48498 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

promulgated air quality standards and 

monitoring procedures that otherwise 

satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, 

et seq.) 

Under Executive Order 12898, EPA 

finds that this rule involves a proposed 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality data and will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any communities in the area, 

including minority and low-income 

communities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 11, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. E9–22933 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2009–0638; FRL–8960–9] 

Determinations of Attainment of the 

One-Hour and Eight-Hour Ozone 

Standards for Various Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas in New Jersey 

and Upstate New York 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

determine that various ozone 

nonattainment areas in New York and 

New Jersey have attained the one-hour 

and eight-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for ozone. For the 

one-hour standard, the areas are: the 

Atlantic City and Warren County areas 

in New Jersey and the AlbanySchenectady-Troy, Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, Essex County, Jefferson County, 

and Poughkeepsie areas in New York. 

For the eight-hour standard, the areas 

are: Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Jamestown, 

Poughkeepsie and Essex County 

(Whiteface Mountain). The States 

requested these determinations, based 

upon three years of complete, qualityassured ambient air monitoring data and 

these areas have continued to attain 

these ozone standards based on 

examination of the most recent air 

quality data from 2006–2008. These data 

demonstrate that the one-hour and 

eight-hour ozone standards have been 

attained in these areas. If EPA makes 

these proposed determinations final for 

the one-hour standard, the areas subject 

to the one-hour standard will have 

completed their progress toward 

achieving the one-hour health standard. 

In the cases where EPA determines that 

areas have attained the eight-hour 

standard, the requirements for the state 

to submit certain reasonable further 

progress plans, attainment 

demonstrations, contingency measures 

and any other planning requirements of 

the Clean Air Act related to attainment 

of the ozone standards shall be 

suspended for as long as the areas 

continue to attain the eight-hour ozone 

standard. These proposed 

determinations of attainment are not 

redesignations of these areas to 

attainment. Redesignations must meet 

additional requirements, including an 

approved plan to maintain compliance 

with the air quality standard for ten 

years after redesignation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 23, 2009. Public 

comments on this action are requested 

and will be considered before taking 

final action. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2008–0638, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. 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 Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2009– 

0638. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert F. Kelly, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, 

New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 

637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Are Today’s Proposed Actions? 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. When Were These Areas Designated? 

B. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area 

Complies With the One-hour Ozone 

Standard? 

C. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area 

Complies With the Eight-hour Ozone 

Standard? 

D. Why Is EPA Determining if These Areas 

Are Attaining The Ozone Standards? 

E. What Are the Likely Effects of These 

Determinations of Attainment? 

F. How Are These Determinations of 

Attainment Different From a 

Redesignation to Attainment? 

III. Did These Areas Attain Their Respective 

Ozone Standards? 

IV. What is EPA Proposing? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48499 

1CFR refers to the Code of Federal Regulations, 

in this case Title 40, part 50.9. 

I. What Are Today’s Proposed Actions? 

The EPA is proposing to determine 

that several areas designated as 

nonattainment for ozone have attained 

the standard. EPA proposes that the 

Atlantic City area and Warren County in 

New Jersey and the AlbanySchenectady-Troy, Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, Essex County, Jefferson County, 

and Poughkeepsie areas in New York be 

certified as attaining the one-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). 

EPA also proposes that four ozone 

nonattainment areas in New York, 

namely the Buffalo-Niagara Falls, 

Jamestown, Poughkeepsie and the Essex 

County nonattainment areas, be certified 

as attaining the eight-hour NAAQS 

established in 1997 for ozone. 

All of these determinations are based 

upon three years of complete, qualityassured ambient air monitoring data for 

the years 2006–2008. In order to 

determine the area’s air quality status, 

EPA reviewed ozone air quality data 

from the states, in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.9 1 and EPA policy guidance, as 

well as data processing, data rounding 

and data completeness requirements as 

discussed later in this proposal. These 

data demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS 

have been attained in these areas. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, if these 

proposed determinations are made final 

for the eight-hour ozone standard, the 

requirements for the state to submit 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, reasonable further progress 

plans, contingency measures and any 

other State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

related to attainment of the eight-hour 

ozone NAAQS, will be suspended for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

ozone NAAQS. However, other Clean 

Air Act requirements unrelated to the 

planning for attainment of the standard 

may still be required in some of these 

areas, such as development of emission 

inventory data and application of 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology to certain sources of air 

pollution. 

II. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. When Were These Areas Designated? 

The one-hour ozone designations in 

this proposed action were established 

by EPA following the enactment of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments in 

1990. Each area of the country that was 

designated nonattainment for the onehour ozone NAAQS was 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)). 

EPA designated and classified most 

areas of the country under the eighthour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 

final rule (69 FR 23858). On April 30, 

2004, EPA also 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 

other 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 eight-hour ozone 

NAAQS by identifying which one-hour 

requirements remain applicable in an 

area after revocation of the one-hour 

ozone NAAQS. On December 22, 2006, 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (the 

Court) vacated the Phase 1 Rule. South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). 

Subsequently, in South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 489 

F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007), in response to 

several petitions for rehearing, the Court 

clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was 

vacated only with regard to those parts 

of the rule that had been successfully 

challenged. The court upheld the 

portions of the Phase 1 Rule relating to 

EPA’s classification system under 

subpart 2. The portions of the rule that 

were vacated do not affect this proposed 

action. 

B. How Does EPA Compute Whether an 

Area Complies With 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 

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 how many days that 

standard has been exceeded, adjusted 

for the number of missing days. 

For comparison with the NAAQS, 

EPA has clearly 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 see, also, 

‘‘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 58, and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) database, (formerly known as the 

Aerometric Information Retrieval 

System (AIRS)). To account for missing 

data, the procedures found in appendix 

H to 40 CFR 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. Under EPA’s 

policies, we determine if an area has 

attained 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, 

generally, the General Preamble, 57 FR 

13498, April 16, 1992 and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

48500 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2For the one-hour standard, the other portion of 

Orange County is in the New York City 

nonattainment area. The portions of Orange County 

in each nonattainment area are listed in 40 CFR 

81.333. 

3Note that at the time EPA designated one-hour 

ozone attainment areas for the 0.12 ppm standard, 

air monitoring data at the summit of Whiteface 

Mountain violated the air quality standard but an 

air quality monitor at the base of the mountain 

recorded attainment of the standard. Therefore, 

only the portion of Essex County above 4500 feet 

in the Whiteface Mountain area was designated as 

nonattainment. (See 40 CFR 81.333.) 

4Note that at the time EPA designated these areas, 

two air monitoring monitors on Whiteface 

Mountain violated the air quality standard but other 

air quality monitors nearest to Whiteface Mountain, 

but sited at lower elevations than the monitors on 

Whiteface Mountain, did not violate the standard, 

so only the portion of Essex County above 1900 feet 

in the Whiteface Mountain area was designated as 

nonattainment. (See 40 CFR 81.333.) 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA, to Regional 

Air Office Directors; ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Bump Ups and Extensions 

for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ February 3, 1994. While the 

latter is explicitly applicable only to 

marginal areas, the general procedures 

for evaluating attainment in terms of the 

average number of expected exceedance 

days during the applicable 3-year period 

in this memorandum apply regardless of 

the initial classification of an area 

because all findings of attainment are 

made pursuant to the same CAA 

requirements in section 181(b)(2). 

C. How Does EPA Compute Whether an 

Area Complies With the Eight-hour 

Ozone Standard? 

As noted later in Table 2, an area 

achieves attainment of the eight-hour 

ozone standard when an area’s 

monitoring sites all have a design value 

of less than 0.085 ppm, calculated as 

described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I. 

The design value is the average of 

each year’s fourth highest concentration, 

over a three year period, as described in 

Appendix I to 40 CFR 50. From 40 CFR 

50, Appendix I, Section 2.2: 

The standard-related summary statistic is 

the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentration, expressed 

in parts per million, averaged over three 

years. The 3-year average shall be computed 

using the three most recent, consecutive 

calendar years of monitoring data meeting 

the data completeness requirements 

described in this appendix. The computed 3- 

year average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations shall be expressed to three 

decimal places (the remaining digits to the 

right are truncated.) 

As shown in Table 2, all of the sites 

have complete data and a design value 

less than 0.085 ppm. All of the sites 

have met the requirements of Appendix 

I of 40 CFR 50, which stipulates that in 

order to be used for showing attainment 

of the standard, the three years of data 

must have an average percent of days 

with valid ambient monitoring data of 

greater than 90%, and no single year 

with less than 75% data completeness. 

This proposed action does not deal 

with the ozone standard that EPA 

established in 2008. A new set of 

requirements will be needed after areas 

are designated as not attaining this new 

standard. Therefore, today’s proposed 

action, which affects requirements 

developed for the 1997 ozone standard, 

is not affected by the 2008 ozone 

standard, nor does it presume what air 

quality designations will be for the 2008 

ozone standard or what measures an 

area may need to attain that standard. 

D. Why Is EPA Determining If These 

Areas Are Attaining the Ozone 

Standards? 

States have requested that EPA 

determine that certain areas have met 

the applicable ozone standard. Also, in 

the course of periodic reviews of air 

quality data, EPA has noted that several 

ozone nonattainment areas in New 

Jersey and New York are now attaining 

the one-hour and eight-hour standard. 

For the one-hour standard these areas 

and their constituent counties are: in 

New Jersey, Warren County of the 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 

nonattainment area and Atlantic and 

Cape May Counties in the Atlantic City 

nonattainment area; in New York, Erie 

and Niagara Counties in the BuffaloNiagara Falls area, Chautauqua County 

in the Jamestown nonattainment area, 

Dutchess and Orange Counties and the 

portion of Orange County2 in the 

Poughkeepsie nonattainment area; and 

the portion of Essex County above 4500 

feet3 in the Whiteface Mountain area. 

Air quality data from the last three years 

from these areas is listed later in Table 

1. 

The Poughkeepsie one-hour 

nonattainment area was initially 

determined to attain the one-hour 

standard (59 FR 18967) but later 

violated the standard and was 

reclassified as nonattainment (59 FR 

38000). New York State did not request 

that EPA make a determination 

regarding the Poughkeepsie one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. However, 

EPA has sufficient air quality data that 

the Poughkeepsie nonattainment area 

has attained the one-hour standard and 

is proposing to determine that the area 

is in attainment of the one-hour ozone 

standard. 

For the eight-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas, on March 19, 2007 

the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (New 

York) requested EPA to find that air 

monitoring data from 2004 to 2006 were 

showing attainment of the eight-hour 

ozone standard in various areas of 

upstate New York. These areas were the 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Jefferson 

County, Essex County and Rochester 

nonattainment areas. On June 14, 2007, 

New York updated its submittal to 

document its public review process, 

including notice and comment for the 

aforementioned areas. EPA determined 

that the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, 

Jefferson County, and Rochester 

nonattainment areas attained the eighthour ozone standard on March 25, 2008. 

(See 73 FR 15672.) At that time, EPA 

deferred action on the Essex County 

area (the area around Whiteface 

Mountain over 1900 feet4) since the air 

quality data at that time were 

incomplete. EPA has reviewed 

additional air quality data since New 

York’s original request and these areas 

are still recording attainment of the 

eight-hour ozone standard and the area 

in Essex County now has sufficient data 

to show it is attaining the standard, as 

shown later in Table 1. Recently, on July 

30, 2009, New York submitted an 

updated petition requesting that EPA 

find that the Poughkeepsie, BuffaloNiagara Falls and Jamestown areas have 

attained the eight-hour ozone standard. 

The request included certified air 

quality data through the 2008 ozone 

season. 

New Jersey, in its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for 

the Attainment and Maintenance of the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard, submitted to EPA on October 

29, 2007, requested that EPA find that 

the Atlantic City one-hour 

nonattainment area and Warren County 

(part of the Allentown-BethlehemEaston area) were attaining the one-hour 

standard. 

E. What Are the Likely Effects of These 

Determinations of Attainment? 

EPA’s ozone implementation rule at 

40 CFR 51.900–918, promulgated under 

sections 172 and 182 of the Clean Air 

Act, describes the Clean Air Act 

requirements for areas designated as not 

attaining the 1997 eight-hour ozone 

standard. For areas where air quality is 

attaining the standard, section 51.918 of 

the implementation rule provides that, 

upon a determination of attainment by 

EPA, the requirements for a state to 

submit certain required planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the eight-hour 

NAAQS, such as attainment 

demonstrations, reasonable further 

progress plans and contingency 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48501 

measures, shall be suspended. EPA’s 

action only suspends the requirements 

to submit the SIP revisions discussed 

above. If this rulemaking is finalized 

and EPA subsequently determines after 

notice and comment rulemaking in the 

Federal Register that any of these areas 

have violated the standard, the basis for 

the suspension of these requirements for 

that area would no longer exist, and the 

area would thereafter have to address 

the pertinent requirements within a 

reasonable period of time. EPA would 

establish that period taking into account 

the individual circumstances 

surrounding the particular submissions 

at issue. 

F. How Are These Determinations of 

Attainment Different From a 

Redesignation to Attainment? 

The determinations that EPA 

proposes with this Federal Register 

notice, that air quality data show 

attainment of the ozone standard, are 

not equivalent to the redesignation of 

the areas to attainment. Using 

monitoring data to show attainment of 

the ozone NAAQS is only one of the 

criteria set forth in CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) that must be satisfied for an 

area to be redesignated to attainment. To 

be redesignated, the state must submit 

and receive full approval of a 

redesignation request for the area that 

satisfies all of the criteria of section 

107(d)(3)(E), including a demonstration 

that the improvement in the area’s air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions and a fullyapproved SIP meeting all of the 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and Part D and a fully-approved 

maintenance plan. 

III. Did These Areas Attain Their 

Respective Ozone Standards? 

In New York’s original request, it 

certified the air quality data submitted 

by the state for the years 2004, 2005 and 

2006 was accurate and properly qualityassured and met state and EPA 

monitoring requirements. New York 

submitted these data to EPA’s Air 

Quality System, where it is available to 

the public via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

airs/airsaqs/. After New York submitted 

its petition, New York supplied 

additional certified, quality-assured air 

quality data from 2007 and 2008 to 

EPA’s Air Quality System database. EPA 

has reviewed these data to determine if 

the areas proposed by New York are in 

attainment when the additional data 

from 2007 and 2008 are included. 

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the ozone air 

quality data for areas in New York and 

include EPA’s evaluation of whether 

these areas meet EPA’s requirements for 

attaining the one- and eight-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

New Jersey’s air quality data from 

2006 through 2008 show that certain 

parts of the state are attaining the onehour standard. These data have been 

certified by the State of New Jersey as 

being accurate and meeting EPA’s 

requirements for quality. They are 

summarized in Table 1, along with 

EPA’s evaluation of whether these areas 

meet EPA’s requirements for attaining 

the one-hour ozone NAAQS. All of 

these data are also available to the 

public via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/ 

airsaqs/. 

TABLE 1—FOURTH HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Exceedences (Days over 0.124 ppm) 

EPA AQS ID Site Year Valid/ 

total 

days ** 

Four highest daily peak one-hour ozone 

(ppm) 

Actual Adjusted 

for missing data 

3-year average *** 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Area (includes Warren County, NJ) 

42–077–0004 ..... Allentown, PA ... 2006 214/214 .115 .100 .098 .094 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 213/214 .104 .102 .090 .090 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 214/214 .100 .098 .091 .088 0 0.0 

42–095–0025 ..... Freemansburg, 

PA.

2006 209/214 .111 .100 .094 .091 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 214/214 .105 .105 .093 .091 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 214/214 .107 .095 .088 .086 0 0.0 

42–095–8000 ..... Wilson, PA ........ 2006 211/214 .118 .095 .093 .093 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 209/214 .105 .095 .094 .088 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 209/214 .106 .093 .085 .084 0 0.0 

Atlantic City, NJ 

34–001–0005 ..... Brigantine, NJ * 2006 211/214 .107 .103 .102 .096 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 199/214 .086 .085 .084 .083 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2007 203/214 .109 .094 .089 .086 0 0.0 

2008 203/214 .083 .081 .078 .078 0 0.0 

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Area 

36–001–0012 ..... Albany, NY ........ 2006 211/214 .086 .081 .078 .077 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 212/214 .114 .111 .091 .089 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 198/214 .107 .096 .089 .082 0 0.0 

36–083–0004 ..... Rensselaer, NY 2006 208/214 .085 .082 .080 .079 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 201/214 .099 .088 .087 .086 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 210/214 .097 .096 .090 .083 0 0.0 

36–091–0004 ..... Saratoga, NY .... 2006 212/214 .099 .086 .083 .082 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 202/214 .113 .096 .095 .090 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 212/214 .100 .095 .093 .088 0 0.0 

36–093–0003 ..... Schenectady, 

NY.

2006 214/214 .079 .076 .074 .074 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 208/214 .100 .097 .081 .077 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 211/214 .096 .092 .078 .078 0 0.0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

48502 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—FOURTH HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD—Continued 

EPA AQS ID 

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Area 

36–029–0002 ..... Amherst, NY ..... 2006 210/214 .093 .092 .090 .090 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 212/214 .100 .098 .095 .094 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 210/214 .088 .087 .082 .080 0 0.0 

36–063–1006 ..... Middleport, NY .. 2006 183/214 .092 .088 .085 .081 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 214/214 .100 .097 .092 .090 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 212/214 .084 .081 .080 .079 0 0.0 

Essex Co, NY Area 

36–031–0002 ..... Summit 

Whiteface 

Mtn., NY.

2006 196/214 .081 .081 .080 .076 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 197/214 .115 .107 .102 .094 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 203/214 .097 .085 .081 .080 0 0.0 

36–031–0003 ..... Base, Whiteface 

Mtn., NY.

2006 211/214 .094 .083 .080 .077 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 212/214 .103 .092 .091 .086 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 212/214 .087 .083 .077 .074 0 0.0 

Jefferson Co, NY Area 

36–045–0002 ..... Perch River, NY 2006 213/214 .104 .094 .092 .091 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 213/214 .081 .080 .079 .078 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 213/214 .094 .091 .091 .090 0 0.0 

Poughkeepsie, NY Area 

36–027–0007 ..... Millbrook, NY .... 2006 205/214 .085 .076 .074 .071 0 0.0 0.0 

2007 214/214 .114 .106 .096 .090 0 0.0 Attainment. 

2008 210/214 .109 .099 .097 .091 0 0.0 

36–071–5001 ..... Valley Central, 

NY.

2006 214/214 .099 .093 .093 .088 0 0.0 1.0 

2007 211/214 .145 .130 .116 .093 2 2.0 Attainment. 

2008 213/214 .129 .102 .098 .087 1 1.0 

36–079–0005 ..... Mt. Ninham, NY 2006 199/214 .102 .096 .091 .087 0 0.0 0.33 

2007 209/214 .125 .110 .107 .107 1 1.0 Attainment. 

2008 207/214 .099 .097 .092 .090 0 0.0 

* A new site was established nearby the old site. Both sites collected data in 2007 for comparison. 

** Each of the sites listed above recorded 75% or more of the required data each year and therefore met EPA’s data completeness standards. 

*** Attainment occurs when the number of days over 0.124 ppm, averaged over three years, is less than 1.1 days per year. 

Note: Ozone concentration data are in parts per million (ppm). 

TABLE 2—FOURTH HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

EPA AQS ID Site 

% Data Collection 

2006, 7, 8 

(Avg.) 

Ozone Concentration data in parts per million (ppm) 

Attainment? 

(design value 

<85 ppb) Fourth highest 

2006 

Fourth highest 

2007 

Fourth highest 

2008 

3-year average (design 

value) * 

Jamestown, NY Area 

36–013–0006 ...... Dunkirk, NY ......... 96, 99, 99 ............

(98) ......................

.083 .086 .084 .084 Attaining. 

36–013–0011 ...... Westfield , NY ..... 97, 97, 97 ............

(97) ......................

.075 .083 .072 .076 Attaining. 

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Area 

36–029–0002 ...... Amherst ............... 98, 99, 98 ............

(98) ......................

.083 .085 .076 .081 Attaining. 

36–063–1006 ...... Middleport ........... 85, 100, 100 ........

(95) ......................

.074 .082 .074 .076 Attaining. 

Essex Co (Whiteface Mtn), NY Area 

36–031–0002 ...... Summit Whiteface 

Mtn.

88, 91, 94 ............

(91) ......................

.071 .084 .084 .079 Attaining. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48503 

TABLE 2—FOURTH HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD— 

Continued 

EPA AQS ID Site 

% Data Collection 

2006, 7, 8 

(Avg.) 

Ozone Concentration data in parts per million (ppm) 

Attainment? 

(design value 

<85 ppb) Fourth highest 

2006 

Fourth highest 

2007 

Fourth highest 

2008 

3-year average (design 

value) * 

36–031–0003 ...... Base, Whiteface 

Mtn.

98, 98, 98 ............

(98) ......................

.071 .076 .073 .073 Attaining. 

Poughkeepsie, NY Area 

36–027–0007 ...... Millbrook .............. 93, 100, 100 ........

(97) ......................

.064 .078 .081 .075 Attaining. 

36–071–5001 ...... Valley Central ...... 100, 99, 99 ..........

(99) ......................

.077 .083 .080 .080 Attaining. 

36–079–0005 ...... Mt. Ninham .......... 92, 97, 97 ............

(95) ......................

.073 .085 .079 .079 Attaining. 

* A design value of 0.08 ppm is the goal for attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard promulgated in 1997. Therefore, any design value 

less than 0.085 ppm shows attainment of the standard. 

As noted in Table 2, an area achieves 

attainment of the eight-hour ozone 

standard when an area’s monitoring 

sites all have a design value of less than 

0.085 ppm, calculated as described in 

40 CFR 50, Appendix I. In this case, all 

of the sites have a design value less than 

0.085 ppm in 2008, which includes the 

most recent year of air quality data. As 

noted in a previous Federal Register 

[February 14, 2008 at 73 FR 8637], the 

monitor at the summit of Whiteface 

Mountain recorded 64 and 74 percent of 

the required data in 2004 and 2005, 

respectively, which was not sufficient to 

meet EPA’s data completeness 

standards. Air quality data from each of 

the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 meet 

EPA’s quality requirements and data 

completeness requirements and allow 

EPA to determine this area is in 

attainment. 

Based on our review of the air quality 

data certified by the states, attainment of 

the eight-hour ozone standard has been 

reached in all of these areas in New 

York, and in all of the one-hour 

nonattainment areas in New York, 

except for the New York City 

nonattainment area. The areas in New 

Jersey outside the New York 

nonattainment areas have met the onehour standard. 

IV. What Is EPA Proposing? 

EPA’s review of air quality data from 

2006 to 2008 shows that ozone 

nonattainment areas of Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, Jamestown, Essex County 

(Whiteface Mountain), and 

Poughkeepsie in New York and, in New 

Jersey, the Atlantic City and the Warren 

County portion of the AllentownBethlehem-Easton areas attained the 

one-hour standard. Also, the Jamestown, 

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Essex County and 

Poughkeepsie areas in New York have 

attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone 

standard. 

EPA’s determinations are based on the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured monitoring data at all 

ozone monitoring sites in each of the 

areas. Specifically, data through the 

2008 ozone season demonstrates that 

these areas attain the standard. As 

provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA’s 

determinations that these areas have 

attained the eight-hour ozone standard 

are made final, they would suspend the 

requirements under section 182(b)(1) for 

submission of the reasonable further 

progress plan and ozone attainment 

demonstration, the requirements of 

section 172(c)(9) concerning submission 

of contingency measures and any other 

planning SIP relating to attainment of 

the eight-hour NAAQS. This suspension 

of requirements would be effective as 

long as the areas continue to attain the 

1997 eight-hour ozone standard. 

EPA emphasizes that its proposed 

determinations are contingent upon the 

continued monitoring and continued 

attainment and maintenance of the 

eight-hour ozone NAAQS in these 

affected areas. If these determinations 

are finalized and EPA subsequently 

determines, after notice and comment 

rulemaking, that an area violated the 

standard, the basis for the suspension of 

the planning requirements would no 

longer exist, and the area would 

thereafter have to address the pertinent 

requirements. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice. EPA 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to EPA as discussed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action proposes to make 

a determination based on air quality 

data, and would, if finalized, result in 

the suspension of certain Federal 

requirements. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule proposes to make a determination 

based on air quality data, and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

48504 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to make a determination based 

on air quality data and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it proposes to determine that air 

quality in the affected area is meeting 

Federal standards. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply because it would 

be inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when determining the attainment 

status of an area, to use voluntary 

consensus standards in place of 

promulgated air quality standards and 

monitoring procedures that otherwise 

satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) 

Under Executive Order 12898, EPA 

finds that this rule involves a proposed 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality data and will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any communities in the area, 

including minority and low-income 

communities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 15, 2009. 

George Pavlou, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E9–22932 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0579, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0580, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009– 

0581, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0582, EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2009–0583, EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2009–0586, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0587, 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0590, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0591; FRL–8961–5] 

RIN 2050–AD75 

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule 

No. 51 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may 

be appropriate. This rule proposes to 

add nine sites to the General Superfund 

Section of the NPL. 

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before November 23, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate 

Docket Number from the table below. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Salt Chuck Mine ................................................................................. Outer Ketchikan County, AK ................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0579 

Millsboro TCE ..................................................................................... Millsboro, DE ........................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0580 

JJ Seifert Machine .............................................................................. Ruskin, FL ............................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0581 

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Jacksonville ........................................ Jacksonville, FL .................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0582 

Chemetco ............................................................................................ Madison County, IL .............................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0583 

Gratiot County Golf Course ................................................................ St. Louis, MI ......................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0586 

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Navassa .............................................. Navassa, NC ........................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0587 

Black Butte Mine ................................................................................. Cottage Grove, OR .............................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0590 

Van der Horst USA Corporation ......................................................... Terrell, TX ............................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0591 

Submit your comments, identified by 

the appropriate Docket number, by one 

of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov 

• Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles 

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, 

Headquarters; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket 

Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Express Mail: 

Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) 

to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday excluding 

Federal holidays). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the appropriate Docket number (see 

table above). EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public Docket without change and 

may be made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS