56694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

person’s judgment for mitigating and 

abating the conditions or practices 

causing the emergency. 

12. Add new § 250.1932 to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1932 What are my employee 

participation program requirements? 

(a) Management must consult with 

their employees on the development 

and implementation of the company’s 

SEMS program. 

(b) Management must develop a 

written plan of action regarding how 

appropriate employees, in both the 

operator’s offices and working on 

offshore facilities, will participate in 

their SEMS program development and 

implementation. 

(c) You must provide each employee 

of the operator and each contractor 

access to your SEMS program. 

(d) Management must provide 

BOEMRE a copy of their employee 

participation program upon request. 

(e) Management must assure that their 

employee participation program is made 

available during an audit. 

13. Add new § 250.1933 to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1933 What criteria must be included 

for reporting unsafe work conditions? 

(a) Your SEMS program must include 

procedures that address the reporting of 

unsafe work conditions. These 

procedures must include the existing 

Coast Guard unsafe working conditions 

reporting requirements found in 33 CFR 

142.7 and 46 CFR 109.419. 

(b) The unsafe work conditions 

section of your SEMS program must 

ensure all personnel including the 

operator’s employees contractor 

employees, as well as, contractors 

providing domestic services to the 

lessee or other contractors, including 

domestic services include janitorial 

work, food and beverage service, 

laundry service, housekeeping, and 

similar activities, who perform activities 

on the OCS that are under BOEMRE 

jurisdiction are covered by the program. 

An employee or contractor is not 

required to know whether a specific 

BOEMRE order or regulation has been 

violated in order to report unsafe 

conditions. 

(c) Any person may report to 

BOEMRE a possible violation of any 

BOEMRE order, standard, or regulation 

in this subchapter, or other Federal law 

relating to offshore safety, or any other 

hazardous or unsafe working condition 

on any facility engaged in OCS activities 

under BOEMRE jurisdiction. The report 

should contain sufficient credible 

information to establish a reasonable 

basis for BOEMRE to investigate 

whether a violation or other hazardous 

or unsafe working condition exists. 

(1) To report hazardous or unsafe 

working conditions or a violation, you 

can contact BOEMRE by: 

(2) [By Phone]: 1–877–440–0173 or 

202–208–5646 (BOEMRE Safety 

Hotline). 

(3) [Write To]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Investigations and Review 

Unit, 1849 C Street, NW., MS–5560, 

Washington, DC 20240, Attention: IRU 

Hotline Operations. You should include 

the following items in your report: 

(i) Your name, address, and telephone 

number (Anonymous reports can be 

processed in regards to unsafe working 

activities. If you would like to make an 

anonymous safety-only report, please 

use the BOEMRE Safety Hotline listed 

above.); 

(ii) The specific order or regulation of 

BOEMRE, or the specific provision of 

Federal law in question (if known); 

(iii) Any other facts, data, and 

applicable information. 

(d) After reviewing the report and 

conducting any necessary investigation, 

BOEMRE will notify the operator of any 

deficiency or hazard and initiate 

enforcement measures as the 

circumstances warrant. 

(e) The identity of any person making 

a report under paragraph (c) of this 

section shall not be made available, 

without the permission of the reporting 

person, to anyone other than the 

employees of BOEMRE who have a need 

for the record in the performance of 

their official duties. 

(f) All operators must post a notice 

explaining personnel rights and 

remedies under this section. The notice 

must be posted at the place of 

employment in a visible location 

frequently visited by personnel. 

(g) Each operator must provide 

training to employees on unsafe work 

conditions policy within 30 days of 

employment, and not less than once 

every 12 months thereafter. 

(h) Each employee must be provided 

a card that contains the BOEMRE 

telephone number (1–877–440–0173) 

which employees can call to get 

information or report unsafe activities 

under this section. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23537 Filed 9–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0638; FRL–9463–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; Determinations of Failure 

To Attain the One-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

determine that three areas in California, 

previously designated nonattainment for 

the one-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS), did not 

attain that standard by their applicable 

attainment dates: the Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin Area (‘‘South Coast’’), 

the San Joaquin Valley Area (‘‘San 

Joaquin Valley’’), and the Southeast 

Desert Modified Air Quality 

Maintenance Area (‘‘Southeast Desert’’). 

These proposed determinations are 

based on three years of quality-assured 

and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the period 

preceding the applicable attainment 

deadline. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0638, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: Doris Lo at 

lo.doris@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), at fax number 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. 

5. Hand or Courier Delivery: Doris Lo, 

Air Planning Section (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011– 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56695 

1For ease of communication, many reports of 

ozone concentrations are given in parts per billion 

(ppb); ppb = ppm × 1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 

120 ppb (or between 120 to 124 ppb, when 

rounding is considered). 

2An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances is a 

statistical term that refers to an arithmetic average. 

An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances may be 

equivalent to the number of observed exceedances 

plus an increment that accounts for incomplete 

sampling. See, 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. 

Because, in this context, the term ‘‘exceedances’’ 

refers to days (during which the daily maximum 

hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), 

the maximum possible number of exceedances in a 

given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap year). 

3The South Coast includes Orange County, the 

southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, 

southwestern San Bernardino County, and western 

Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305). 

4San Joaquin Valley includes all of Fresno, Kings, 

Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and 

Tulare counties, as well as the western half of Kern 

County (see 40 CFR 81.305). 

5The Southeast Desert covers the Victor Valley/ 

Barstow region in San Bernardino County, the 

Coachella Valley region in Riverside County, and 

the Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County 

(see 40 CFR 81.305). 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail that you consider to be CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Office (Air-2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection during normal 

business hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, (415) 972–3959, or by e-mail 

at lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

II. Background 

III. What is EPA’s analysis? 

A. South Coast One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

B. San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

C. Southeast Desert One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

IV. What is the effect of the proposed 

determinations? 

V. Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine, under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), that 

three areas previously designated 

nonattainment for the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS—the South Coast, the San 

Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast 

Desert—failed to attain the NAAQS for 

one-hour ozone by their applicable onehour NAAQS attainment dates. 

II. Background 

Regulatory Context 

The Act requires us to establish 

NAAQS for certain widespread 

pollutants that cause or contribute to air 

pollution that is reasonably anticipated 

to endanger public health or welfare 

(sections 108 and 109 of the Act). In 

1979, we promulgated the revised onehour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) (44 FR 8202, February 8, 

1979).1

An area is considered to have attained 

the one-hour ozone standard if there are 

no violations of the standard, as 

determined in accordance with the 

regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9, 

based on three consecutive calendar 

years of complete, quality-assured and 

certified monitoring data. A violation 

occurs when the ambient ozone air 

quality monitoring data show greater 

than one (1.0) ‘‘expected number’’ of 

exceedances per year at any site in the 

area, when averaged over three 

consecutive calendar years.2 An 

exceedance occurs when the maximum 

hourly ozone concentration during any 

day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more 

information, please see ‘‘National 1- 

hour primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 

50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1–Hour 

Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

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

The Act, as amended in 1990, 

required EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any area that was 

violating the one-hour ozone standard, 

generally based on air quality 

monitoring data from the 1987 through 

1989 period (section 107(d)(4) of the 

Act; 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). 

The Act further classified these areas, 

based on the severity of their 

nonattainment problem, as Marginal, 

Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. 

The control requirements and date by 

which attainment of the one-hour ozone 

standard was to be achieved varied with 

an area’s classification. Marginal areas 

were subject to the fewest mandated 

control requirements and had the 

earliest attainment date, November 15, 

1993, while Severe and Extreme areas 

were subject to more stringent planning 

requirements and were provided more 

time to attain the standard. Two 

measures that are triggered if a Severe 

or Extreme area fails to attain the 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date are contingency measures [section 

172(c)(9)] and a major stationary source 

fee provision [sections 182(d)(3) and 

185)] (‘‘major source fee program’’ or 

‘‘section 185 fee program’’). 

Designations and Classifications 

On November 6, 1991, EPA 

designated the South Coast 3 as 

‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment for the onehour ozone standard, with an 

attainment date no later than November 

15, 2010 (56 FR 56694). In its November 

6, 1991 final rule, EPA designated the 

San Joaquin Valley 4 as ‘‘Serious’’ 

nonattainment for the one-hour ozone 

standard, but later reclassified the valley 

as ‘‘Severe’’ (66 FR 56476, November 8, 

2001), and then as ‘‘Extreme’’ (69 FR 

20550, April 16, 2004) for the one-hour 

ozone standard, with the same 

attainment date (November 15, 2010) as 

the South Coast. In its 1991 final rule, 

EPA designated the Southeast Desert 5

as ‘‘Severe-17’’ nonattainment for the 

one-hour ozone standard, with an 

attainment date no later than November 

15, 2007. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

56696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6 ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 

refers to: ‘‘(a) all land within the limits of any 

Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, notwithstanding the 

issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation, (b) all dependent 

Indian communities within the borders of the 

United States whether within the original or 

subsequently acquired territory thereof, and 

whether within or without the limits of a state, and 

(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which 

have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way 

running through the same.’’ 

7Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1, 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 

8 Generally, a ‘‘complete’’ data set for determining 

attainment of the ozone is one that includes three 

years of data with an average percent of days with 

valid monitoring data greater than 90% with no 

single year less than 75%. See 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix I. There are less stringent data 

requirements for showing that a monitor has failed 

an attainment test and thus has recorded a violation 

of the standard. 

9The average number of expected exceedances is 

determined by averaging the expected exceedances 

of the one-hour ozone standard over a consecutive 

three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 

appendix H. 

10See, e.g., letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, 

Air Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA 

Outside of Indian country,6 the South 

Coast lies within the jurisdiction of the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD). Similarly, with the 

exception of Indian country, San 

Joaquin Valley lies within the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD). Likewise, 

excluding Indian country, the Los 

Angeles portion of the Southeast Desert 

lies within the Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD), the San Bernardino County 

portion of the Southeast Desert lies 

within the Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District (MDAQMD), and 

the Riverside County portion of the 

Southeast Desert lies within the 

SCAQMD. 

Under California law, each air district 

is responsible for adopting and 

implementing stationary source rules, 

such as the fee program rules required 

under CAA section 185, while the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

adopts and implements consumer 

products and mobile source rules. The 

district and state rules are submitted to 

EPA by CARB. 

Transition From One-Hour Ozone 

Standard to Eight-Hour Ozone Standard 

In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, 

more protective standard for ozone 

based on an eight-hour average 

concentration (the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone standard). In 2004, EPA 

published the 1997 eight-hour ozone 

designations and classifications and a 

rule governing certain facets of 

implementation of the eight-hour ozone 

standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23858 

and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April 30, 

2004). 

Although EPA revoked the one-hour 

ozone standard (effective June 15, 2005), 

to comply with anti-backsliding 

requirements of the Act, eight-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas remain 

subject to certain requirements based on 

their one-hour ozone classification. 

Initially, in our rules to address the 

transition from the one-hour to the 

eight-hour ozone standard, EPA did not 

include contingency measures or the 

section 185 fee program among the 

measures retained as one-hour ozone 

anti-backsliding requirements.7

However, on December 23, 2006, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit determined 

that EPA should not have excluded 

these requirements from its antibacksliding requirements. South Coast 

Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 

472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) reh’g 

denied 489 F.3d 1245 (clarifying that 

the vacatur was limited to the issues on 

which the court granted the petitions for 

review). 

Thus, the Court vacated the 

provisions that excluded these 

requirements. As a result, States must 

continue to meet the obligations for onehour ozone NAAQS contingency 

measures and, for Severe and Extreme 

areas, major source fee programs. EPA 

has issued a proposed rule that would 

remove the vacated provisions of 40 

CFR 51.905(e), and that addresses 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain or make reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the onehour standard. See 74 FR 2936, January 

16, 2009 (proposed rule); 74 FR 7027, 

February 12, 2009 (notice of public 

hearing and extension of comment 

period). 

Rationale for Today’s Proposed Action 

After revocation of the one-hour 

ozone standard, EPA must continue to 

provide a mechanism to give effect to 

the one-hour anti-backsliding 

requirements. See SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 

F.3d 882, at 903. In keeping with this 

responsibility with respect to one-hour 

anti-backsliding contingency measures 

and section 185 fee programs for these 

three California areas, EPA proposes to 

determine that each area failed to attain 

the one-hour ozone standard by its 

applicable attainment date. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis? 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality meets the one-hour ozone 

standard is generally based upon three 

years of complete,8 quality-assured and 

certified air quality monitoring data 

gathered at established State and Local 

Air Monitoring Stations (‘‘SLAMS’’) in 

the nonattainment area and entered into 

the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state/local agencies in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to the 

AQS database. Monitoring agencies 

annually certify that these data are 

accurate to the best of their knowledge. 

Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on 

data in its AQS database when 

determining the attainment status of an 

area. See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix H; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR 

part 58, appendices A, C, D and E. All 

data are reviewed to determine the 

area’s air quality status in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

50.9, the one-hour ozone standard is 

attained at a monitoring site when the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 parts per 

million (235 micrograms per cubic 

meter) is equal to or less than 1, as 

determined by 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

H.9

EPA proposes to determine that the 

South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, 

and the Southeast Desert failed to attain 

the one-hour ozone standard by their 

applicable attainment dates; that is, the 

number of expected exceedances at sites 

in each of the three nonattainment areas 

was greater than one per year in the 

period prior to the applicable 

attainment date. These proposed 

determinations are based on three years 

of quality-assured and certified ambient 

air quality monitoring data in AQS for 

the 2008–2010 monitoring period for the 

South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley, 

and quality-assured and certified data in 

AQS for 2005–2007 for the Southeast 

Desert. 

A. South Coast One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

In the South Coast, the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) is responsible for assuring 

that the area meets air quality 

monitoring requirements. SCAQMD 

Annual Network Plans describe the air 

monitoring network and discuss its 

status, as required under 40 CFR 58.10. 

Since 2007, EPA has regularly 

reviewed these annual plans for 

compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

58. With respect to ozone, EPA has 

found that the area’s network plans 

meet the applicable requirements under 

40 CFR part 58.10 Furthermore, we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56697 

Region IX, to Dr. Chung S. Liu, Deputy Executive 

Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, 

SCAQMD, dated November 1, 2010, approving 

SCAQMD’s 2009 Annual Air Quality Monitoring 

Network Plan. 

11See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Barry Wallerstein, 

Executive Officer, SCAQMD, dated March 14, 2011, 

and enclosure titled, ‘‘Technical System Audit 

Report, South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, April 13–April 16, 2010.’’ 

12See, e.g., letter from Chung S. Liu, Deputy 

Executive Office, Science and Technology 

Advancement, SCAQMD, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying 2009 ozone data. 

13See figure 1 in appendix A to SCAQMD’s 

Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 

2010) for a map of SCAQMD’s ozone monitors in 

the South Coast. 

14SCAQMD operates federal equivalent method 

(FEM) monitors for ozone, specifically, Thermo 

Electron model 49i and Teledyne/API 400 series 

ultraviolet absorption monitors. See SCAQMD’s 

Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 

2010). These monitoring devices have an EPA 

designation number EQOA–0880–047 and EQOA– 

0992–087, respectively. See EPA ‘‘List of 

Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods, page 

27 (February 1, 2011), available on the Internet at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html. 

15The criteria for data completeness are met at 

most of the ozone monitors over the 2008–2010 

period, but are not met for the ozone monitors at 

certain stations over the 2008–2010 period: 

Pomona, Morongo Reservation, Mira Loma (Jurupa 

High School), and Fontana. However, with respect 

to these four monitors, the failure to meet the 

completeness criteria does not bear on the question 

of whether the data is complete for the purposes of 

this determination because there are sufficient 

observed exceedances during the relevant threeyear period to establish that the standard was not 

met by the applicable attainment date at those sites. 

See 40 CFR part 50, appendix H, section 3, first 

paragraph. 

concluded in our Technical System 

Audit of the SCAQMD network 

conducted during April 2010, that the 

ambient air monitoring network 

operated by SCAQMD network 

currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of SLAMS monitoring sites for all 

criteria pollutants, and that all of the 

required ozone monitoring sites are 

properly located with respect to 

monitoring objectives, spatial scales and 

other site criteria, as required by 40 CFR 

part 58, appendix D.11 Also, SCAQMD 

annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are quality-assured.12

There were 29 ozone monitoring sites 

located throughout the South Coast in 

calendar years 2008 through 2010: 13 

within Los Angeles County, four within 

Orange County, seven within Riverside 

County, and five within San Bernardino 

County.13 All SCAQMD sites monitor 

ozone concentrations on a continuous 

basis using ultraviolet absorption 

monitors.14 SCAQMD administered 28 

of the 29 sites, and one was 

administered by the Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians. Table 1 summarizes 

the ozone monitoring data from the 

various monitoring sites in the South 

Coast Air Basin by showing the 

expected exceedances per year and as 

an average over the 2008–2010 period. 

The data summarized in Table 1 are 

considered complete for the purposes of 

determining if the standard is met.15

TABLE 1—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SOUTH COAST ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

General location Site (AQS ID) 

Expected 

exceedances 

by year 

Expected 

exceedances 

3-yr average 

2008 2009 2010 2008–2010 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 

East San Gabriel Valley .................... Azusa (06–037–0002) ............................................ 7.0 4.0 0.0 3.6 

East San Fernando Valley ................. Burbank (06–037–1002) ........................................ 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 

South Central Los Angeles County a Lynwood/Compton (06–037–1301/06–037–1302) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

East San Gabriel Valley .................... Glendora (06–037–0016) ....................................... 12.0 7.4 0.0 6.5 

Southwest Coastal LA County ........... Los Angeles—LAX (06–037–5005) ....................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

South Coastal LA County .................. North Long Beach (06–037–4002) ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Central Los Angeles .......................... Los Angeles-N. Main Street (06–037–1103) ......... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 

West San Gabriel Valley ................... Pasadena (06–037–2005) ...................................... 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 

South San Gabriel Valley .................. Pico Rivera (06–037–1602) ................................... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 

Pomona/Walnut Valley ...................... Pomona (06–037–1701) ........................................ 5.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 

West San Fernando Valley ................ Reseda (06–037–1201) ......................................... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 

Santa Clarita Valley ........................... Santa Clarita (06–037–6012) ................................. 8.1 5.1 1.1 4.8 

Northwest Coastal LA County ........... West Los Angeles (06–037–0113) ........................ 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 

ORANGE COUNTY: 

Central Orange County ...................... Anaheim (06–059–0007) ........................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

North Coastal Orange County ........... Costa Mesa (06–059–1003) .................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

North Orange County ........................ La Habra (06–059–5001) ....................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Saddleback Valley ............................. Mission Viejo (06–059–2022) ................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY: 

Banning Airport .................................. Banning (06–065–0012) ......................................... 10.0 1.0 0.0 3.7

Banning Airport b ................................ Morongo Reservation (06–065–1016) ................... 12.1 2.7 4.0 6.3 

Lake Elsinore ..................................... Lake Elsinore (06–065–9001) ................................ 6.1 1.0 0.0 2.4 

Mira Loma .......................................... Mira Loma—Jurupa High School (06–065–0004) 6.9 1.1 0.0 2.7 

Mira Loma .......................................... Mira Loma—Van Buren (06–065–8005) ................ 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 

Perris Valley ....................................... Perris (06–065–6001) ............................................ 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.7 

Metropolitan Riverside County .......... Rubidoux (06–065–8001) ....................................... 8.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: 

Central San Bernardino Mountains ... Crestline (06–071–0005) ........................................ 16.2 7.0 8.0 10.4 

Central San Bernardino Valley .......... Fontana (06–071–2002) ......................................... 8.1 3.0 2.8 4.6 

East San Bernardino Valley .............. Redlands (06–071–4003) ....................................... 12.0 1.0 1.0 4.7 

Central San Bernardino Valley .......... San Bernardino (06–071–9004) ............................. 11.1 2.0 1.0 4.7 

Northwest San Bernardino Valley ..... Upland (06–071–1004) .......................................... 9.1 3.0 1.0 4.4 

a Data for year 2008 is from the Lynwood monitor, which was relocated to Compton in late 2008. 

bThis site is run by the Morongo Tribe of Mission Indians on the Morongo Reservation. It is not part of the SCAQMD monitoring network. 

Source: Quicklook Report, June 16, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

56698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

16See, e.g., letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, 

Air Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA 

Region IX, to Scott Nester, Planning Director, 

SJVUAPCD, dated November 1, 2010, approving 

SJVUAPCD’s 2009 Ambient Air Monitoring 

Network Plan. 

17A primary quality assurance organization is 

responsible for a group of monitoring stations for 

which data quality assessments can be pooled. See 

40 CFR 58.1. CARB is the lead PQAO for all the air 

districts in the Sacramento Metro Area. 

18See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air 

Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical 

Support Division, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2010 ambient air quality 

data and quality assurance data, dated April 28, 

2011. 

19See, e.g., letter from Seyed Sadredin, Executive 

Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, letter to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. 

EPA Region IX, certifying in part calendar year 2010 

ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, 

dated June 13, 2011. The District’s 2010 partial 

certification dated June 13, 2011 covered ozone 

data. 

20See figure 1 in SJVUAPCD’s Air Monitoring 

Network Plan (June 30, 2010) for a map of the ozone 

monitors in the San Joaquin Valley. 

21The criteria for data completeness are met at 

most of the ozone monitors over the 2008–2010 

period, but are not met for the ozone monitors at 

certain stations over the 2008–2010 period: Fresno 

(Drummond Street), Clovis, Hanford/Corcoran, and 

Sequoia National Park (06–017–0009). However, 

with respect to all of these monitors except for 

Fresno (Drummond Street), the failure to meet the 

completeness criteria does not bear on the question 

of whether the data is complete for the purposes of 

this determination because there are sufficient 

observed exceedances during the relevant threeyear period to establish that the standard was not 

met by the applicable attainment date at those sites. 

See 40 CFR part 50, appendix H, section 3, first 

paragraph. Moreover, despite the lack of complete 

data from Fresno (Drummond Street), sufficient 

data from the network as a whole exist to support 

the proposed determination of failure to attain the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date within the San Joaquin Valley. 

Generally, the highest ozone 

concentrations in the South Coast occur 

in the northern and eastern portions of 

the area. As shown in Table 1, the 

highest three-year average of expected 

exceedances at any site in the South 

Coast Air Basin for 2008–2010 is 10.4 (at 

Crestline, a site located at 4,500 feet 

elevation in the San Bernardino 

Mountains). The calculated exceedance 

rate of 10.4 represents a violation of the 

one-hour ozone standard (a three-year 

average of expected exceedances less 

than or equal to 1). For more 

information, please see ‘‘National 1- 

hour primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 

50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour 

Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

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

Table 1 also shows that, while the most 

frequent violations occur in the San 

Bernardino Mountains, violations are 

widespread in eastern Riverside County 

and southwestern San Bernardino 

County as well as the Santa Clarita and 

east San Gabriel valleys in Los Angeles 

County. 

Taking into account the extent and 

reliability of the applicable ozone 

monitoring network, and the data 

collected therefrom and summarized in 

Table 1, we propose to determine that 

the South Coast Air Basin failed to 

attain the one-hour ozone standard (as 

defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) 

by the applicable attainment date (i.e., 

November 15, 2010). 

B. San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

In the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

are the agencies responsible for assuring 

that the area meets air quality 

monitoring requirements. The SLAMS 

network of ozone monitors in the valley 

includes monitors operated by 

SJVUAPCD and monitors operated by 

CARB. SJVUAPCD submits annual 

monitoring network plans to EPA. 

SJVUAPCD Network Plans describe the 

various monitoring sites operated by 

SJVUAPCD as well as those operated by 

CARB. These plans discuss the status of 

the air monitoring network, as required 

under 40 CFR 58.10. See SJVUAPCD’s 

Air Monitoring Network Plan, dated 

June 30, 2010. 

As noted above for the South Coast, 

EPA regularly reviews these annual 

plans for compliance with the 

applicable reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, EPA 

has found that the area’s network plans 

meet the applicable requirements under 

40 CFR part 58.16 Furthermore, we 

concluded in our Technical System 

Audit of the CARB Primary Quality 

Assurance Organization (PQAO),17

conducted during summer 2007, that, 

with one exception, the combined 

ambient air monitoring network 

operated by CARB and SJVUAPCD in 

the San Joaquin Valley currently meets 

or exceeds the requirements for the 

minimum number of SLAMS 

monitoring sites for ozone. In our audit, 

we found that our regulations required 

an additional ozone monitor in the 

Visalia-Porterville Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) to meet the 

minimum SLAMS monitoring 

requirements. In response, SJVUAPCD 

opened an ozone monitoring station in 

Porterville. The new station began 

reporting ozone data in March 2010. 

CARB annually certifies that the data 

the agency submits to AQS are qualityassured, including data collected by 

CARB at monitoring sites in San Joaquin 

Valley.18 SJVUAPCD does the same for 

monitors operated by the District.19

There were 22 ozone monitoring sites 

located throughout the San Joaquin 

Valley in calendar years 2008 through 

2010: six within Kern County, five 

within Fresno County, three within 

Tulare County, two within Kings, San 

Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, and 

one each in Madera and Merced 

counties.20 All of the sites monitor 

ozone concentrations on a continuous 

basis using ultraviolet absorption 

monitors. CARB or SJVUAPCD operate 

19 of the 22 ozone monitoring sites; the 

National Park Service operates two 

ozone monitoring sites in Sequoia 

National Park in Tulare County; and the 

Tachi-Yokut Tribe operates an ozone 

monitor at the Santa Rosa Rancheria in 

Kings County. 

Table 2 summarizes the ozone 

monitoring data from the various 

monitoring sites in the San Joaquin 

Valley by showing the expected 

exceedances per year and as an average 

over the 2008–2010 period. The data 

summarized in Table 2 are considered 

complete for the purposes of 

determining if the standard is met.21

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56699 

22Under CAA section 319(b)(1)(A), the term 

‘‘exceptional event’’ means an event that—(i) 

Affects air quality; (ii) is not reasonably controllable 

or preventable; (iii) is an event caused by human 

activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular 

location or a natural event; and (iv) is determined 

by the Administrator through the process 

established in the regulations promulgated under 

paragraph (2) to be an exceptional event. Under 

CAA section 319(b)(1)(B), the term ‘‘exceptional 

event’’ does not include—(i) Stagnation of air 

masses or meteorological inversions; (ii) a 

meteorological event involving high temperatures 

or lack of precipitation; or (iii) air pollution relating 

to source noncompliance. EPA’s regulations 

referred to in CAA section 309(b)(1)(A) were 

promulgated at 40 CFR 50.14. 

TABLE 2—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

Site (AQS ID) 

Expected 

exceedances 

by year 

Expected 

exceedances 

3-yr average 

2008 2009 2010 2008–2010 

FRESNO COUNTY: 

Clovis (06–019–5001) ............................................................................................................ 8.3 0.0 3.0 3.8 

Fresno—Drummond Street (06–019–0007) ........................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Fresno—North First Street (06–019–0008) ............................................................................ 7.1 0.0 2.0 3.0 

Fresno—Sierra Skypark #2 (06–019–0242) ........................................................................... 2.1 0.0 2.4 1.5 

Parlier (06–019–4001) ............................................................................................................ 2.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 

KERN COUNTY: 

Arvin (06–029–5001) .............................................................................................................. 14.3 3.1 2.4 6.6 

Bakersfield (06–029–0014) .................................................................................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Edison (06–029–0007) ........................................................................................................... 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.7 

Maricopa (06–029–0008) ....................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Oildale (06–029–0232) ........................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Shafter (06–029–6001) ........................................................................................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

KINGS COUNTY: 

Hanford/Corcoran a (06–031–1004/06–031–0004) ................................................................. 4.4 0.0 2.7 2.4 

Santa Rosa Rancheria (06–031–0500) .................................................................................. 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 

MADERA COUNTY: 

Madera (06–039–0004) .......................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

MERCED COUNTY: 

Merced (06–047–0003) .......................................................................................................... 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: 

Stockton (06–077–1002) ........................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tracy (06–077–3005) ............................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

STANISLAUS COUNTY: 

Modesto (06–099–0005) ........................................................................................................ 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Turlock (06–099–0006) .......................................................................................................... 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.3 

TULARE COUNTY: 

Sequoia National Park—Lower Kaweah (06–107–0006) ....................................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Sequoia National Park—Sequoia and Kings Canyon Nat’l Park (06–107–0009) ................. 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 

Visalia (06–107–2002) ............................................................................................................ 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

aThe data reflect the combined data from the Corcoran site (2008 and 2009) and the Hanford site (2010). The Hanford site was closed due to 

renovation during 2008 and 2009, and an ozone monitor was added to the Corcoran site to serve as a temporary replacement during the renovation. 

Source: Quicklook Report, May 19, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). 

It should be noted that CARB and 

SJVUAPCD have flagged certain ozone 

exceedances in years 2008 and 2010 as 

exceptional events,22 but because EPA 

has not yet concurred on, or determined 

to exclude, any of the flagged events, 

Table 2 includes the flagged data. 

Generally, the highest ozone 

concentrations in San Joaquin Valley 

occur in the central (i.e., in and around 

the city of Fresno) and the southern 

portions (i.e., southeast of Bakersfield) 

of the area. As shown in Table 2, the 

highest three-year average of expected 

exceedances at any site in the San 

Joaquin Valley for 2008–2010 is 6.6 at 

Arvin, a site located with mountains to 

the east, west, and south. The calculated 

exceedance rate of 6.6 represents a 

violation of the one-hour ozone 

standard (a three-year average of 

expected exceedances less than or equal 

to 1). Even if EPA were to concur on all 

of the flagged exceedances and 

determine that they qualify for 

exclusion for the purpose of 

determining attainment, the calculated 

exceedance rate at Arvin would be 3.9, 

which still constitutes a violation of the 

standard. 

Taking into account the extent and 

reliability of the applicable ozone 

monitoring network, and the data 

collected therefrom and summarized in 

Table 2, we propose to determine that 

the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain 

the one-hour ozone standard (as defined 

in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by the 

applicable attainment date (i.e., 

November 15, 2010). 

C. Southeast Desert One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

In the Southeast Desert, CARB is the 

agency responsible for assuring that the 

area meets air quality monitoring 

requirements. The Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) operates monitors in the 

Los Angeles County portion of the 

Southeast Desert; the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) operates monitors in the 

San Bernardino County portion of the 

Southeast Desert; and SCAQMD operate 

monitors in the Riverside County 

portion of the Southeast Desert. All 

three agencies submit annual 

monitoring network plans to EPA. These 

plans discuss the status of the air 

monitoring network, as required under 

40 CFR 58.10. 

SCAQMD’s annual network plans and 

data certifications, as well as EPA’s TSA 

of SCAQMD’s ambient air monitoring 

program, are discussed above in 

connection with the South Coast Air 

Basin. With respect to the annual 

network plans submitted by AVAQMD 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

56700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

23See, e.g., letter dated April 30, 2008 from Sean 

P. Hogan, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, 

EPA Region IX, to Eldon Heaston, Executive 

Director, MDAQMD. 

24See, e.g., letter dated June 27, 2007 from Chris 

Collins, A/Q Supervisor, MDAQMD, to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2006 ambient air quality 

data in both MDAQMD and AVAQMD. 

25See figures 5 and 11 from CARB’s State and 

Local Air Monitoring Network Plan (June 2009) for 

illustrations of the locations of the ozone monitors 

within the Southeast Desert. 

26AVAQMD and MDAQMD operate Federal 

Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors for ozone, 

specifically, Teledyne/API 400 series ultraviolet 

absorption monitors. 

27The criteria for data completeness are met at all 

of the ozone monitors in the Southeast Desert over 

the 2005–2007 period except for the ozone monitor 

at the Joshua Tree National Park (06–065–0008). 

Despite the lack of complete data from that one 

monitor, sufficient data from the network as a 

whole exist to support the proposed determination 

of failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date within the Southeast 

Desert. 

28A preliminary review of more recent data 

(2008–2010) for the Southeast Desert suggests that 

only one monitoring site (the site in Phelan, San 

Bernardino County) remains in violation of the onehour ozone standard with a calculated expected 

annual exceedance rate of 1.7. However, due to the 

four exceedances recorded in 2010, the soonest that 

the Phelan site could be determined to be attaining 

the one-hour ozone standard will be in 2014 

(assuming such a determination is supported by 

2011–2013 data). 

and MDAQMD, we have reviewed these 

plans and found that they meet the 

applicable requirements for such 

plans.23 The TSA we conducted in 2007 

of the CARB PQAO included a review 

of the network requirements in 

AVAQMD and MDAQMD. In the TSA, 

we concluded that the combined 

ambient air monitoring networks 

operated by CARB and the air districts 

currently meet or exceed the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone in 

the Southeast Desert. Also, AVAQMD 

and MDAQMD annually certify that the 

data submitted to AQS are qualityassured.24

There were nine ozone monitoring 

sites located throughout the Southeast 

Desert in calendar years 2005 through 

2007: one in Los Angeles County, three 

in Riverside County, and five in San 

Bernardino County.25 All of the sites 

monitor ozone concentrations on a 

continuous basis using ultraviolet 

absorption monitors.26 AVAQMD 

operates the one monitor in Los Angeles 

County. SCAQMD operates two of the 

three monitors in Riverside County; the 

third monitor is operated by the 

National Park Service at Joshua Tree 

National Park. MDAQMD operates four 

of the five sites in San Bernardino 

County; the fifth monitor is operated by 

the National Park Service at Joshua Tree 

National Park. 

Table 3 summarizes the ozone 

monitoring data from the various 

monitoring sites in the Southeast Desert, 

showing the expected exceedances per 

year and as an average over the 2005– 

2007 period. The data summarized in 

Table 3 are considered complete for the 

purposes of determining if the standard 

is met.27

TABLE 3—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SOUTHEAST DESERT ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

General location Site (AWS ID) 

Expected exceedances by 

year 

Expected 

exceedances 

3-yr average 

2005 2006 2007 2005–2007 

Antelope Valley ............................................. Lancaster (06–037–9033) .................................. 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 

Coachella Valley ........................................... Indio (06–065–2002) .......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Joshua Tree National Park ........................... Cottonwood Visitor Center (06–065–0008) ........ NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Coachella Valley ........................................... Palm Springs (06–065–5001) ............................. 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.3 

Northern portion of SE Desert AQMA .......... Barstow (06–071–0001) ..................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

SW portion of SE Desert AQMA .................. Hesperia (06–071–4001) .................................... 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 

SW portion of SE Desert AQMA .................. Phelan (06–071–0012) ....................................... 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.3 

SW portion of SE Desert AQMA .................. Victorville (06–071–0306) ................................... 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 

Joshua Tree National Park ........................... Yucca Valley (06–071–9002) ............................. 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 

NA = No data is available. 

Source: Quicklook Report, May 11, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). 

Generally, the highest ozone 

concentrations in the Southeast Desert 

occur in the far southwestern portion of 

the area, near mountain passes through 

which pollutants are transported to the 

Southeast Desert from the South Coast 

Air Basin. As shown in Table 3, the 

highest three-year average of expected 

exceedances at any site in the Southeast 

Desert for 2005–2007 is 2.3 at Palm 

Springs in Riverside County and 

Hesperia in San Bernardino County. The 

calculated exceedance rate of 2.3 

represents a violation of the one-hour 

ozone standard (a three-year average of 

expected exceedances less than or equal 

to 1).28

Taking into account the extent and 

reliability of the applicable ozone 

monitoring network, and the data 

collected therefrom and summarized in 

Table 3, we propose to determine that 

the Southeast Desert failed to attain the 

one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 

40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by the 

applicable attainment date (i.e., 

November 15, 2007). 

IV. What is the effect of the proposed 

determinations? 

A final determination of a Severe or 

Extreme area’s failure to attain by its 

one-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date 

would trigger the obligation to 

implement one-hour contingency 

measures for failure to attain under 

section 172(c)(9) and fee programs 

under sections 182(d)(3), 182(f), and 

185. Section 172(c)(9) requires one-hour 

ozone SIPs, other than for ‘‘Marginal’’ 

areas, to provide for implementation of 

specific measures (referred to herein as 

‘‘contingency measures’’) to be 

undertaken if the area fails to attain the 

NAAQS by the attainment date. The 

effect of the proposed determinations 

would be to give effect to any one-hour 

ozone contingency measures that are not 

already in effect within the three subject 

California nonattainment areas. 

Section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to 

include the provisions required under 

section 185, and section 185 requires 

one-hour ozone SIPs in areas classified 

as ‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ to provide 

that, if the area has failed to attain the 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date, each major stationary source of 

ozone precursors located in the area 

must begin paying a fee [computed in 

accordance with section 185(b)] to the 

State. Section 182(f) extends the section 

185 requirements, among others, that 

apply to major stationary sources of 

VOCs to major stationary sources of 

NOX unless EPA has waived such 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56701 

requirements for NOX sources in the 

particular nonattainment area. 

The three subject ozone 

nonattainment areas, the South Coast, 

the San Joaquin Valley, and the 

Southeast Desert, lie within the 

jurisdictions of four California air 

districts: The SCAQMD, the SJVUAPCD, 

the AVAQMD, and the MDAQMD. Each 

of the four air districts has adopted rules 

intended to comply with sections 

182(d)(3) and 185 of the Act and CARB 

has submitted them to EPA for approval 

into the SIP. EPA has taken action on 

one of the rules, SJVUAPCD Rule 3170. 

See 75 FR 1716 (January 13, 2010). 

Since then, SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 has 

been revised, and EPA has recently 

proposed approval of the amended rule. 

See 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011). EPA 

has not yet taken action on the rules 

developed by the other three districts 

(SCAQMD Rule 317, AVAQMD Rule 

315, and MDAQMD Rule 315, all of 

which were submitted on April 22, 

2011). Another effect of the proposed 

determinations of failure to attain the 1- 

hour ozone standard by the applicable 

attainment dates would be to give effect 

to the section 185 requirements to the 

extent they are not already in effect 

within the three subject California 

nonattainment areas. 

V. Proposed Actions 

Under EPA’s authority under CAA 

section 301(a) to ensure implementation 

of one-hour ozone anti-backsliding 

requirements, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the South Coast, the San 

Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert 

failed to attain the one-hour ozone 

standard by the applicable attainment 

dates. For South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley, quality-assured and certified 

data collected during 2008–2010 show 

that these two ‘‘Extreme’’ one-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas failed to 

attain the standard by November 15, 

2010. For Southeast Desert, a ‘‘Severe17’’ one-hour ozone nonattainment area, 

quality-assured and certified data for 

2005–2007 show that the area failed to 

attain the standard by November 15, 

2007. 

These proposed determinations, if 

finalized, would bear on the areas’ 

obligations with respect to certain onehour standard anti-backsliding 

requirements whose implementation is 

triggered by a failure to attain by the 

applicable attainment date: section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures for 

failure to attain and sections 182(d)(3) 

and 185 major stationary source fee 

programs. Through this proposed rule, 

EPA is soliciting comments on the 

above determinations. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

These actions propose to make 

determinations that certain areas did not 

attain the applicable standard based on 

air quality, and do not impose any 

requirements beyond those required by 

statute. For that reason, these proposed 

actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ 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 the 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 

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, this proposed rule does 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 1, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23544 Filed 9–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0604–201140; FRL– 

9464–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Georgia: Atlanta; 

Determination of Attaining Data for the 

1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two 

determinations regarding the Atlanta, 

Georgia, fine particulate (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Atlanta Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). First, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Area has attained the 1997 annual 

average PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). This 

proposed determination of attaining 

data is based upon complete, qualityassured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2008–2010 

period showing that the Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA finalizes 

this proposed determination of attaining 

data, the requirements for the Area to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

related to attainment of the standard 

shall be suspended so long as the Area 

continues to attain the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Second, EPA is also proposing 

to determine, based on quality-assured 

and certified monitoring data for the 

2007–2009 monitoring period, that the 

area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by its applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2010. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0604, by one of the 

following methods: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS