amador County) of the Central 

Mountain Counties area (Amador and 

Calaveras Counties). See letters, Douglas 

Carstens, September 10 and October 3, 

2012. EPA received no adverse 

comments with respect to its 

determinations for any of the other CA 

areas in its direct final and proposed 

rulemakings. The general, supportive 

anonymous comment and the two 

comments related to Amador County are 

summarized and addressed below. 

Comment 1: The anonymous 

commenter states that he/she generally 

agrees with our proposed 

determinations and the related 

suspension of the obligation to submit 

attainment-related SIP planning 

requirements, but emphasizes the need 

to continue ambient monitoring to 

ensure that the standard is maintained 

and to avoid the return of excessive 

ozone levels. 

Response 1: We agree that continued 

ambient air monitoring by CARB and 

the individual air districts (where 

applicable) in the seven nonattainment 

areas that are the subject of this action 

is necessary to ensure that continuing 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard is verified. While our final 

determinations will suspend certain 

attainment-related SIP submittal 

requirements, they will not suspend any 

monitoring-related requirements and 

CARB and the local air districts (where 

applicable) will continue to be required 

to operate ozone monitoring networks in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

regulations. 

Lastly, as described in our direct final 

rule, the suspension of attainmentrelated SIP requirements continues only 

until such time, if any, that EPA (i) 

redesignates the area to attainment at 

which time those requirements no 

longer apply, or (ii) subsequently 

determines that the area has violated the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If EPA 

subsequently determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking, that any one 

of the nonattainment areas has violated 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQ, the basis 

for the suspension of the requirements 

for that area, provided by 40 CFR 

51.918, would no longer exist, and the 

violating ozone nonattainment area 

would thereafter have to address those 

requirements. See 77 FR 56775, at 56778 

(September 14, 2012). 

Comment 2: The Ione Valley Alliance 

objects to our proposed determination of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71553 

2 Design values less than or equal to 0.084 ppm 

represent attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone 

standard. 

attainment for Amador County and 

contends that Amador County has not 

implemented sufficient measures that 

will ensure that it can maintain 

attainment status. 

Response 2: Amador County is part of 

a two-county 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area that, together with 

Calaveras County, is referred to as 

‘‘Central Mountain Counties.’’ As to the 

Central Mountain Counties area, we are 

finalizing our proposed determination 

of attainment by the applicable 

attainment date (i.e., June 15, 2010 for 

this area) based on 2007–2009 data, as 

well as our separate proposed 

determination that the area currently 

attains the standard based on the most 

recent three-year monitoring period 

(2009–2011). See pages 56779 and 

56780 from our September 14, 2012 

direct final rule. We have made these 

determinations after reviewing the 

complete, quality-assured data from the 

ozone monitoring station located in 

Jackson, California, which is the county 

seat of Amador County. As shown in 

Table 3 in the direct final rule (page 

56780), the design value based on the 

data from the Jackson monitoring site 

was 0.080 ppm during the 2007–2009 

period and 0.071 ppm during the 2009– 

2011 period. These values show levels 

in the area that are well below the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS.2 Moreover, the 

preliminary ozone data available for 

2012 indicate that the area continues to 

attain the standard. 

EPA’s determinations of attainment 

for the Amador and Calaveras Counties 

area are solely based on complete, 

quality-assured air monitoring data. 

EPA’s review of these data does not 

involve any evaluation of the 

sufficiency of the measures adopted for 

the area to maintain the NAAQS, and it 

is not dependent on any conclusions 

regarding those measures. Thus the 

comments of Ione Valley Alliance are 

not germane to the action we are taking 

today, i.e., determinations based solely 

on air quality data. CAA Section 

181(b)(2) expressly provides that a 

determination that an area has attained 

by its attainment date is ‘‘based on the 

area’s design value (as of the attainment 

date).’’ Similarly, EPA’s determination 

that the area continues currently to 

attain the standard is based entirely on 

data establishing the area’s design value 

for the most recent three years. The 

commenter does not challenge these air 

quality determinations themselves. 

Moreover, since our determinations of 

attainment for Central Mountain 

Counties are based solely on air quality, 

they do not constitute a redesignation of 

the area to attainment. In order for EPA 

to redesignate an area to attainment, 

EPA must, among other criteria, 

determine that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP and applicable Federal air pollution 

control regulations. To approve a 

redesignation to attainment, EPA must 

also review and approve a maintenance 

plan that covers the first ten years 

beyond redesignation. See CAA sections 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and (iv) and section 

175A. At this time, California has not 

submitted a redesignation request or 

maintenance plan for Central Mountain 

Counties. EPA again notes that, under 

40 CFR section 51.918, EPA’s 

determination that the area is currently 

attaining the standard based on the most 

recent three years of data will be 

withdrawn if, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, EPA determines that the 

area is once again in violation of the 

standard. 

Comment 3: The Ione Valley Alliance 

contends that EPA’s issuing of a blanket 

attainment ruling without public notice 

and comment during a formal 

rulemaking process may inappropriately 

expose the County to overdevelopment 

without sufficient oversight to ensure 

meaningful measures are implemented 

to maintain attainment status. In 

support of this contention, Ione Valley 

Alliance enclosed, with its September 

10, 2012 comment letter, a copy of a 

letter the Alliance sent to the Amador 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(APCD) regarding a Public Records Act 

request and a request for notices related 

to a specific quarry project, General Plan 

Amendment and related environmental 

impact report. 

Response 3: EPA has addressed the 

commenter’s claims as to lack of notice 

and opportunity to comment by 

withdrawing our direct final rule in 

response to receipt of adverse comments 

and by fully responding to the 

comments in this final rule, which is 

based on EPA’s proposed rule, 

published the same day (September 14, 

2012) as our direct final rule. 

Second, as to the concern the 

commenter expressed regarding the risk 

of overdevelopment without sufficient 

oversight, EPA’s determinations today, 

which derive solely from ambient ozone 

monitoring data, do not in and of 

themselves affect development in the 

county. The determination that the area 

attained the standard by its attainment 

date fulfills EPA’s statutory obligation 

under section 181(b)(2). Our 

determination that the area is currently 

attaining the standard based on the most 

recent three years of quality-assured 

monitoring data reflects the reality of 

recent air quality in the area. It does not 

redesignate the area to attainment 

status, or relax control requirements. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, the 

determination has the effect of 

suspending only those SIP submittal 

requirements related to attainment, but 

the suspension of these requirements 

lasts only for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. As explained generally 

on page 56778 of the direct final rule 

with respect to all of the subject areas, 

if EPA subsequently determines, after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, that 

the Central Mountain Counties area has 

violated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

the basis for the suspension of the 

requirements for that area would no 

longer exist, and the area would 

thereafter have to address those 

requirements. 

Lastly, as noted above, the enclosure 

sent with the September 10th comment 

letter is a letter to the Amador County 

APCD containing a Public Records Act 

Request and a request for notices related 

to a quarry project and related 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 

prepared under the State’s California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 

letter to Amador County APCD also 

asserts that the EIR prepared by Amador 

County is deficient and cannot be relied 

upon by the APCD in issuing permits to 

project-related emissions sources; that 

the project would violate certain APCD 

rules and regulations; that the emissions 

from the project would be significant; 

that sensitive receptors in the area 

would be adversely affected; that 

feasible, less damaging alternatives are 

available; and that the permit 

applications therefore must be denied. 

The contents of the letter to the 

Amador County APCD are not germane 

to today’s determinations because 

today’s determinations are based solely 

on ambient air quality data, and the 

comments do not challenge the data or 

EPA’s review and evaluation of the data. 

In addition, EPA’s action today does not 

change the status of Amador County as 

nonattainment with respect to the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard nor would it 

affect the permit requirements for the 

quarry project. Rather, our action today 

simply suspends attainment-related SIP 

submittal requirements so long as the 

area continues to monitor attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Comment 4: The Ione Valley Alliance 

believes that the attainment 

determination does not change the 

designation of Amador County and that 

the status of the area continues to be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘nonattainment’’ until official action is 

taken to change that designation. 

Response 4: We agree that the neither 

the determination of attainment by the 

applicable attainment date, nor the 

determination of attainment based on 

the most recent three-year period, for 

the Central Mountain Counties area 

changes the designation or classification 

of the area with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Central Mountain 

Counties will remain ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard until EPA takes final 

action to approve a maintenance plan 

for the area and a request to redesignate 

the area to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). No such 

maintenance plan or redesignation 

request is pending before EPA at the 

present time for the Central Mountain 

Counties 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. 

IV. What are the effects of these 

actions? 

A. Attainment Date Extensions 

Pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5) and 

40 CFR 51.907, the State has requested, 

and EPA is approving one-year 

attainment date extensions, until June 

15, 2011, for the Southern Mountain 

Counties and Western Nevada County 

nonattainment areas. The effect of 

granting the attainment date extensions 

is to extend the 1997 8-hour ozone 

attainment deadline for the Southern 

Mountain Counties and Western Nevada 

County nonattainment areas for an 

additional year until June 15, 2011 and 

to enable EPA, pursuant to section 

181(b)(2) of the CAA, to determine that 

the areas attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by their extended deadlines. 

B. Determinations of Attainment by 

Areas’ Applicable Attainment Dates 

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

CAA, EPA is determining that the Butte 

County, Central Mountain Counties, 

Eastern Kern, Southern Mountain 

Counties, Sutter Buttes, and Western 

Nevada County ozone nonattainment 

areas attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by their applicable attainment 

dates. 

These determinations discharge EPA’s 

obligations under section 181(b)(2) with 

respect to determining whether these 

areas attained by their respective 

attainment deadlines, and establish that 

these areas are not subject to 

reclassification for failure to attain by 

these deadlines. 

C. Determinations of Current 

Attainment and 40 CFR 51.918 

In addition, EPA is separately 

determining that the six CA areas and 

Ventura County have attained the 

standard based upon the most recent 

three years of data (without reference to 

their attainment deadlines). Under the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, these 

determinations of attainment suspend 

the obligation for the State to submit 

certain planning requirements described 

above; however, they do not constitute 

redesignations to attainment under 

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The 

designation status of the six CA areas 

and Ventura County remains 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA 

determines that each area meets the 

CAA requirements for redesignation to 

attainment, including an approved 

maintenance plan. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, 

based on these determinations, the 

obligation under the CAA for the State 

of California to submit an attainment 

demonstration and reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress plans (RFP), 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning requirements related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for these seven ozone 

nonattainment areas is suspended for so 

long as the areas continue to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The suspension continues until such 

time, if any, that EPA (i) redesignates 

the area to attainment at which time 

those requirements no longer apply, or 

(ii) subsequently determines that the 

area has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. It is separate from, and does 

not influence or otherwise affect, any 

future designation determination or 

requirements for the area based on any 

new or revised ozone NAAQS. It 

remains in effect regardless of whether 

EPA designates the area as a 

nonattainment area for purposes of any 

new or revised ozone NAAQS. 

If EPA subsequently determines, after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, that 

any one of these nonattainment areas 

has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of 

the requirements for that area, provided 

by 40 CFR 51.918, would no longer 

exist, and the violating ozone 

nonattainment area would thereafter 

have to address those requirements. 

V. EPA’s Final Actions 

Based on the information and 

rationale presented in the direct final 

rule and in this notice of final 

rulemaking and after due consideration 

of all comments received, EPA is taking 

final action to make a number of 

determinations for certain areas in 

California for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

First, pursuant to section 181(b)(2), 

EPA is determining that six 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California 

[Amador and Calaveras Counties 

(Central Mountain Counties), Chico 

(Butte County), Kern County (Eastern 

Kern), Mariposa and Tuolumne 

Counties (Southern Mountain Counties), 

Nevada County (Western Nevada 

County), and Sutter County (Sutter 

Buttes)] attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by their respective applicable 

attainment dates based on complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air quality monitoring data. Second, in 

conjunction with its determinations for 

Southern Mountain Counties and 

Western Nevada County, EPA is 

determining that these areas qualified 

for one-year extensions and is granting 

these extensions under CAA section 

181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907. 

Specifically, for Butte County and 

Sutter Buttes, EPA is determining that 

these areas attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard by their applicable 

attainment deadline of June 15, 2007, 

based on complete, quality-assured, and 

certified ambient air quality monitoring 

data for 2004–2006. For the Central 

Mountain Counties and Eastern Kern 

ozone nonattainment areas, EPA is 

determining that they attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard by their 

applicable attainment deadline of June 

15, 2010, based on complete, qualityassured and certified air quality data for 

2007–2009. For the Southern Mountain 

Counties and Western Nevada County, 

whose original attainment date was June 

15, 2010, EPA is granting a one-year 

attainment date extension until June 15, 

2011 and determining that these areas 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

by that extended attainment date, based 

on complete, quality-assured data for 

2008–2010. 

Third, EPA is separately determining 

that Central Mountain Counties, Butte 

County, Eastern Kern, Southern 

Mountain Counties, Western Nevada 

County, Sutter Buttes, and Ventura 

County have each attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard based on the most 

recent three years of complete, qualityassured, and certified data for 2009– 

2011. Preliminary data available for 

2012 show that these areas continue to 

attain the standard. As provided in 40 

CFR 51.918, these determinations of 

attainment suspend the requirements for 

the State of California to submit, for 

each of these seven ozone 

nonattainment areas, an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

any other planning requirements related 

to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, for as long as the areas 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71555 

continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

These actions make determinations of 

attainment based on air quality, result in 

the suspension of certain federal 

requirements, grant attainment date 

extensions, and/or would not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

these 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 CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these actions do not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

obligations discussed herein do not 

apply to Indian Tribes and thus will not 

impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 1, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 19, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.282 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.282 Control Strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(e) Determinations of Attainment: 

Effective January 2, 2013. 

(1) Approval of applications for 

extensions of applicable attainment 

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

Clean Air Act, EPA is approving the 

applications submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board dated March 23, 

2010 and May 24, 2010 for extensions 

of the applicable attainment date for the 

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties and 

Nevada County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas, respectively, from 

June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011. 

(2) Determinations of attainment by 

the applicable attainment dates. EPA 

has determined that the Amador and 

Calaveras Counties, Chico, Kern County, 

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, 

Nevada County, and Sutter County 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas in 

California attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) by their applicable 

attainment dates. The applicable 

attainment dates are as follows: Amador 

and Calaveras Counties (June 15, 2010), 

Chico (June 15, 2007), Kern County 

(June 15, 2010), Mariposa and 

Tuolumne Counties (June 15, 2011), 

Nevada County (June 15, 2011), and 

Sutter County (June 15, 2007). 

(3) Determinations of attainment. EPA 

is determining that the Amador and 

Calaveras Counties, Chico, Kern County, 

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, 

Nevada County, Sutter County and 

Ventura County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas have attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, based upon 

complete quality-assured data for 2009– 

2011. Under the provisions of EPA’s 

ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR 

51.918), these determinations suspend 

the attainment demonstrations and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, reasonable further progress 

plans, contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment for 

as long as the areas continue to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. If EPA 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, that any of these areas no 

longer meets the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

the corresponding determination of 

attainment for that area shall be 

withdrawn. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–29013 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0781; FRL–9370–6] 

Halosulfuron-Methyl; Pesticide 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES