4940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

EPA is no longer required to reclassify 

any area to a higher classification for the 

one-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). 

The EPA’s proposed determination 

that the area failed to attain the onehour ozone standard by its applicable 

date, if finalized, would bear on the 

area’s obligations with respect to two 

one-hour ozone anti-backsliding 

requirements whose implementation is 

triggered by a finding of 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. 

With respect to the one-hour ozone 

anti-backsliding 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 one-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 a final 

determination of failure to attain by the 

area’s one-hour ozone attainment date 

would not trigger additional emissions 

reductions. 

With respect to the one-hour ozone 

anti-backsliding requirement for penalty 

fees, section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to 

include provisions required by section 

185. Section 185 requires one-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 if the 

area has failed to attain by the 

attainment date. A final determination 

of failure to attain by the area’s one-hour 

attainment date would trigger the onehour anti-backsliding obligation to 

implement the penalty fee program 

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

that obligation is terminated. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination that this area did not 

attain the one-hour ozone standard 

based on air quality, and does not 

impose any requirements beyond those 

required by 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 a 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. 

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. 

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

Dated: January 24, 2012. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2199 Filed 1–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0680; FRL–9625–4 ] 

Determination of Failure To Attain by 

2005 and Determination of Current 

Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards in the Baltimore 

Nonattainment Area in Maryland 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Baltimore severe 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area failed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment 

date of November 15, 2005, based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for 2003 through 2005. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Baltimore area is 

currently attaining the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This proposed determination 

is based upon the most recent three 

years, 2008–2010, of complete, qualityassured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing the area has 

monitored attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA’s review shows that 

the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS since the 2006–2008 

monitoring period and that it continues 

to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. If 

this latter proposed determination is 

made final, the requirement for the State 

of Maryland to submit contingency 

measures related to attainment of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore 

severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

shall be suspended. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0680 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0680, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 4941 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0680. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ 

‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

The information presented in this 

notice is organized as follows: 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Proposed Determination of Failure To 

Attain by Applicable Attainment Date 

B. Proposed Determination of Current 

Attainment 

II. What is the background for these proposed 

actions? 

A. What are the geographical boundaries of 

the Baltimore area? 

B. What is the history of the ozone 

designations and classifications and the 

1-hour ozone requirements for the 

Baltimore area? 

C. What is the background of 1-hour ozone 

anti-backsliding requirements in the 

transition to the 1997 8-hour ozone rule? 

III. What is the rationale for and effect of 

these proposed determinations for the 

Baltimore area? 

A. What is the rationale for the proposed 

determination of failure to attain by 

applicable attainment date? 

B. What is the status of the Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) regarding the 

1-hour ozone anti-backsliding 

requirement for contingency measures? 

C. What would be the effects of these 

proposed determinations for the 

Baltimore area? 

IV. How does EPA compute whether an area 

complies with the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS? 

A. What is the level and form of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS? 

B. What are the relevant data handling and 

rounding conventions for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS? 

C. How is the number of expected 

exceedance days determined and how is 

attainment determined under the form of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the data 

regarding Baltimore’s attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard? 

A. What is EPA’s analysis of whether the 

Baltimore area attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard by its 2005 attainment 

deadline? 

B. What is EPA’s proposed determination 

of whether the Baltimore area is 

currently attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard? 

VI. Proposed Actions 

A. Proposed Determination of 1-Hour 

Ozone Attainment by the Attainment 

Deadline of November 15, 2005 

B. Proposed Determination That the 

Baltimore Area Is Currently Attaining the 

1-Hour Ozone Attainment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing two separate and 

independent determinations for the 

Baltimore 1-hour severe ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘the 

Baltimore area’’). 

A. Proposed Determination of Failure 

To Attain by Applicable Attainment 

Date 

For the Baltimore area, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the area did 

not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date, 

November 15, 2005. This proposed 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured and certified air quality 

monitoring data for the 2003 through 

2005 ozone seasons. 

B. Proposed Determination of Current 

Attainment 

EPA is also proposing to determine 

that the Baltimore area is currently 

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

based upon complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data showing the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the most recent 3-year period 2008– 

2010. Preliminary data available for 

2011 indicate that the Baltimore area 

continues to attain the standard. EPA’s 

review shows that the area has 

monitored attainment continuously 

since the 2006–2008 monitoring period. 

If this proposed determination is made 

final, the requirement for the State of 

Maryland to submit contingency 

measures related to attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore 

area shall be suspended. 

II. What is the background for these 

proposed actions? 

A. What are the geographical 

boundaries of the Baltimore area? 

The Baltimore area consists of Anne 

Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, 

and Howard Counties and the City of 

Baltimore in Maryland. 

B. What is the history of the ozone 

designations and classifications and the 

1-hour ozone requirements for the 

Baltimore area? 

Pursuant to provisions of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), EPA establishes 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 CAA). In 1979, we 

promulgated the 1-hour ozone standard 

of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 

8202, February 8, 1979). For ease of 

communication, we may informally 

report ozone concentrations in parts per 

billion (ppb) where one-thousand ppb 

equals one ppm. Thus, 0.12 ppm 

becomes 120 ppb or up to 124 ppb when 

rounding is considered. (Rounding is 

further discussed in section IV. B. of 

this document.) 

EPA first designated the Baltimore 

area as an ozone nonattainment area in 

1978. See, 43 FR 8962 at 9001, March 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1This action designated the Metropolitan 

Baltimore Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

(see, 40 CFR 81.28), which has the same boundaries 

as the Baltimore 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, 

as nonattainment for ‘‘photochemical oxidants.’’ 

The term ‘‘photochemical oxidants’’ was replaced 

by ‘‘ozone’’ in a February 8, 1979 final rule (44 FR 

8202 at 8220). 

2Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1, 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 

3For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, RFP was termed 

‘‘rate-of-progress (ROP).’’ 

3, 1978.1 Under the 1990 Amendments 

to the CAA, the CAA designated ‘‘by 

operation of law’’ as nonattainment each 

area of the country that was already 

designated nonattainment for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The Baltimore area was 

one such pre-amendment ozone 

nonattainment area so designated 

nonattainment for ozone. The CAA as 

amended in 1990 further classified ‘‘by 

operation of law’’ each ozone 

nonattainment area as marginal, 

moderate, serious, severe, or extreme 

depending on the severity of the area’s 

air quality problem. See, CAA sections 

107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a). 

The control requirements and date by 

which attainment is to be achieved vary 

with an area’s classification. Marginal 

areas are subject to the fewest mandated 

control requirements and had the 

earliest attainment date, November 15, 

1993, while severe and extreme areas 

are subject to more stringent planning 

requirements and are provided more 

time to attain the standard. Based upon 

air quality monitoring data, the 

Baltimore area was classified as ‘‘severe15’’ with a statutory attainment date of 

November 15, 2005. See, 56 FR 56694, 

November 6, 1991. 

C. What is the background of 1-hour 

ozone anti-backsliding requirements in 

the transition to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

rule? 

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

promulgated a new, more protective 

standard for ozone based on an 8-hour 

average concentration (the ‘‘1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS’’). In an April 30, 2004 

final rule (69 FR 23858), EPA designated 

and classified most areas of the country 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10. We 

designated the Baltimore area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area is composed of the 

same five counties and city as the 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area. We 

classified this area as moderate under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. At the 

time of designation, the same area 

remained in nonattainment for the 

1-hour standard. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

issued a final rule entitled ‘‘Final Rule 

To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 1’’ (the ‘‘Phase 1 

Implementation Rule’’). Among other 

actions, this rule revoked the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore area (as 

well as in most other areas of the 

country), effective June 15, 2005. See, 40 

CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR 23951 at 23996, 

April 30, 2004; and 70 FR 44470, 

August 3, 2005. 

Although EPA revoked the 1-hour 

ozone standard, 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas remain subject to 

certain 1-hour anti-backsliding 

requirements based on their 1-hour 

ozone classification. Initially, in our 

rules to address the transition from the 

1-hour to the 8-hour ozone standard, 

EPA did not include contingency 

measures or the section 185 fee program 

among the measures retained as 1-hour 

ozone anti-backsliding requirements.2

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. See, South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

v. EPA (SCAQMD v. EPA), 472 F.3d 882 

(DC Cir. 2006) rehearing 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 

1-hour 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 1- 

hour 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). 

III. What is the rationale for and effect 

of these proposed determinations for 

the Baltimore area? 

A. What is the rationale for the 

proposed determination of failure to 

attain by applicable attainment date? 

After revocation of the 1-hour ozone 

standard, EPA must continue to provide 

a mechanism to give effect to the 1-hour 

anti-backsliding requirements. See, 

SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. 

In keeping with this responsibility with 

respect to 1-hour anti-backsliding 

contingency measures and section 185 

fee programs, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Baltimore area failed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

its applicable attainment date. 

Consistent with 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2) and 

the South Coast court decision, upon 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

for an area, EPA is no longer obligated 

to determine whether an area has 

attained the 1-hour NAAQS by its 

applicable deadline, except insofar as it 

relates to effectuating the antibacksliding requirements that are 

specifically retained. EPA’s proposed 

determination here—that the area did 

not attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

the November 15, 2005 deadline (based 

on data for 2003–2005) is linked solely 

to two required 1-hour ozone antibacksliding measures: i.e., 1-hour 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain under section 172(c)(9) and fee 

programs under sections 182(d)(3), 

182(f) and 185. 

A final determination of failure to 

attain by the area’s 2005 1-hour ozone 

attainment date will not result in 

reclassification of the area under the 

revoked 1-hour standard. As a severe 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area, the 

Baltimore area is not subject to 

reclassification for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, and in any event EPA is no 

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. See, 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(B). 

EPA’s proposed determination that 

the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by its applicable date, if 

finalized, would bear on the area’s 

obligations with respect to two 1-hour 

ozone anti-backsliding requirements 

whose implementation would be 

triggered by a finding of failure to attain 

by the applicable attainment date: 

section 172(c)(9) contingency measures 

for failure to attain and sections 

182(d)(3) ad 185 major stationary source 

fee programs. 

B. What is the status of the Maryland 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

regarding the 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirement for contingency 

measures? 

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

measures, EPA has previously approved 

the State of Maryland’s 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration, reasonably 

available control measures and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 3

plans, and RFP/ROP contingency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 4943 

4For specifics relating to the RFP/ROP plans for 

the Baltimore area, for example, see the following 

notices of proposed rulemaking: 75 FR 958, January 

7, 2010, and 68 FR 75191, December 30, 2003 

5As noted elsewhere in this proposed 

determination, the monitoring data show that the 

Baltimore area has been attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard continuously since 2008. 

6See, ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ (Clean 

Data Policy) dated May 10, 1995. 

7The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit upheld the provisions of 40 CFR 

51.918, which codified the Clean Data Policy. 

Previously Courts of Appeals for several other 

Circuits upheld the Clean Data Policy under the 

1-hour standard. See, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 

(DC Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 

(10th Cir.1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 

537(7th Cir. 2004) and Our Children’s Earth 

Foundation v. EPA, No. 04–73032 (9thCir. June 28, 

2005) (memorandum opinion). 

measures for Baltimore. See, 66 FR 

49108, September 26, 2001, 66 FR 

54666, Oct. 30, 2001; 68 FR 61103, 

October 27, 2003; 69 FR 7133, February 

13, 2004); 64 FR 70397, December 16, 

1999; 68 FR 40861, July 9, 2003; 65 FR 

4638, July 28, 2000; 66 FR 36964, July 

16, 2001; and September 7, 2001, 66 FR 

44760, September 7, 2001. 

While EPA did not approve 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Baltimore area, EPA has reviewed 

reductions that resulted from measures 

that were not relied upon in the 

attainment demonstration, and believes 

that these measures provided more 

reductions than necessary to serve the 

purpose of contingency measures for 

this area. 

Contingency measures for failure to 

attain aim to provide for a 3 percent 

reduction in emissions. The amount of 

reductions required is computed from 

the same baseline as is used for 

computing reductions needed for RFP/ 

ROP for the attainment year. In the case 

of the Baltimore area, 3 percent of the 

ROP baselines for the 2005 attainment 

year equates to 8.23 tons per day (TPD) 

of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or 

13.77 TPD of nitrogen oxides (NOX). 

An RFP/ROP plan includes a target 

level of emissions needed to meet the 

RFP requirement and a demonstration 

that the projected levels of emissions in 

the area by the RFP deadline date will 

be equal to or less than the target level 

after accounting for growth. See, 57 FR 

13498 at 13507–13508, April 16, 1992.4

As a severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area the ROP plan included target levels 

of VOC and NOX emissions for 

November 15, 2005, which was the 

Baltimore area’s attainment date for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. As a moderate 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 

the RFP plan for the Baltimore area 

included target levels of VOC and NOX

emissions for December 31, 2008. EPA 

has approved the ROP/RFP plans for 

2005 and 2008; see, 69 FR 7133, 

February 13, 2004 and 75 FR 31709, 

June 4, 2010, respectively. These plans 

contain projected levels of actual 

emissions for November 15, 2005 and 

for December 31, 2008. The RFP/ROP 

plan for 2005 and for 2008 each uses 

consistent methods for projecting 

growth in emissions-related activities 

after the baseline years and most 

importantly use the same emissions 

factor model, MOBILE6, for developing 

emissions factors for on-road or 

highway mobiles sources. Comparison 

of the 2005 and 2008 projected levels of 

actual emissions suggests that the 

Maryland SIP provided for reduction in 

total emissions of 2.05 TPD of VOC and 

66.97 TPD of NOX emissions after 2005 

but by December 31, 2008. As noted 

above, the contingency measure 

requirement for failure to attain for the 

Baltimore area under the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS was 8.23 TPD of VOC or 13.77 

TPD of NOX. For further details of the 

ROP/RFP plans for the Baltimore area 

and the derivation of the projected 

reductions between 2005 and 2008 refer 

to the technical support document 

prepared for this proposed action. 

Based upon the air quality monitoring 

data for 2006 and later years (discussed 

in section V.B of this document), EPA 

can conclude that the Maryland SIP 

provided for sufficient emission 

reductions after November 15, 2005 to 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as 

evidenced by attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard by 2008 and continued 

attainment thereafter. 

C. What would be the effects of these 

proposed determinations for the 

Baltimore area? 

As noted above, EPA is also proposing 

a separate and independent 1-hour 

ozone determination that the Baltimore 

area currently attains the 1-hour ozone 

standard, based on complete, qualityassured and certified ozone data for 

2008–2010, and preliminary data 

available for 2011.5 If this determination 

is finalized, then even if EPA finalizes 

its proposed determination that the area 

failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the 2005 deadline, it will 

not result in any 1-hour ozone 

contingency measure obligations for the 

area. Under EPA’s ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

interpretation,6 which was articulated 

first for the 1-hour standard and later 

codified for the 8-hour ozone standard 

(40 CFR 51.918), a determination of 

attainment suspends obligations to 

make submissions for attainment-related 

requirements (including contingency 

measures) for that standard.7 See, for 

example, determination of 1-hour ozone 

attainment for Baton Rouge, 75 FR 6570, 

February 10, 2010. 

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

fees, section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to 

include provisions required by section 

185. Section 185 requires 1-hour ozone 

SIPs for severe areas to provide that, if 

the area has failed to attain by the 

attainment date, each major stationary 

source of ozone precursors located in 

the area must begin paying a fee to the 

state. Thus a final determination of 

failure to attain by the area’s 1-hour 

attainment date would trigger the 1-hour 

anti-backsliding obligation to 

implement the penalty fee program 

under section 182(d)(3) 182(f) and 185, 

unless that obligation is terminated. 

IV. How does EPA compute whether an 

area complies with the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS? 

A. What is the level and form of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS? 

The relevant regulation, 40 CFR 

50.9(a), states the following regarding 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS: 

1. The level of the national 1-hour 

primary and secondary NAAQS for 

ozone is 0.12 parts per million; and 

2. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS ‘‘is 

attained when the expected number of 

days per calendar year with maximum 

hourly average concentrations above 

0.12 parts per million is equal to or less 

than 1, as determined by appendix H’’ 

to 40 CFR part 50. 

We consider that a monitor exceeds 

the 1-hour ozone standard when that 

ambient air quality monitor records a 1- 

hour average ozone concentration above 

0.12 ppm at least once in any given 

calendar day. Only the maximum 1- 

hour ozone concentration at the monitor 

during any calendar day is considered 

when determining if the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS was exceeded on that day. That 

is, even when a monitor records more 

than one hourly concentration above 

0.12 ppm during a calendar day, that 

day counts as only a single ‘‘exceedance 

day.’’ See, 40 CFR 50.9 ‘‘National 1-hour 

primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for ozone’’ and 

‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary 

and Secondary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone’’ (40 CFR 

part 50, appendix H). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8Pursuant to section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, the 

state may request, and EPA may grant up to two 1- 

year attainment date extensions, provided that 

certain criteria are met. One criterion is that there 

be no more than one exceedance of the 1-year ozone 

standard at any monitoring site in the 

nonattainment area in the year in which attainment 

is required. As shown in Table 1, the Edgewood, 

Harford County monitoring site recorded two (2) 

exceedances in 2005, during the year of the 

attainment deadline. Therefore the Baltimore area 

was not eligible for an attainment date extension 

under section 181(a)(5) nor did the State request 

such an extension. 

B. What are the relevant data handling 

and rounding conventions for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS? 

Although the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as 

promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9 does not 

address specific data handling 

conventions, EPA’s publicly articulated 

position and the approach that the air 

quality management community has 

long universally adopted, is that the 

interpretation of the 1-hour ozone 

standard requires rounding ambient air 

quality data consistent with the stated 

level of the standard, which is 0.12 

ppm. 

As early as 1979, EPA’s guidance 

noted that the level as it is expressed in 

the standard defines 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 19106 at 

19111, April 17, 2003; 68 FR 62041 at 

62043, October 31, 2003; and 69 FR 

21717 at 21719, April 22, 2004. In the 

1990 CAA Amendments, Congress 

expressly recognized the continuing 

validity of EPA guidance in the 1990 

CAA Amendments. See, generally, H 

Comm. Rep. 101–490 pp. 197, 232 

(1990) (House Energy and Commerce 

Committee Report). 

C. How is the number of expected 

exceedance days determined and how is 

attainment determined under the form 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS? 

A nonattainment area attains the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS only when all 

monitors in that area attain the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA determines if an 

area has attained the 1-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 at 13506, April 16, 1992 and 

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. 

A monitor shows attainment when the 

average number of ‘‘expected’’ number 

of ‘‘exceedance days’’ per calendar year 

‘‘is less than or equal to one (1)’’ when 

averaged over a 3-year period. See, 40 

CFR part 50 appendix H and 

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,’’ dated February 3, 1994. The 

level of the standard defines the number 

of significant figures to be used in 

comparisons with the standard, and, in 

this case, the number of significant 

figures to be used is one. The smallest 

value which will exceed the value of 

this standard is a value of 1.1, and, the 

average over a 3-year period is therefore 

rounded to one significant figure. 

An observed daily maximum value at 

a monitor is considered to be valid if 75 

percent of the hours from 9:01 a.m. to 

9 p.m. were measured or if the highest 

hourly value measured is greater than 

the level of the standard. Where there 

are either no data for a day or data for 

less than the 75 percent of the hours 

between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m., a missing 

daily maximum ozone value may be 

assumed to be less than the level of the 

standard if the valid daily maxima on 

both the preceding day and the 

following day do not exceed 75 percent 

of the level of the standard. A day for 

which the daily maximum ozone value 

may be assumed to be less than 0.0125 

ppm is termed ‘‘day assumed less than 

the standard.’’ See, appendix H to 40 

CFR part 50. 

To account for missing data, the 

procedures in appendix H to 40 CFR 

part 50 are used to adjust the actual 

number of observed exceedances of the 

standard in a year to yield the annual 

number of ‘‘expected exceedance days’’ 

at an air quality monitoring site. 

The computation of ‘‘expected 

exceedance days’’ is rounded to one 

significant figure for both the purposes 

of estimating the annual number of 

expected exceedance days at a monitor 

and for the annual average number of 

expected exceedance days over a 3-year 

period. 

For example, for the 3-year average, 

any value less than 1.05 rounds down 

to 1.0, and, any value of 1.05 or greater 

rounds up to 1.1. As stated in a 

preceding paragraph in this section of 

this document a violation occurs when 

the average number of expected 

exceedance days over a consecutive 3- 

year period is greater than or equal to 

1.1. Therefore, to not violate the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, the maximum aggregate 

sum of expected exceedance days over 

a consecutive 3-year period allowed is 

3.1 because 3.1 divided by 3 is 1.03333, 

which when rounded to one significant 

figure is 1.0 which does not exceed 1. 

An aggregate sum of 3.2 expected 

exceedance days over a consecutive 3- 

year period do not meet this standard 

because 3.2 divided by 3 equals 1.0666, 

which when rounded to one significant 

figure is 1.1 and which is greater than 

1.0. For further details refer to the 

technical support document prepared 

for this proposed action regarding the 

conversion of observed daily maximum 

values to expected exceedance days for 

each monitoring site. 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality meets the 1-hour ozone 

standard is 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 

must annually certify that these data are 

accurate to the best of their knowledge, 

and, for calendar years 2010 and later, 

such certifications must be submitted by 

May 1st for the prior year’s data. See, 40 

CFR 58.15. Thus, the certification of the 

air quality monitoring data for calendar 

year 2011 is due no later than May 1, 

2012. 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. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the data 

regarding Baltimore’s attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard? 

As noted previously, the applicable 

attainment date under the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Baltimore area was 

November 15, 2005.8 We base a 

determination regarding attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by this 

deadline on the average number of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 4945 

expected exceedance days per year for 

the period 2003–2005. 

From 2003 through 2005, ambient air 

quality for ozone was monitored on a 

continuous basis at six monitoring sites 

within the Baltimore area. The 

minimum required monitoring season 

for the Baltimore area is 214 days from 

April 1st to October 31st of every year. 

See, 40 CFR 58.11(c) and Table D–3 

‘‘Ozone Monitoring Seasons by State’’ in 

appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. 

A. What is EPA’s analysis of whether the 

Baltimore area attained the 1-hour 

ozone standard by its 2005 attainment 

deadline? 

During the entire 2003 to 2005 period, 

six ozone monitoring stations in the 

Baltimore area were in operation. Table 

1 summarizes the ozone data collected 

at these six ozone monitoring stations 

during the 2003 to 2005 period and 

included in AQS for the Baltimore area. 

These data are complete and have been 

quality-assured and recorded in AQS. 

Maryland uses the AQS as the 

permanent database to maintain its data 

and quality assure the data transfers and 

content for accuracy. We have used the 

established rounding conventions set 

forth in our guidance documents and 

regulations. 

TABLE 1—NUMBER AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF OZONE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE DAYS AND DESIGN VALUES PER YEAR BY

MONITOR IN THE BALTIMORE AREA 2003 TO 2005 

Monitor information Annual number of expected 

exceedance days 

Average 

number of 

expected 

exceedance 

days per 

year Monitor (AQS ID No.) 2003 2004 2005 

2003–05 

Davidsonville Recreation Center, 3801 Queen Anne Bridge Road, Anne Arundel 

County (24–003–0014) ................................................................................................ 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Padonia Elementary School, 9834 Greenside Drive, Cockeysville, Baltimore County 

(24–005–1007) ............................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

600 Dorsey Avenue, Essex, Baltimore County (24–005–3001) ..................................... 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 

1300 W. Old Liberty Road, Carroll County (24–013–0001) ............................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (APG), Waehli Road, Edgewood, Harford 

County (24–025–1001) ................................................................................................ 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.3 

3560 Aldino Road, Harford County (24–025–9001) ........................................................ 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 

Source: EPA AQS Database, ‘‘Quicklook Criteria Parameters,’’ Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated March 3, 2011. 

A complete listing of the ozone 

exceedances for each monitoring site, as 

well as a summary of EPA’s calculations 

can be found in the technical support 

document prepared for this proposed 

action. As shown in Table 1, the average 

number of expected exceedance days 

per year exceeded 1.0 at the Edgewood, 

Harford County monitoring site. Only 

monitors with three complete years of 

data are shown in Table 1. Since at least 

one monitor in the Baltimore area failed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

November 15, 2005, this is sufficient to 

support the conclusion that the area 

failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by its applicable attainment 

date. Therefore, we propose to 

determine that the Baltimore area failed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its 

applicable attainment date of November 

15, 2005. 

B. What is EPA’s proposed 

determination of whether the Baltimore 

area is currently attaining the 1–hour 

ozone standard? 

During the entire period from 2006 

through 2011, the same seven ozone 

monitoring stations in the Baltimore 

area were in operation. Table 2 lists, for 

each monitor, its AQS identification 

number, its location, and its ‘‘short 

name.’’ 

TABLE 2—MONITOR INFORMATION BALTIMORE AREA 2006–2011 

Monitor (AQS ID No.) Location Short name 

24–510–0054 .................. Furley E.S. Recreational Center, 4633 Furley Avenue, Baltimore City .............................................. Furley. 

24–003–0014 .................. Davidsonville Recreation Center, 3801 Queen Anne Bridge Road, Anne Arundel County ............... Davidsonville. 

24–005–1007 .................. Padonia Elementary School, 9834 Greenside Drive, Cockeysville, Baltimore County ...................... Padonia. 

24–005–3001 .................. 600 Dorsey Avenue, Essex, Baltimore County ................................................................................... Essex. 

24–013–0001 .................. 1300 W. Old Liberty Road, Carroll County ......................................................................................... South Carroll. 

24–025–1001 .................. Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (APG), Waehli Road, Edgewood, Harford County ............... Edgewood. 

24–025–9001 .................. 3560 Aldino Road, Harford County ..................................................................................................... Aldino. 

Source: EPA AQS Database, ‘‘Quicklook Criteria Parameters,’’ Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated March 3, 2011 and 

Report Request ID 937336, Report Code AMP450, dated December 13, 2011. 

Table 3 summarizes the 1-hour ozone 

data collected at these six ozone 

monitoring stations during the 2006 to 

2010 period and included in AQS for 

the Baltimore area. These data are 

complete and have been qualityassured and recorded in AQS. Maryland 

uses the AQS as the permanent database 

to maintain its data and to qualityassure the data transfers and content for 

accuracy. We have used the established 

rounding conventions set forth in our 

guidance documents and regulations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9The deadline for certifying the 2011 data is May 

1, 2012. See, 40 CFR 58.15. 

TABLE 3—NUMBER AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF OZONE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER YEAR BY MONITOR IN THE

BALTIMORE AREA 2006 TO 2010 

Monitor information Annual number of expected 

exceedance days 

Average number of expected 

exceedance days per year 

Monitor—AQS ID No. & ‘‘Short 

Name’’ 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006–2008 2007–2009 2008–2010 

24–510–0054—Furley ...................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

24–003–0014—Davidsonville .......... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 

24–005–1007—Padonia .................. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 

24–005–3001—Essex ...................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 

24–013–0001—South Carroll .......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

24–025–1001—Edgewood ............... 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 

24–025–9001—Aldino ...................... 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 

Source: EPA AQS Database, ‘‘Quicklook Criteria Parameters,’’ Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated March 3, 2011. 

Table 4 summarizes the 1-hour ozone 

data collected at these six ozone 

monitoring stations during the 2009 to 

2011 period and included in AQS for 

the Baltimore area. These data for 2009 

and 2010 are complete and have been 

quality-assured and recorded in AQS. 

The data for 2011 are those entered in 

AQS as of December 13, 2011. Data for 

at least 90 percent of the 2011 

monitoring season days has been 

entered into AQS but has not yet been 

certified by Maryland.9 The data shows 

that only one monitor recorded an 

exceedance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard; the Edgewood site measured 

one exceedance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard during 2011. As of December 

13, 2011, the 2011 data entered into 

AQS for the Edgewood site includes 209 

days of valid data and also includes 

three days assumed less than the 

standard. Under the procedures 

discussed in Section IV of this 

document, the number of expected 

exceedances for the Edgewood site is 

only 1.0 for 2011. 

TABLE 4—NUMBER AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF OZONE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE DAYS PER YEAR BY MONITOR IN THE

BALTIMORE AREA 2009 TO 2011 

Monitor information Annual number of expected 

exceedance days 

Average 

number of 

expected 

exceedance 

days 

per year Monitor—AQS ID No. & ‘‘Short Name’’ 2009 2010 2011 

2009–2011 

24–510–0054—Furley ..................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

24–003–0014—Davidsonville .......................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

24–005–1007—Padonia .................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

24–005–3001—Essex ...................................................................................................... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 

24–013–0001—South Carroll .......................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 

24–025–1001—Edgewood .............................................................................................. 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 

24–025–9001—Aldino ..................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: EPA AQS Database, ‘‘Quicklook Criteria Parameters,’’ Report Request ID 843146, Report Code AMP450, dated March 3, 2011, for 

the 2009 to 2010 data and Report Request ID 937336, Report Code AMP450, dated December 13, 2011, for the 2011 data. 

As shown in Tables 3 and 4, no 

monitor in the Baltimore area had a 

value of the average number of expected 

exceedance days per year exceeding 1.0 

in the 3-year period 2006–2008. 

Furthermore, no monitor in the 

Baltimore area has had a value of the 

average number of expected exceedance 

days per year exceeding 1.0 in any 3- 

year period after 2006–2008, that is, 

during the subsequent 3-year periods 

2007–2009 and 2008–2010. Thus the 

data show that the Baltimore area 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard in 

2008 and has continued to attain this 

standard through 2010 based upon the 

most recent complete, quality-assured 

and certified data. Preliminary data 

available for 2011 indicate that the area 

continues in attainment for the 1-hour 

ozone standard for the period 2009 

through 2011. 

Therefore, we propose to determine 

that the Baltimore area is currently 

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the most recent three years of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ozone monitoring data, 2008–2010. 

Preliminary data available for 2011 

indicate that the area continues in 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. If we finalize this 

determination the State of Maryland’s 

obligation to submit contingency 

measures for failure to attain the 1-hour 

ozone standard would be suspended. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

In this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

pursuant to EPA’s authority to ensure 

implementation of 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirements (CAA sections 

301 and 181(b)(2)) EPA is proposing two 

separate, independent, and severable 

determinations. 

A. Proposed Determination of 1-Hour 

Ozone Attainment by the Attainment 

Deadline of November 15, 2005 

Pursuant to EPA’s authority to ensure 

implementation of 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirements (CAA section 

301 and section 181(b)(2)) and based 

upon EPA’s review of complete, qualityassured and certified ozone monitoring 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 4947 

data for the 3-year period 2003 to 2005, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area failed to attain the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of November 15, 2005. 

B. Proposed Determination That the 

Baltimore Area Is Currently Attaining 

the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Second, however, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Baltimore area is 

currently attaining the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, based upon the most recent 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data (2008–2010). The preliminary data 

that is available for 2011 show that the 

area continues to attain the standard. 

Moreover, the Baltimore area has 

monitored attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS since the 2006–2008 

monitoring period. If this proposed 

determination is made final, the 

obligation for the State of Maryland to 

submit contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area would be 

suspended. These proposed 

determinations regarding the 1-hour 

ozone standard, if finalized, would bear 

on the Baltimore area’s obligations with 

respect to the 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirements for section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures for 

failure to attain that standard, and 

sections 182(d)(3) and 185 major 

stationary source fee programs. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make 

determinations of attainment and 

nonattainment based on monitored air 

quality data and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by statute or regulation. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

• In addition, these proposed actions 

regarding attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore area do 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness Areas. 

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

Dated: January 24, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2222 Filed 1–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0279; FRL–9336–8] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Proposed Significant New Use Rules 

on Certain Chemical Substances; 

Reopening of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of December 28, 

2011, concerning proposed significant 

new use rules (SNURs) under section 

5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) for 17 chemical substances 

which were the subject of 

premanufacture notices (PMNs). In 

order to address public comments, EPA 

is reopening the comment period for 45 

days. 

DATES: Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2010–0279, must be received on 

or before March 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions as provided under 

ADDRESSES in the Federal Register 

document of December 28, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Kenneth 

Moss, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–9232; email address: 

moss.kenneth@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA–Hotline, ABVI–Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA– 

Hotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document reopens the public comment 

period established in the Federal 

Register of December 28, 2011 (76 FR 

81447) (FRL–9326–2). In that document, 

EPA proposed SNURs under section 

5(a)(2) of TSCA for 17 chemical 

substances which were the subject of 

PMNs. Fifteen of these chemical 

substances are subject to TSCA section 

5(e) consent orders issued by EPA. EPA 

received comments in response to the 

proposed SNURs, noting that the 

proposed SNURs and corresponding 

consent orders present many 

complicated technical and scientific 

issues and meaningful public input will 

require a substantial amount of time and 

effort. The commenters requested that 

additional time be allotted to provide 

interested parties an appropriate 

opportunity to develop meaningful 

comments on the agency’s proposed 

action. EPA is hereby reopening the 

comment period for 45 days to allow for 

any public comments for any of the 

chemical substances in the proposed 

rule. 

To submit comments, or access the 

docket, please follow the detailed 

instructions as provided under 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS