36400 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE OF § 165.T01–0477—Continued 

FIREWORKS DISPLAY EVENTS

• Location: Waters of Oyster Bay Harbor in Long Island Sound off 

Oyster Bay, NY in approximate position 40°53′42.50′′ N, 

073°30′04.30′′ W (NAD 83). 

9 Islip Fireworks ................................................................................... • Date: July 4, 2012. 

• Rain Date: July 5, 2012. 

• Location: Waters of the Great South Bay off Bay Shore Manor Park, 

Islip, NY in approximate position 40°42′24′′ N, 073°14′24′′ W (NAD 

83). 

10 Madison Fireworks ............................................................................. • Date: July 4, 2012. 

• Rain Date: July 7, 2012. 

• Location: Waters of Long Island Sound off Madison Beach in Madison, CT in approximate position 41°16′3.93′′ N, 072°36′15.97′′ W 

(NAD 83). 

11 Stratford Fireworks ............................................................................ • Date: July 3, 2012. 

• Rain Date: July 5, 2012. 

• Location: Waters of Long Island Sound surrounding Short Beach 

Park in Stratford, CT in approximate position 41°09′50.82′′ N, 

073°6′47.13′′ W (NAD 83). 

12 Rowayton Fireworks ......................................................................... • Date: July 4, 2012. 

• Rain Date: July 5, 2012. 

• Location: Waters of Long Island Sound south of Bayley Beach Park 

in Rowayton, CT in approximate position 41°03′11′′ N, 073°26′41′′ W 

(NAD 83). 

13 Quarentello Wedding Fireworks ....................................................... • Date: July 21, 2012. 

• Rain Date: None. 

• Location: Waters of the Great South Bay south east of Brown Point 

in Sayville, NY in approximate position 40°43′19′′ N, 073°03′53′′ W 

(NAD 83). 

14 Niantic Bay Fireworks ....................................................................... • Date: July 6, 2012. 

• Rain Date: July 7, 2012. 

• Location: Waters of Niantic Bay 1500 feet west of the Niantic River 

Railroad Bridge in Niantic, CT in approximate position 41°19′22.59′′ 

N, 072°11′3.47′′ W (NAD 83). 

Dated: June 7, 2012. 

J.M. Vojvodich, 

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

Port Sector Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14847 Filed 6–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0775; FRL–9688–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Determination of Failure To Attain the 

1-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action 

to determine that the Houston/ 

Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) area did not 

attain the 1-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

by its applicable attainment date, 

November 15, 2007. This determination 

is based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the period 

preceding the applicable attainment 

deadline. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 19, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0775. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act Review Room between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

(214) 665–7253 to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth W. Boyce, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–7259; fax number 

214–665–7263; email address 

boyce.kenneth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

the EPA. 

Outline 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA’s Proposed Action 

The background for today’s action is 

discussed in detail in our February 1, 

2012, proposal (77 FR 4937). In that 

notice, EPA proposed to determine, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36401 

1 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991 and CAA 

section 181(a)(1). 

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

the HGB ozone nonattainment area 

failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its applicable 1-hour 

NAAQS attainment date of November 

15, 2007. The proposal was based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the period 

preceding the applicable attainment 

deadline (2005–2007). 

The CAA, as amended in 1990, 

required EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any area that was 

violating the 1-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 1-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 linked to a 

determination that a Severe or Extreme 

area failed 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’’). 

Designation and Classification 

The HGB area consists of Brazoria, 

Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, 

Liberty, Montgomery and Waller 

counties in Texas. Upon the date of 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, the HGB area was 

classified as a severe ozone 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As noted above, severe and 

extreme areas are subject to more 

stringent planning requirements but 

were provided more time to attain the 

ozone standard. The HGB 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area was classified as 

severe 17. As a result, the attainment 

date for the HGB area was November 15, 

2007.1

Technical Evaluation 

As we more fully explained in our 

February 1, 2012, proposal (77 FR 4937), 

a determination of whether an area’s air 

quality meets the 1-hour ozone standard 

is generally based upon three years of 

complete, 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 1-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. 

EPA has determined that the HGB 

area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by its applicable attainment 

date; that is, the number of expected 

exceedances at sites in the 

nonattainment area was greater than one 

per year in the period prior to the 

applicable attainment date. This 

determination is based on three years of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data in 

AQS for the 2005–2007 monitoring 

period for the HGB area. Please see our 

February 1, 2012, proposal (77 FR 4937) 

for a more complete description and 

summary of the monitoring data relied 

upon for this determination. 

Comment Received on the Proposed 

Rulemaking 

The comment period on the proposed 

rulemaking closed on March 2, 2012 

and EPA received no comments. On 

May 14, 2012, more than two months 

after the close of the comment period, 

the BCCA Appeal Group and the 

Section 185 Working Group (‘‘the 

groups’’ or ‘‘BCCA’’) submitted a late 

comment opposing EPA’s determination 

that Houston failed to attain the 1-hour 

ozone standard by its attainment 

deadline. The groups acknowledged that 

this late comment—the only comment 

submitted by the groups—came after the 

close of the comment period. The 

groups claimed, however, that the 

comment was ‘‘based on legal grounds 

arising after the close of EPA’s comment 

period.’’ The groups contended that an 

EPA rulemaking entitled, ‘‘Final Rule to 

Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard: 

Classification of Areas That Were 

Initially Classified Under Subpart 1: 

Revision to the Anti-backsliding 

Provisions to Address 1-Hour 

Contingency Measure Requirements; 

Deletion of Obsolete 1-Hour Standard 

Provision,’’ 77 FR 28424, 28439 (May 

14, 2012) ‘‘reflects EPA’s final decision 

not to issue further determinations 

whether areas (such as HGB) attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard by the 

applicable attainment dates.’’ The 

commenters claimed that ‘‘it would be 

arbitrary and capricious for EPA to 

ignore the May 14 Rulemaking with 

respect to the HGB area and make a 

finding only with respect to HGB.’’ 

Response to Comment 

EPA believes that there is no 

justification for this late comment. 

EPA’s May 14, 2012 Rulemaking did not 

give rise to any new grounds for 

comment. First, as the commenters 

themselves admit, ‘‘the May 14, rule 

preserves the * * * wording’’ of EPA’s 

regulation at 40 CFR 51.905 (e)(2)(i) 

Thus the commenters concede that the 

May 14 Rulemaking merely preserved 

the regulation, which existed at the time 

of EPA’s proposed determination on 

Houston, and as to which the groups 

could have commented at that time. The 

commenters’ argument, it seems, centers 

on a few sentences, contained in the 

preamble of the May 14 rule, which 

refer to the regulation. The commenters 

offer no explanation for their prior 

failure to address the regulation in 

comments on EPA’s proposed 

determination with respect to Houston. 

See, 77 FR 4937 (Feb. 1, 2012). Since 

commenters do not claim that the May 

14 Rulemaking changed the regulation, 

perhaps what they intend to convey is 

that EPA’s May 14 Rulemaking 

reminded the commenters of the 

regulation’s existence. Despite their 

claim of fresh awareness, however, the 

commenters’ own actions reveal that 

they were closely acquainted with 40 

CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i) and with 

determinations regarding specific antibacksliding requirements. For example, 

in June, 2011, the BCAA Appeal Group 

filed a motion to intervene in the very 

litigation that resulted in EPA’s 

agreement to make final determinations 

on 1-hour ozone attainment for Houston 

and five other areas in the country. 

Sierra Club v. Jackson (D.D.C. Case No. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
36402 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2The settlement agreement deadline was May 31, 

2012, but was extended to June 7, 2012 for the HGB 

area. 

1:11–CV–00100–JDB). In support of 

their motion, BCCA raised the same 

argument relating to determinations 

under this regulatory provision that they 

echo here. Similarly, BCCA took another 

opportunity to comment on the issue of 

the Houston determination in the CAA 

section 113(g) proceedings that EPA 

conducted when it gave notice of the 

settlement agreement that resolved the 

litigation. Ultimately, however, the 

groups failed to submit any comments 

on EPA’s proposed rulemaking to make 

the Houston determination. The 

comment period closed on March 2, 

2012. On May 14—just two weeks prior 

to EPA’s deadline for making a final 

determination under the settlement 

agreement—a deadline known to BCCA, 

as shown by its participation in the 

litigation and section 113(g) process— 

BCCA submitted its comment.2 The late 

comment was submitted under the 

claim that BCCA had just learned of the 

issue through a tangential reference in a 

correction to a footnote contained in a 

separate EPA rulemaking. 

Although EPA believes that we are 

not compelled to respond to BCCA’s late 

comments, since the basis for them 

existed at the time of the original 

proposal, EPA has considered their 

comment, and we address it below. 

As set forth above, EPA’s May 14 

Rulemaking enunciates no new legal 

position to which the comment is 

responding. 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(A) 

and (B) provide that EPA is no longer 

obligated to determine ‘‘pursuant to 

section 181(b)(2) or section 179(c),’’ 

* * *‘‘whether an area attained by its 

deadline the revoked 1-hour standard, 

or to reclassify the area as a result.’’ 40 

CFR 51.905(e)(2). (emphasis added) This 

regulation existed when EPA published 

its February 1, 2012 proposed 

determination for Houston, and EPA’s 

May 14 Rulemaking did not change that 

regulation. The statements in the 

preamble cited by the commenters 

merely corrected a portion of a footnote 

(n.16) in a 2009 proposal 74 FR 2941, 

2942 (January 16, 2009), which had 

erroneously stated that EPA would 

continue to reclassify areas under the 

revoked 1-hour ozone standard. In the 

May 14 Rulemaking, EPA stated: 

‘‘EPA is clarifying that the portion of 

footnote 16 stating the EPA remains 

obligated to make a finding of failure to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by an 

area’s attainment date (under section 

181(b)(2) or section 179(c)) and to 

reclassify the area was erroneous and in 

conflict with 51.905(e)(2)(i).’’ (emphasis 

added). 

Contrary to commenters’ claim, this 

clarification nowhere states that EPA is 

prohibited from or will no longer make 

determinations of failure to attain the 1- 

hour ozone deadlines for the purpose of 

effectuating specific 1-hour antibacksliding requirements as required by 

the court in the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, et al., v. EPA, 472 

F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) reh’g denied 

489 F.3d 1245. 

BCCA‘s comments are ostensibly in 

response to EPA’s February 1, 2012 

proposed determination that the 

Houston nonattainment area failed to 

attain the revoked 1-hour ozone 

standard by its applicable attainment 

date. EPA’s proposal expressly stated 

that this determination is solely for the 

purpose of effectuating the 1-hour ozone 

anti-backsliding requirements for 

section 185 penalty fees and 

contingency measures. While BCCA 

claims that its comment was prompted 

by EPA’s May 14 Rulemaking, that 

Rulemaking specifically declared that it 

did not address 1-hour ozone antibacksliding for section 185 penalty fees, 

and advised that section 185 antibacksliding issues would be addressed 

in other rulemakings. See, 77 FR 28,424 

at 28436 (May 14, 2012). Thus it is 

doubly plain that the paragraph entitled 

‘‘A Correction to a Footnote in Proposed 

Rule’’ in the preamble of the May 14 

Rulemaking was not intended to address 

or to prohibit EPA from proceeding with 

air quality determinations affecting 

section 185 anti-backsliding 

requirements. 

EPA recently published in the Federal 

Register final determinations that three 

California 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas failed to meet their 1-hour ozone 

attainment deadlines. See 76 FR 82133 

(Dec. 30, 2011). The rulemakings show 

that, for the purpose of effectuating 

contingency measures and section 185 

anti-backsliding requirements, EPA 

continues to make determinations of 

failure to attain the 1-hour ozone 

deadlines. The California notices, and 

the responses to comments they contain, 

explain at length EPA’s views of its 

authority and of its obligation to make 

these determinations. See, e.g., 76 FR 

82140. They also demonstrate that there 

is no conflict between 40 CFR 

51.905(e)(2)(i) and EPA’s continuing 

obligations to effectuate specific 1-hour 

ozone anti-backsliding requirements 

through determinations regarding 

attainment deadlines. EPA incorporates 

by reference the extensive discussions 

of these points contained in the 

December 30, 2011 California 

determinations. 

Aside from its proposed and final 

determinations for Houston and the 

California areas, EPA has proposed and 

finalized, also pursuant to the 

settlement agreement, determinations as 

to whether a number of other 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas throughout 

the country attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard by their applicable attainment 

dates. As in the case of Houston, the 

purpose of these determinations is 

limited to effectuating 1-hour ozone 

anti-backsliding requirements. See, 

Baltimore, MD 77 FR 4940 (February 1, 

2012), NY-NJ-CT 77 FR 3720 (January 

25, 2012), Eastern Massachusetts 77 FR 

31496 (May 29, 2012), Western 

Massachusetts 77 FR 25362 (April 30, 

2012), and Greater Connecticut 77 FR 

15607 (March 16, 2012). 

EPA has considered BCCA’s 

comment, and we believe that EPA’s 

responses here will relieve the groups of 

their concerns that EPA is ‘‘ignoring the 

May 14 rule with respect to the 

[Houston] area’’ and also allay their 

fears that EPA makes determinations 

such as this ‘‘only with respect to 

[Houston].’’ 

II. Final Action 

After revocation of the 1-hour 

standard, EPA must continue to provide 

a mechanism to give effect to the 1-hour 

anti-backsliding requirements. See 

SCAQMD v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, at 903. 

As stated in EPA’s proposal, EPA is 

making its determination here pursuant 

to, and solely with the purpose and 

effect of discharging this obligation. As 

EPA stated in its proposal, EPA is 

making this attainment deadline 

determination for the revoked standard 

for the strictly limited purpose of 

effectuating specific 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirements. Based on the 

facts and rationale set forth in our 

February 1, 2012, proposal (77 FR 4937) 

and in today’s rulemaking, EPA has 

determined that the HGB area failed to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its 

applicable attainment date. 

This determination bears solely on the 

HGB’s obligation with respect to two 

required 1-hour anti-backsliding 

measures: i.e., 1-hour contingency 

measures for failure to attain under 

section 172(c)(9), and fee programs 

under sections 182(d)(3) and 185 of the 

CAA. This final determination of failure 

to attain by the area’s 2007 attainment 

date does not result in reclassification of 

the area under the revoked 1-hour 

standard. As a severe 1-hour 

nonattainment area, the HGB area is not 

subject to reclassification for the 1-hour 

standard, and in any event EPA is no 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36403 

longer required to reclassify any area to 

a higher classification for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS based upon a 

determination that the area failed to 

attain that NAAQS by its attainment 

date. 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(B). 

With respect to the 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirement for contingency 

measures, the Texas SIP included 

contingency measures to achieve an 

additional 3 percent reduction in NOx 

and VOC emissions in 2008. The 

contingency measure reductions for 

2008 were to be obtained from on-road 

and off-road mobile control measures 

already being implemented. EPA has 

previously approved the State’s 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration and 

Rate of Progress plans for the HGB area 

which included contingency measures. 

See: 71 FR 52670, 70 FR 7407, 66 FR 

57195, and 66 FR 20750. Thus, the 

reductions from contingency measures 

have already been achieved and 

therefore this final determination of 

failure to attain by the area’s 1-hour 

ozone attainment date would not trigger 

any additional contingency measures. 

With respect to the 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirement for penalty 

fees, section 182(d)(3) of the CAA 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

required by section 185 of the CAA. 

Section 185 requires 1-hour ozone SIPs 

for severe areas to provide a program 

requiring each major stationary source 

of ozone precursors located in the area 

to pay fees to the State when the area 

has failed to attain by the attainment 

date. This final determination of failure 

to attain by the area’s 1-hour attainment 

date bears on the obligation relating to 

implementation of the 1-hour antibacksliding penalty fee program under 

section 182(d)(3) and 185, unless that 

obligation is terminated. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action makes a determination, 

based on air quality, that this area did 

not attain the 1-hour ozone standard, 

and it does not impose any 

requirements beyond those required by 

federal statute or regulation. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is 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); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is 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.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is 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 

• Does 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 it would 

not 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 20, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration 

by the Administrator of this final rule 

does not affect the finality of this action 

for the purposes of judicial review nor 

does it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: June 6, 2012. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. Section 52.2275 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2275 Control strategy and 

regulations: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determinations that Certain Areas 

Did Not Attain the 1-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS. EPA has determined that the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria severe-17 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area did 

not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date of 

November 15, 2007. This determination 

bears on the area’s obligations with 

respect to implementation of two 

specific 1-hour ozone standard antibacksliding requirements: section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures for 

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

and 185 major stationary source fee 

programs. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–14713 Filed 6–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES