30208 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) The Office may require the owner 

to furnish such specimens, information, 

exhibits, and affidavits or declarations 

as may be reasonably necessary to the 

proper examination of the amendment. 

* * * * * 

PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE 

PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE 

MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING 

THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION 

OF MARKS 

■ 10. The authority citation for 37 CFR 

part 7 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 11. Amend § 7.37 by revising 

paragraph (g) and adding paragraph (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 7.37 Requirements for a complete 

affidavit or declaration of continued use or 

excusable nonuse. 

* * * * * 

(g) Include a specimen showing 

current use of the mark for each class of 

goods or services, unless excusable 

nonuse is claimed under § 7.37(f)(2). 

When requested by the Office, 

additional specimens must be provided. 

The specimen must meet the 

requirements of § 2.56 of this chapter. 

(h) The Office may require the holder 

to furnish such information, exhibits, 

affidavits or declarations, and such 

additional specimens: 

(1) As may be reasonably necessary to 

the proper examination of the affidavit 

or declaration under section 71 of the 

Act; or 

(2) For the Office to assess the 

accuracy and integrity of the register. 

(3) The provisions of paragraph (h)(2) 

of this section will no longer be applied 

after June 21, 2014. 

Dated: May 15, 2012. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12178 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0819; FRL–9674–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Baltimore Nonattainment 

Area Determinations of Attainment of 

the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking action to 

finalize two separate and independent 

determinations regarding the fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area of Baltimore (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Baltimore Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). 

First, EPA is determining that the 

Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). This 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data for the 2008–2010 

monitoring period showing that the 

Area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and data 

available to date for 2011 in EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) database showing 

that the Area continues to attain. Under 

EPA’s PM2.5 implementation 

regulations, this final determination 

suspends obligation of the Area to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated reasonably available 

control measures and reasonably 

available control technologies (RACM/ 

RACT), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions related to the 

attainment of the standard for so long as 

the Area continues to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

determining, based on complete qualityassured and certified monitoring data 

for the 2007–2009 monitoring period, 

that the Area attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date of April 5, 2010. In 

addition, EPA is withdrawing its July 

31, 2009 (74 FR 38161) proposed 

determination of attainment for the 

Baltimore Area, because more recent 

monitoring data has become available. 

EPA is finalizing a determination of 

attainment for the Baltimore Area, in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0819. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection 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: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 

III. Summary of Public Comment and EPA 

Response 

IV. Final Action 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

established a health-based PM2.5

NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS’’ or ‘‘the annual 

standard’’). At that time, EPA also 

established a 24-hour standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 (the ‘‘1997 24-hour standard’’). See 

40 CFR 50.7. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 

944), EPA published its air quality 

designations and classifications for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air 

quality monitoring data from those 

monitors for calendar years 2001–2003. 

These designations became effective on 

April 5, 2005. The Baltimore Area was 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS during this designations 

process. See 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland). 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and promulgated a 24- 

hour standard of 35 mg/m3 based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations (the ‘‘2006 24- 

hour standard’’). On November 13, 

2009, EPA designated the Baltimore 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 30209 

Area as attainment for the 2006 24-hour 

standard. In that action, EPA also 

clarified the designations for the PM2.5

NAAQS promulgated in 1997, stating 

that the Baltimore Area was attainment 

for the 1997 24-hour standard (74 FR 

58688). Today’s action, however, does 

not address either the 1997 or the 2006 

24-hour standard. 

In response to legal challenges of the 

annual standard promulgated in 2006, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

remanded this standard to EPA for 

further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 annual 

standards are essentially identical, 

attainment of the 1997 annual standard 

would also indicate attainment of the 

remanded 2006 annual standard. 

On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA 

promulgated its PM2.5 implementation 

rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

Z, in which EPA provided guidance for 

state and tribal plans to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. This rule, at 40 

CFR 51.1004(c), specifies some of the 

regulatory consequences of attaining the 

standard, as discussed later. 

Under CAA section 179(c), EPA is 

required to make a determination that a 

PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained 

by its applicable attainment date, and 

publish that determination in the 

Federal Register. On November 23, 

2011 (76 FR 72374), EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for 

the State of Maryland, proposing to 

determine that the Baltimore Area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

based on the most recent three years of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

data and data available to date for 2011. 

EPA also proposed, based on complete, 

quality-assured and certified data for 

2007–2009 that the Area attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. EPA’s determinations are in 

accordance with the CAA, EPA’s PM2.5

Implementation Rule of April 25, 2007 

(72 FR 20664), and other applicable 

regulations. During the comment period 

on its proposed determinations, EPA 

received a comment letter from 

Earthjustice on December 23, 2011. A 

summary of the comments submitted by 

Earthjustice and EPA’s responses are 

provided in section III of this document. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

relevant air quality data? 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent 

with the requirements contained in 40 

CFR part 50 and based on data from the 

EPA AQS database for the Baltimore 

Area, for the monitoring periods of 

2007–2009, 2008–2010, and for data 

available to date for 2011. Based upon 

the most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data as 

well as the data available to date for 

2011, EPA determines that the 

Baltimore Area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. EPA also determines, based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

2007–2009 monitoring data, that the 

Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by its applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2010. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

50.7(b), the annual primary and 

secondary PM2.5 standards are met when 

the annual arithmetic mean 

concentration, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 

mg/m3. The values calculated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, are referred to as design 

values, and these values are used to 

determine if an area is attaining the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The air quality monitoring network 

design criteria, established in 40 CFR 

part 58 appendix D, describe the 

specific requirements for the number 

and location of Federal Reference 

Method (FRM), Federal Equivalent 

Method (FEM), and Approved Regional 

Method (ARM) monitoring sites for 

specific pollutants. The network criteria 

apply to the Baltimore-Towson, 

Maryland Metropolitan Statistical Area 

(hereby ‘‘the Baltimore MSA’’), which 

consists of Baltimore City and the 

counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, 

Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen 

Anne’s. Metropolitan areas are 

determined using the statistical-based 

definitions provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget and the Census 

Bureau. Section 4.7.1 of appendix D 

requires the Baltimore MSA network to 

operate at a minimum two PM2.5

monitoring sites. Currently, the 

Baltimore MSA network consists of 

eight PM2.5 FRM monitors and one 

PM2.5 FEM monitor. Thus, EPA has 

determined that the PM2.5 monitoring 

network in the Baltimore MSA is 

adequate, in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58, appendix D. 

Additionally, EPA has determined 

that the PM2.5 Baltimore MSA 

monitoring network meets all relevant 

criteria specified in 40 CFR part 58 and 

is in accordance with the monitoring 

network plans that have been reviewed 

and approved by EPA on an annual 

basis. Additional information about the 

monitoring network and air quality data 

was included in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this action which is 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

Docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0819. 

III. Summary of Public Comment and 

EPA Response 

The commenter, Earthjustice, objected 

generally to EPA’s proposed attainment 

determination for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Baltimore 

nonattainment area, on the basis that 

such determination relies on deficient 

monitoring data. The commenter asserts 

that there are various deficiencies with 

the monitoring network and data. 

Comment: The commenter contended 

that there were specific deficiencies 

with the monitoring network, citing 

Maryland’s 5-Year Network Assessment. 

The commenter asserts that Maryland 

has not assured that adequate 

mandatory continuous monitors for 

PM2.5 are in place in the Baltimore MSA 

as required by 40 CFR part 58 appendix 

D, section 4.7.2. The commenter asserts 

that Maryland Department of 

Environment (MDE) explains in its 

assessment that failure to meet these 

requirements is caused by a 

‘‘technicality’’ while testing a 

continuous monitor, AQS ID: 24–510– 

0040 (Oldtown), in the Baltimore MSA. 

The commenter indicates it is unclear 

whether the affected monitor was 

collecting adequate continuous PM2.5

data during this testing period and 

whether this data was used in the clean 

data finding. 

Response: The network design 

criteria, in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 

section 4.7.2, requires that the State 

must operate in the PM2.5 network 

continuous monitors that are at least 

one-half of the minimum number of the 

required sites, of which at least one 

must be collocated with a required FRM 

monitor. According to Table D–5 of 

appendix D, the Baltimore MSA is 

required to have a minimum of two 

PM2.5 monitoring sites, and thus is 

required to have one continuous 

monitor in the network. To meet this 

requirement, one PM2.5 Beta 

Attenuation Mass (BAM) FEM monitor 

is operated in the Baltimore MSA 

monitoring network which is collocated 

with an FRM monitor at the monitoring 

site AQS ID: 24–510–0040 (Oldtown). 

During July 2008 thru July 2010, the 

continuous BAM FEM monitor was 

tested to ensure that it was operating 

properly. Thus, during this time the 

continuous monitor was designated as a 

Special Purpose Monitor (SPM). The 

test consisted of a correlation study to 

compare the data from the FRM monitor 

with the continuous BAM FEM data. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
30210 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

The study showed that the data being 

collected by the continuous BAM FEM 

monitor correlated sufficiently well, and 

therefore, continuous PM2.5 data from 

the Oldtown site was shown to be 

adequate. As a result, as of July 2010, 

the continuous monitor was no longer 

designated as an SPM, and is now 

considered a collocated monitor. The 

continuous BAM FEM monitor is 

currently collocated with an FRM 

monitor at the Oldtown site and data 

from these monitors during 2008–2010 

is presented in Table 1. 

Because Oldtown is a middle scale 

station which has not been determined 

to be a population-oriented site 

representative of many such locations 

throughout the Baltimore MSA, the data 

from that site is not used for comparison 

to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

58.30. Although the Oldtown 

monitoring site was not considered for 

the attainment determination, the 

monitoring data from Oldtown recorded 

PM2.5 levels below the level of the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS during the time 

period of 2008–2010. Similarly, the 

2011 preliminary data from both the 

FRM and BAM FEM in Oldtown 

showed levels below the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. See the publicly available 

FRM/FEM data comparison tool 

provided by EPA at http://www.epa.gov/ 

airquality/airdata/ad_rep_

frmvfem.html. This tool shows that the 

FRM and continuous BAM FEM at the 

Oldtown site have good comparability. 

For additional information about testing 

continuous monitors, see the Technical 

Memorandum, ‘‘Implementing 

Continuous PM2.5 Federal Equivalent 

Methods (FEMs) and Approved 

Regional Methods (ARMs) in State or 

Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) 

Networks,’’ in http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

airs/airsaqs/memos/Use%20of%20

PM2.5%20FEMS%20and%20ARMs%20

in%20SLAMS%20Network.pdf. 

TABLE 1—MONITORING SITE ID. NO. 24–510–0040 (OLDTOWN) 2008–2010 PM2.5 DATA (IN μG/M3) 

Site name Site ID 

2008 

Annual 

mean 

2009 

Annual 

mean 

2010 

Annual 

mean 

2010 

Design 

value 

2011 

Annual 

mean ** 

Maryland Oldtown ................................... 24–510–0040 POC 1 .............................. 12.8 11.2 11.2 11.7 11.7 

Maryland Oldtown continuous ................ 24–510–0040 POC 3 .............................. 13.7* 12.1 12.7 12.8 13.1 

* Incomplete data for 2008. 

** Based on preliminary data for 2011. 

Comment: The commenter raises, 

with regard to the monitoring network 

adequacy of the Baltimore MSA, that, as 

of September 2010, Maryland had not 

satisfied the requirement to designate a 

monitoring station in the Baltimore 

MSA as a maximum PM2.5 concentration 

site. Id. 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 

section 4.7.1(b)(1). MDE’s 5-year 

network assessment states that it 

planned to classify the monitoring site 

Id. No. 24–510–0040 (Oldtown) as the 

highest concentration PM2.5 site for the 

Baltimore MSA. See Maryland 5-Year 

Network Assessment. 

Response: Maryland satisfies the 

maximum PM2.5 concentration site 

requirements, set forth in 40 CFR part 

58, appendix D, section 4.7.1(b)(1) for 

the Baltimore MSA which requires at 

least one monitoring station at a 

population-oriented area of maximum 

concentration. The Maryland 5-Year 

Network assessment identifies two 

possible locations in the Baltimore MSA 

as highest concentration: the Oldtown 

monitoring station and the Fire Station 

20 monitoring station, AQS ID 

245100008 (see Maryland 5-Year 

Network Assessment, page 53). Data 

from the Fire Station 20, which is a 

neighborhood scale site representing 

community wide air quality, was used 

in the determination of attainment. 

However, because Oldtown does not 

meet the siting requirements for 

comparing the data to the annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the monitoring data from that 

site was not used in the determination 

of attainment. Even if the data from the 

Oldtown monitoring was eligible for 

comparison to the annual PM2.5

NAAQS, it shows that the site is 

attaining the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 

Table 1. 

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

by not using the monitoring data from 

site Id. No. 24–510–0040 (Oldtown), 

EPA’s attainment determination is 

inconsistent with the 1992 EPA 

Guidance regarding NAAQS attainment 

determinations. See Memorandum of 

September 4, 1992 from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, to EPA Air Division Directors, 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment.’’ This 

memorandum explicitly states that data 

used to demonstrate attainment ‘‘should 

be the product of ambient monitoring 

that is representative of the area of 

highest concentration.’’ 

Response: EPA did use monitoring 

data from a population oriented 

monitoring site of expected maximum 

concentration, i.e., the Fire Station 20 

monitoring site (AQS ID: 24–510–0008). 

As part of this assessment, data for 

2008–2010 from Fire Station 20 site 

show concentration levels that are 

below the level of the annual PM2.5

NAAQS at this maximum concentration 

site. Because the monitoring site Id. No. 

24–510–0040 (Oldtown) is not a 

population oriented monitor 

representative of community wide air 

quality, the data from that site is not 

eligible for comparison to the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, monitoring 

data from site Id. No. 24–510–0040 

(Oldtown) is currently used in 

determining Baltimore Area’s 

compliance with the PM2.5 24-hour 

NAAQS. Additionally, even if EPA had 

reviewed data from the Oldtown 

location for comparison to the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the data for 2008–2010 

reflects that the concentration levels at 

the site are below the level of the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. Thus, 

this would not have changed EPA’s 

action to find that the Baltimore 

nonattainment area currently is 

attaining the NAAQS. The Oldtown data 

is provided in Table 1, but was not used 

in determining attainment of the 

Baltimore Area for the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

MDE did not provide reasoned 

justification that the existing monitoring 

network was sufficient to capture 

representative PM2.5 concentrations and 

populations exposures for Baltimore 

City, after removing the monitor ID 24– 

510–0035 (FMC-Fairfield), which was 

originally classified as a neighborhood 

monitor. 

Response: The Baltimore MSA has an 

adequate PM2.5 monitoring network. 40 

CFR part 58, appendix D requires two 

monitors in the Baltimore MSA, which 

currently has eight monitors in place. 

Further, the monitoring network meets 

all relevant criteria specified in part 58 

and is in accordance with the 

monitoring network plans that have 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 30211 

been reviewed and approved by EPA on 

an annual basis. 

The FMC-Fairfield monitor was shut 

down due to the demolition of the FMCFairfield Agricultural Plant. At the time 

of the FMC-Fairfield closure in 2008, 

the FMC-Fairfield monitor was showing 

annual means that attained the annual 

PM2.5 standard. Because the Baltimore 

MSA already had sufficient number of 

PM2.5 monitors in its network, MDE did 

not need to relocate the FMC-Fairfield 

monitor to another site. Also, contrary 

to commenter’s assertion, EPA’s 

supporting documents include 

sufficient justification for removing the 

monitor from this location. See TSD 

attachments, ‘‘MDE’s Analysis regarding 

Closure of the FMC PM2.5 Monitor’’ and 

‘‘Notification by Maryland Department 

of the Environment (MDE) regarding the 

closure of the FMC PM2.5 Monitor.’’ 

MDE explained that the FMC-Fairfield 

monitoring site was no longer meeting 

the population-oriented siting 

requirements that reflect community 

wide air quality. When originally 

located, the FMC-Fairfield monitor met 

these siting requirements. However, 

conditions around the monitor location 

changed over time and the 2000 census 

data shows that the population density 

around the FMC-Fairfield monitor has 

declined. FMC-Fairfield, thus, no longer 

met its intended purpose of providing 

data for neighborhood scale/population 

exposure. Data from the monitoring site 

ID 24–510–0035 (FMC-Fairfield) was 

comparable to the monitoring site Id. 

No. 24–510–0008 (Fire Station 20). 

Since 2008, Fire Station 20 has shown 

annual PM2.5 means below the annual 

NAAQS. 

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

the monitoring site Id. No. 24–510–0008 

(Fire Station 20), which they believe is 

representative of the communities 

surrounding the FMC-Fairfield 

monitoring site, did not satisfy the 

completeness criteria for the 2010 

period. 

Response: The commenter’s statement 

that the data at monitor location Id. No. 

24–510–0008 (Fire Station 20) does not 

satisfy the completeness criteria for 

2010 is incorrect. As explained in the 

TSD, the missing data from the primary 

monitor at this location for the first 

quarter of 2010 was replaced with data 

from a collocated monitor at the same 

site location to meet the completeness 

monitoring data requirement of 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix N. Missing data from 

a primary monitor at a site does not 

necessarily mean that the data at the 

monitoring site is incomplete. When 

data from a collocated monitor is used 

to substitute for missing data at a 

primary monitor, the data at the monitor 

location is considered to be complete if 

EPA regulations and guidance are 

followed for performing the necessary 

data substitution. Specifically, section 

3.0 of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N 

specifies that if a valid 24-hour 

measurement is not produced from the 

primary monitor for a particular day, 

but a valid sample is generated by a 

collocated monitor, then that collocated 

value shall be considered part of the site 

data. In order to replace the missing 

data, the collocated substitution was 

followed, in accordance with the 

procedures explained in ‘‘Guideline on 

Data Handling Conventions for the PM 

NAAQS,’’ EPA–454/R–99–008 (April 

1999). The substitution requires 

replacing the missing data from the 

primary monitor with collocated data 

for the same year and quarter, provided 

that the site has valid data for at least 

50 percent of the scheduled number of 

samples for each quarter for all three 

years, and that the emissions and 

meteorology for the quarters to be 

substituted are comparable to the 

emissions and meteorology for the 

quarters in question. Air quality data 

from Fire Station 20 monitoring site met 

these criteria and thus the collocated 

data sampled at the site was used to 

complete the missing data from the 

primary monitor. Therefore, monitoring 

site Id. No. 24–510–0008 (Fire Station 

20) has complete data for the year 2010. 

IV. Final Action 

First, EPA determines that Baltimore 

Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, based on the complete, quality 

assured and certified data from 2008– 

2010, and data available to date in AQS 

for 2011. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c), 

this determination of attainment will 

suspend the requirements for Maryland 

to submit for the Baltimore Area an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM/RACT, RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIP revisions related to the 

attainment of the standard for so long as 

the Area continues to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA 

is finalizing a separate and independent 

determination that the Baltimore Area 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

by the applicable attainment date of 

April 5, 2010, thereby satisfying EPA’s 

obligation pursuant to section 179(c)(1) 

of the CAA to make a determination of 

whether the Area attained the standard 

by the applicable attainment date. 

Finalizing this action does not 

constitute a redesignation of the 

Baltimore Area to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA 

section 107(d)(3). Further, finalizing this 

action does not involve approving a 

maintenance plan for the Baltimore 

Area, nor does it involve a 

determination that the Area has met all 

the requirements for redesignation 

under the CAA. Therefore, the 

designation status of the Baltimore 

PM2.5 nonattainment area will remain 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA 

takes final rulemaking action to 

determine that such portions meet the 

CAA requirements for redesignation to 

attainment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

This action finalizes attainment 

determinations based on air quality data 

and does not impose any additional 

requirements. For that reason, this 

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 requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
30212 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 23, 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 determination that the 

Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 

p.m.2.5 NAAQS 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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 8, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 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 V—Maryland 

■ 2. Section 52.1081 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1081 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination of Attainment. EPA 

has determined, as of May 22, 2012, 

based on ambient air quality data of 

2008 to 2010 and the preliminary data 

of 2011, that the PM2.5 nonattainment 

area of Baltimore, Maryland has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

determination, in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as this area 

continues to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

■ 3. Section 52.1082 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1082 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(e) Based upon EPA’s review of the air 

quality data for the 3-year period 2007 

to 2009, EPA determined that the PM2.5

nonattainment area of Baltimore, 

Maryland attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of April 5, 2010. 

Therefore, EPA has met the requirement 

pursuant to CAA section 179(c) to 

determine, based on the area’s air 

quality as of the attainment date, 

whether the area attained the NAAQS. 

EPA has also determined that the PM2.5

nonattainment area of Baltimore, 

Maryland is not subject to the 

consequences of failing to attain 

pursuant to section 179(d). 

[FR Doc. 2012–12230 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0689; FRL–9674–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Vermont; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Vermont State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) that addresses regional haze for the 

first planning period from 2008 through 

2018. The revision was submitted by the 

Vermont Department of Environmental 

Conservation (VT DEC) on August 26, 

2009, with a supplemental submittal on 

January 3, 2012. This revision addresses 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s regulations that 

require States to prevent any future, and 

remedy any existing, manmade 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on June 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2009–0689. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Air 

Pollution Control Division, Agency of 

Natural Resources, Building 3 South, 

103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 

05676. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109— 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. The following outline is provided 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES