28696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service 

Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a 

Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal 

Two), May 10, 2011 (Petition). 

2See Docket No. ACR2010, FY 2010 Annual 

Compliance Determination, March 29, 2011, at 141. 

3 The D-Report is one of six reports used to 

develop the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA). In 

the D-Report, the Postal Service provides 

attributable, product-specific, and volume variable 

costs for each product. 

Dated: May 12, 2011. 

Nancy K. Stade, 

Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices 

and Radiological Health. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12088 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2011–10; Order No. 727] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service petition to 

initiate an informal rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes in 

analytical principles. Proposal Two 

involves changes affecting cost models 

for evaluating competitive Negotiated 

Service Agreements. This notice informs 

the public of the filing, addresses 

preliminary procedural matters, and 

invites public comment. 

DATES: Comments are due: June 13, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing 

Online’’ link in the banner at the top of 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing 

the Commission’s Filing Online system 

at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who 

cannot submit their views electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as the source for case-related 

information for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6820 (case-related 

information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov 

(electronic filing assistance). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

10, 2011, the Postal Service filed a 

petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 

asking the Commission to initiate an 

informal rulemaking proceeding to 

consider changes in the analytical 

principles approved for use in periodic 

reporting.1 Proposal Two is a set of four 

changes that the Postal Service first 

presented in its FY 2010 Annual 

Compliance Report (ACR) modifying the 

cost models that are used to evaluate 

Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs) 

for competitive products. These cost 

models were included in USPS–FY10– 

NP27 in that docket. 

The Petition notes that in its FY 2010 

Annual Compliance Determination, the 

Commission made a preliminary 

determination that these four changes 

constitute changes to analytical 

principles that require prior 

Commission approval before being 

incorporated in an ACR.2 The Postal 

Service notes that the purpose of its 

Petition is to obtain the Commission’s 

approval of the referenced changes for 

use in future ACRs, even though some 

of the changes could be viewed as 

corrections to its models not requiring 

advance Commission approval. Petition 

at 1. 

The four changes for which the Postal 

Service seeks approval are: 

1. The addition of a cost avoidance for 

Priority mailpieces; 

2. The inclusion of D-Report 

adjustments; 3

3. The incorporation of the CRA 

adjustment for Alaska Air Priority 

transportation; and 

4. Changes in the distribution of other 

costs for Parcel Select and Parcel Return 

Service. 

In the material supporting these 

changes, the Postal Service asserts that 

including them in the NSA cost models 

better matches the characteristics of the 

mail volume for the NSAs in question. 

It characterizes inclusion of the DReport and the Alaska Air adjustments 

as rectifying previous omissions from 

these models. It notes that the change in 

the distribution of ‘‘Other’’ costs for 

Parcel Select is made necessary by the 

inclusion of the D-Report adjustment. 

The Postal Service explains that if the 

D-Report adjustment is made, it will 

comprise the majority of ‘‘Other’’ costs. 

Since the D-Report adjustment is 

computed as a cost per piece, it 

contends, ‘‘Other’’ costs should be 

distributed on a per-piece basis, rather 

than treated as proportionate to mail 

processing, transportation, and delivery 

costs. It says that for consistency, a 

similar adjustment should be made to 

the costs of Parcel Return Service. Id. at 

4. 

More detailed descriptions of the 

proposed changes can be found in 

USPS–RM2011–10/NP1, which is filed 

under seal. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Petition of the United States 

Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding to Consider a Proposed 

Change in Analytical Principles 

(Proposal Two), filed May 10, 2011, is 

granted. 

2. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–10 to consider the matters 

raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 

3. Interested persons may submit 

comments on Proposal Two no later 

than June 13, 2011. 

4. The Commission will determine the 

need for reply comments after review of 

the initial comments. 

5. John P. Klingenberg is appointed to 

serve as the Public Representative to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Ruth Ann Abrams, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12202 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0372; FRL–9307–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; Determination of 

Termination of Section 185 Fees 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

determine that the State of California is 

no longer required to submit or 

implement section 185 fee program 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions for the Sacramento Metro 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

(Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy antibacksliding requirements for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. The Sacramento Metro 

Area consists of both Sacramento and 

Yolo counties and portions of four 

adjacent counties (Solano, Sutter, Placer 

and El Dorado). This proposed 

determination (‘‘Termination 

Determination’’) is based on complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

quality monitoring data for 2007–2009, 

showing attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(1-hour ozone NAAQS or standard), 

which is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

implemented in the area. Complete and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28697 

1For ease of communication, many reports of 

ozone concentrations are given in parts per billion 

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

120 ppb (or between 120 to 124 ppb, when 

rounding is considered). 

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

statistical term that refers to an arithmetic average. 

An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances may be 

equivalent to the number of observed exceedances 

plus an increment that accounts for incomplete 

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

quality-assured data for 2010 show that 

the area continues in attainment for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining attainment exceedances of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that occurred 

on three days in 2008, because the 

exceedances are due to exceptional 

events (wildfires). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0372, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: John J. Kelly at 

kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: John J. Kelly, Air Planning 

Office (Air-2), at fax number 415–947– 

3579. 

4. Mail: John J. Kelly, Air Planning 

Office (Air-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 

94105. 

5. Hand or Courier Delivery: John J. 

Kelly, Air Planning Section (Air-2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011– 

0372. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail that you consider to be CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an anonymous access system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection during normal 

business hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Kelly, (415) 947–4151, or by e-mail at 

kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

II. Background 

III. What is the legal rationale for this 

proposed termination determination? 

IV. What is the effect of this proposed 

termination determination? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis? 

a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

California is no longer required to 

submit or implement Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) section 185 fee 

program SIP revisions for the 

Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro 

Area) to satisfy anti-backsliding 

requirements associated with the 

transition from the 1-hour ozone 

standard (1-hour standard or 1-hour) to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (8-hour 

standard or 8-hour). This proposed 

Termination Determination is based on 

EPA’s belief that the area is attaining the 

1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions implemented in the area. In 

addition, EPA proposes to exclude from 

use in determining the area has attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard certain air 

quality monitoring data because they 

meet the criteria for ozone exceptional 

events that are caused by wildfires. If 

finalized, the effect of EPA’s 

determination that the area has attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions would be to terminate the 

area’s obligations with respect to section 

185 fee program requirements for the 1- 

hour ozone standard. In a separate 

interim final action, published in the 

Rules section in today’s Federal 

Register, we are deferring sanctions that 

would otherwise apply to the entire 

Sacramento Metro Area with the 

exception of Sacramento County, that is, 

the entirety of Yolo County and the 

Sacramento Metro Area portions of 

Solano, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado 

counties. This action addresses only the 

CAA section 185 requirements for the 1- 

hour ozone standard for the Sacramento 

Metro Area, and not for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

II. Background 

The Act requires us to establish 

NAAQS for certain widespread 

pollutants that cause or contribute to air 

pollution that is reasonably anticipated 

to endanger public health or welfare 

(sections 108 and 109 of the Act). In 

1979, we promulgated the revised 

1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per 

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

1979).1

An area is considered to have attained 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no 

violations of the standard, as 

determined in accordance with the 

regulation codified at 40 CFR section 

50.9, based on three consecutive 

calendar years of complete, qualityassured and certified monitoring data. A 

violation occurs when the ambient 

ozone air quality monitoring data show 

greater than one (1.0) ‘‘expected 

number’’ of exceedances per year at any 

site in the area, when averaged over 

three consecutive calendar years.2 An 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3EPA’s findings also addressed two other 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California, which are 

not at issue here: Southeast Desert and the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin. 

4Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1, 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 

5Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air 

Division Directors, ‘‘Guidance on Developing Fee 

Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for 

the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ January 5, 2010. This 

memorandum is in the docket to this proposed 

action and can also be found on the Internet at: 

http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/ 

20100105185guidance.pdf. 

exceedance occurs when the maximum 

hourly ozone concentration during any 

day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more 

information, please see ‘‘National 1-hour 

primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 

50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour 

Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

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

The Act, as amended in 1990, 

required EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any area that was 

violating the 1-hour ozone standard, 

generally based on air quality 

monitoring data from the 1987 through 

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

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

The Act further classified these areas, 

based on the severity of their 

nonattainment problem, as Marginal, 

Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. 

The control requirements and date by 

which attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard was to be achieved varied with 

an area’s classification. Marginal areas 

were subject to the fewest mandated 

control requirements and had the 

earliest attainment date, November 15, 

1993, while Severe and Extreme areas 

were subject to more stringent planning 

requirements and were provided more 

time to attain the standard. 

Sacramento Metro Area’s History 

On November 6, 1991, EPA 

designated the Sacramento Metro Area 

as Serious nonattainment for the 1-hour 

ozone standard, with an attainment date 

no later than November 15, 1999 (56 FR 

56694). The Sacramento Metro Area 

consists of the entirety of both 

Sacramento and Yolo counties and 

portions of four adjacent counties (El 

Dorado, Placer, Solano and Sutter 

counties) (see 40 CFR section 81.305). 

Sacramento County is under the 

jurisdiction of the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and 

the eastern portion of Solano County 

comprise the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District. The southern 

portion of Sutter County is part of the 

Feather River Air Quality Management 

District. The western portion of Placer 

County is part of the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District. Lastly, the 

western portion of El Dorado County is 

part of the El Dorado County Air Quality 

Management District. Under California 

law, each air district is responsible for 

adopting and implementing stationary 

source rules, such as the rules required 

under CAA section 185, while the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

adopts and implements consumer 

products and mobile source rules. The 

district and state rules are submitted to 

EPA by CARB. 

In 1995, EPA granted the State’s 

request to reclassify the Sacramento 

Metro Area as Severe. 60 FR 20237 

(April 25, 1995). The reclassification of 

the area as Severe required the State to 

adopt a SIP revision creating a penalty 

fee program under CAA section 185 that 

would apply if the area failed to meet 

the November 15, 2005 attainment date 

that applies to Severe 1-hour ozone 

areas and to submit that SIP revision to 

EPA by December 31, 2000 (CAA 

section 182(d)(3)). On September 26, 

2002, SMAQMD adopted Rule 307 

(’’Clean Air Act Fees’’). CARB submitted 

Rule 307 to EPA as a SIP revision for the 

Sacramento County portion of the area 

on December 12, 2002 and EPA 

approved Rule 307 on August 26, 2003 

(68 FR 51184). The other affected air 

districts in the Sacramento Metro Area 

did not submit 1-hour section 185 SIP 

revisions for their portions of the 

nonattainment area. EPA published 

findings of failure to submit on January 

5, 2010 (75 FR 232).3 These findings 

started sanctions clocks for imposition 

of offset sanctions 18 months after 

January 5, 2010 and highway sanctions 

six months after the offset sanctions, 

pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and 

our regulations at 40 CFR section 52.31. 

In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, 

more protective standard for ozone 

based on an 8-hour average 

concentration (the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard). In 2004, EPA published the 

1997 8-hour ozone designations and 

classifications and a rule governing 

certain facets of implementation of the 

8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) 

(69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951, 

respectively, April 30, 2004). 

By the Sacramento Metro Area’s 

1-hour ozone 2005 attainment deadline, 

EPA had revoked the 1-hour standard 

and designated the area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. The 

area’s initial classification for 8-hour 

ozone was Serious, but EPA 

subsequently granted CARB’s request to 

reclassify the area to Severe for the 

8-hour ozone standard. See 75 FR 

24409, May 5, 2010. On July 7, 2010, 

and in an update on April 13, 2011, 

CARB requested that EPA find that the 

Sacramento Metro Area had attained the 

1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, and that EPA terminate 

1-hour ozone CAA section 185 

requirements for the area. See letters 

from James Goldstene, CARB Executive 

Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

with enclosures, dated July 7, 2010 and 

April 13, 2011. 

Section 185 1-Hour Ozone AntiBacksliding Requirements 

Although EPA revoked the 1-hour 

ozone standard (effective June 15, 2005), 

during the transition from the 1-hour 

ozone to the 8-hour ozone standard, 

1-hour nonattainment areas remain 

subject to certain requirements based on 

their 1-hour ozone classification. The 

section 185 fee program requirement 

applies to any ozone nonattainment area 

classified as Severe or Extreme, 

including any area that was classified 

Severe or Extreme under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS as of the effective date of 

the area’s 8-hour designation (see 40 

CFR part 81). 

Initially, in our rules to address the 

transition from the 1-hour to the 8-hour 

ozone standard, EPA did not include the 

section 185 fee penalty requirement as 

one of the measures necessary to meet 

Clean Air Act anti-backsliding 

requirements.4 However, on December 

23, 2006, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit determined that EPA should not 

have removed from its anti-backsliding 

requirements the application of the 

section 185 fee provision for Severe and 

Extreme nonattainment areas that failed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

their attainment date. South Coast Air 

Quality Management District v. EPA, 

472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). In light of 

the Court’s decision, on January 5, 2010 

EPA issued guidance on the application 

of the section 185 1-hour antibacksliding requirement.5 EPA’s 

guidance addressed, among other 

matters, alternative methods of 

satisfying the section 185 1-hour antibacksliding requirement, and the 

circumstances under which EPA would 

determine that the obligation was 

terminated. 

After the 1-hour ozone standard was 

revoked, and in accordance with antibacksliding regulations that remain 

unchallenged, EPA was no longer 

obligated to find that an area attained by 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28699 

6 Id. 

its 1-hour attainment date, nor to 

reclassify 1-hour areas under CAA 

Sections 181(b)(2) or 179(c) (40 CFR 

51.905(e)). (69 FR 23951, April 30, 

2004). 

III. What is the legal rationale for this 

proposed termination determination? 

As a result of the court decision in 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 

2006), states with areas classified as 

Severe or Extreme nonattainment for the 

1-hour ozone standard at the time of the 

area’s initial nonattainment designation 

for the 1997 8-hour standard are no 

longer categorically exempt from the 

anti-backsliding requirements imposed 

by section 185. EPA has issued guidance 

for states related to developing 1-hour 

ozone section 185 fee programs.6 As set 

forth in this guidance, EPA believes that 

states can meet the 1-hour ozone section 

185 obligation through a SIP revision 

containing either the fee program 

prescribed in section 185 of the Act, or 

an equivalent alternative program, as 

further explained below. EPA believes 

that an alternative program may be 

acceptable if EPA determines, through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, that it 

is consistent with the principles of 

section 172(e) of the CAA. 

Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding 

provision of the CAA that requires EPA 

to develop regulations to ensure that 

controls in a nonattainment area are ‘‘no 

less stringent’’ than those that applied to 

the area before EPA revised a NAAQS 

to make it less stringent. In the Phase 1 

ozone implementation rule for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS published on April 30, 

2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA determined 

that although section 172(e) does not 

directly apply where EPA has 

strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 

1997, it was reasonable to apply the 

same anti-backsliding principle that 

would apply to the relaxation of a 

standard for the transition from the 

1-hour NAAQS to the more stringent 

1997 8-hour NAAQS. As part of 

applying the principle in section 172(e) 

for purposes of the transition from the 

1-hour standard to the 1997 8-hour 

standard, EPA can either require states 

to retain programs that applied for 

purposes of the 1-hour standard, or 

alternatively can allow states to adopt 

alternative programs, but only if such 

alternatives are determined through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking to be 

‘‘no less stringent’’ than the mandated 

program. 

EPA is electing to consider alternative 

programs to satisfy the 1-hour ozone 

section 185 fee program SIP revision 

requirement. States choosing to adopt 

an alternative program to the section 

185 fee program must demonstrate that 

the alternative program is no less 

stringent than the otherwise applicable 

section 185 fee program and EPA can 

only approve such demonstration after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

As set forth in EPA’s January 5, 2010 

guidance, EPA believes that for an area 

that we determine is attaining either the 

1-hour ozone or 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, based on permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, the 

area would no longer be obligated to 

satisfy the section 185 anti-backsliding 

requirements associated with the 

transition from the 1-hour ozone 

standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. In such cases, an area’s 

existing SIP could be considered an 

adequate alternative program. Our 

reasoning follows from the fact that an 

area’s existing SIP measures, in 

conjunction with other enforceable 

Federal measures, are adequate for the 

area to achieve attainment, which is the 

purpose of the section 185 program. The 

section 185 fee program is an element of 

an area’s attainment demonstration and 

its objective is to bring about attainment 

after a failure of an area to attain by its 

attainment date. Thus, areas that have 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard, the 

standard for which the fee program was 

originally required, as a result of 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, would have a SIP that is no 

less stringent than the SIP required 

under section 185. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that the obligation to submit 

a rule or to collect fees terminates once 

EPA determines that the area has 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard 

based on permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. 

There is also an additional, 

independent basis for EPA’s approach to 

determining that the anti-backsliding 

requirements associated with section 

185 have been satisfied. Although 

section 185 provides that fees are to 

continue until the area is redesignated 

to attainment for ozone, EPA no longer 

promulgates redesignations for the 

1-hour ozone standard because that 

standard has been revoked. Therefore, 

relief from the 1-hour section 185 fee 

program requirements under the terms 

of the statute is an impossibility, since 

the conditions the statute envisioned for 

relieving an area of its fee program 

obligation no longer can exist. There is 

thus a gap in the statute which must be 

filled by EPA. We believe that under 

these circumstances we must exercise 

our discretion under Chevron USA, Inc. 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 

467 U.S. 837 (1984), to fill this gap, so 

as to carry out Congressional intent in 

the unique context of anti-backsliding 

requirements for a revoked standard. We 

believe that it is reasonable for the fee 

program obligation that applies for 

purposes of anti-backsliding to cease 

upon a determination, based on noticeand-comment rulemaking, that an area 

has attained the 1-hour ozone standard 

due to permanent and enforceable 

measures. This determination centers on 

the core criteria for redesignations 

under CAA section 107(d)(3). We 

believe these criteria provide reasonable 

assurance that the purpose of the 1-hour 

anti-backsliding fee program obligation 

has been fulfilled in the context of a 

regulatory regime where the area 

remains subject to other applicable 

1-hour anti-backsliding and 8-hour 

nonattainment measures. Under these 

circumstances, retention of the fee 

program under the anti-backsliding rule 

is no longer necessary for the purpose 

of achieving attainment of the 8-hour 

standard. See EPA’s January 5, 2010 

guidance (footnote 5, above). 

IV. What is the effect of this proposed 

termination determination? 

If this proposed determination to 

terminate the section 185 fee antibacksliding requirement for the 1-hour 

ozone standard is finalized, the 

requirement for the State of California to 

submit section 185 penalty fee program 

SIP revisions for the portions of the area 

for which we made findings of failure to 

submit, which would require major 

stationary sources under the Sacramento 

Metro Area 1-hour ozone Severe 

nonattainment classification to pay fees 

as a penalty for the area’s failure to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the 

area’s 1-hour ozone attainment date, as 

well as the requirement for the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District portion of the area 

to implement its 1-hour ozone section 

185 fee program, would be removed. 

A final Termination Determination for 

the 1-hour standard section 185 

measures will not be rescinded based on 

subsequent nonattainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard. After EPA has 

determined that an area has attained the 

1-hour standard due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, EPA 

believes that it would be unduly 

punitive, confusing, and potentially 

destabilizing to re-impose the years-old 

penalty requirements if at some point in 

the future the area lapses back into 1- 

hour nonattainment. Moreover, EPA 

believes that under current 

circumstances, it would not be in 

keeping with the intent of Congress. 

First, we note that had the area attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA anticipates announcing the reconsidered 8- 

hour ozone standard in July 2011. 

8The average number of expected exceedances is 

determined by averaging the expected exceedances 

of the 1-hour ozone standard over a consecutive 

three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 

Appendix H. 

9Neither CARB nor SMAQMD proposed 

modifications to their networks in 2008; therefore, 

neither agency was required to submit a network 

plan to EPA for approval that year. 

10A primary quality assurance organization is 

responsible for a group of monitoring stations for 

which data quality assessments can be pooled See 

40 CFR section 58.1. CARB is the lead PQAO for 

all the air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area. 

attainment date, no penalties at all 

would have been imposed even if the 

area subsequently lapsed into 

nonattainment. Second, the statute 

provides that penalties for failure to 

attain by an area’s attainment date 

would be terminated by redesignation of 

the area. Now that the 1-hour ozone 

standard has been revoked and EPA is 

no longer promulgating redesignations 

for that standard, relief from the 1-hour 

section 185 fee program requirements 

under the terms of the statute is an 

impossibility—the mechanism the 

statute envisioned for relief no longer 

exists. As EPA explains in its January 5, 

2010 guidance, we have reasonably 

concluded in these circumstances that a 

determination of attainment due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, along with the area’s 

existing SIP and its continuing 

obligations to meet ever more stringent 

ozone standards, are a reasonable 

alternative means for terminating these 

unique anti-backsliding penalty 

provisions. EPA believes that, given the 

gap in the statute, and the intent of 

Congress as expressed in quite different 

regulatory circumstances, it would be 

counterproductive and in conflict with 

that intent for EPA’s determination to 

merely suspend rather than 

permanently terminate the 1-hour antibacksliding penalty fees. Requiring 

areas to remain subject to the threat of 

reviving stale penalty fees for an old 

revoked standard, when these areas and 

the sources subject to the penalties must 

now muster their resources to focus on 

meeting newer more stringent 

standards, would be at odds with the 

purposes of the Act and in conflict with 

the principle that penalty provisions 

should be narrowly construed. This is 

also true because the area is subject to 

a host of ongoing obligations for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard as well as 

the future anticipated new 8-hour ozone 

standard,7 when it has already shown 

great improvement towards meeting the 

1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis? 

EPA’s proposed Termination 

Determination is based upon EPA’s 

belief that the area is attaining the 1- 

hour ozone standard due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions 

implemented in the area. In its January 

5, 2010 guidance, EPA set forth its 

views as to potential rationales for 

terminating section 185 obligations for 

1-hour ozone. This notice formally sets 

forth EPA’s legal interpretation 

concerning the basis for terminating 

those obligations. 

As explained above, EPA set forth our 

belief in our January 5, 2010 guidance 

that for an area that we determine is 

attaining either the 1-hour ozone or 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, that the area would no 

longer be obligated to satisfy the antibacksliding requirements associated 

with the transition from the 1-hour 

ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality meets the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS is generally based upon the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured and certified air quality 

monitoring data gathered at established 

National Air Monitoring Stations 

(‘‘NAMS’’) or State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (‘‘SLAMS’’) in the 

nonattainment area and entered into the 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state/local agencies in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to the 

AQS database. Monitoring agencies 

annually certify that these data are 

accurate to the best of their knowledge. 

Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on 

data in its AQS database when 

determining the attainment status of an 

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

Appendix H; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR 

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

data are reviewed to determine the 

area’s air quality status in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

50.9, the 1-hour ozone standard is 

attained at a monitoring site when the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 parts per 

million (235 micrograms per cubic 

meter) is equal to or less than 1, as 

determined by 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix H. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Sacramento Metro Area has attained the 

1-hour ozone standard; that is, the 

number of expected exceedances at any 

site in the nonattainment area is not 

greater than one per year.8 This 

proposed determination is based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data in AQS showing 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

for the 2007–2009 monitoring period, 

and complete, quality-assured data in 

AQS for 2008–2010 that show 

continued attainment. As explained 

below, in determining the area’s 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard, EPA is also proposing to 

exclude from consideration exceedances 

that occurred on three days in 2008, 

because they are due to wildfire 

exceptional events. 

Monitoring Network 

In the Sacramento Metro Area, the 

agencies responsible for assuring that 

the area meets air quality monitoring 

requirements include CARB, 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD), Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(PCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD). Both 

CARB and SMAQMD submit annual 

monitoring network plans to EPA. 

SMAQMD Network Plans describe the 

monitoring network the district 

operates; CARB’s Network Plans 

describe the monitoring sites CARB 

operates, in addition to monitoring sites 

operated by smaller air districts, 

namely, for the Sacramento Metro Area, 

PCAPCD and YSAQMD. These plans 

discuss the status of the air monitoring 

network, as required under 40 CFR 

58.10. 

Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews 

these annual plans for compliance with 

the applicable reporting requirements in 

40 CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, 

EPA has found that the area’s network 

plans meet the applicable requirements 

under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters 

to CARB and SMAQMD approving their 

annual network plans for years 2007, 

2009 and 2010.9 Furthermore, we 

concluded in our Technical System 

Audit of the CARB Primary Quality 

Assurance Organization (PQAO),10

conducted during Summer 2007, that 

the combined ambient air monitoring 

network operated by CARB and the 

local air districts in their PQAO 

currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of SLAMS monitoring sites for all 

criteria pollutants, and that all of the 

monitoring sites are properly located 

with respect to monitoring objectives, 

spatial scales and other site criteria, as 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28701 

11Enclosure 2 of CARB’s July 7, 2010 request 

includes a map on page 3.2 showing locations of 

all ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area. 

Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive 

Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 

2010, requesting termination of CAA section 185 

requirements as they pertain to the Sacramento 

Metro Area. The document can be found on the 

Internet at: http://www.airquality.org/notices/ 

1hour/AttainmentReport.pdf. 12The Sacramento-Airport Road site was 

relocated to Sacramento-Goldenland Court in 

August 2008. 13Sacramento Metro Area monitoring agencies 

operate Federal equivalent method (FEM) monitors 

for ozone, specifically, API 400 Series ultraviolet 

absorption monitors. See SMAQMD’s ‘‘Annual 

Network Plan Report’’ (July 2010) and CARB’s 

‘‘Monitoring Network Report for Small Districts in 

California’’ (July 2010). These monitoring devices 

have an EPA designation number EQOA–0992–087. 

See EPA ‘‘List of Designated Reference and 

Equivalent Methods, page 27 (February 1, 2011), 

available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

amtic/criteria.html. 

required by 40 CFR part 58, Appendix 

D. See letter from Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 

IX, to James Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, transmitting ‘‘Technical 

System Audit of the California 

Environmental Protection Agency Air 

Resources Board: 2007,’’ with enclosure, 

August 18, 2008. Also, CARB annually 

certifies that the data it submits to AQS 

are complete and quality-assured. See, 

e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, 

Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and 

Technical Support Division, CARB, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2009 ambient 

air quality data and quality assurance 

data, May 19, 2010. 

There were 16 ozone monitoring sites 

located throughout the Sacramento 

Metro Area in calendar years 2007, 

2008, 2009 and 2010.11 Sacramento 

Metro AQMD operates six ozone 

monitors in Sacramento County: Elk 

Grove (southwest Sacramento County), 

Del Paso Manor (northeast City of 

Sacramento), Folsom (City of Folsom), 

Sacramento-Goldenland Court 12

(northwest City of Sacramento), North 

Highlands (north Sacramento County) 

and Sloughhouse Road (west 

Sacramento County). CARB operates six 

ozone monitors in the Sacramento 

Metro Area: Sacramento-T Street (City 

of Sacramento) in Sacramento County; 

Cool (City of Cool), Echo Summit (in the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains) and 

Placerville (City of Placerville) in El 

Dorado County; Roseville (City of 

Roseville) in Placer County; and Davis 

(City of Davis) in Yolo County. Placer 

County APCD operates two ozone 

monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: 

Colfax (City of Colfax) and Auburn (City 

of Auburn). Yolo-Solano AQMD 

operates two ozone monitors in the 

Sacramento Metro Area: Vacaville (City 

of Vacaville) in Solano County, and 

Woodland (City of Woodland) in Yolo 

County. 

All Sacramento Metro Area sites 

monitor ozone concentrations on a 

continuous basis using ultraviolet 

absorption monitors.13 EPA defines 

specific monitoring site types and 

spatial scales of representativeness to 

characterize the nature and location of 

required monitors. See 40 CFR part 58, 

Appendix D, § 1. Table 1 below lists the 

site types and spatial scale for each 

ozone monitoring site in the Sacramento 

Metro Area. Due to ozone precursor 

source distribution and general 

meteorological patterns in the area, the 

highest ozone concentrations for the 

past several years have typically 

occurred at the Folsom and 

Sloughhouse Road sites. 

TABLE 1—SITE TYPE AND SPATIAL SCALE a

Site name Site type b Spatial 

scale c

Placerville (06–017–0010) ........................................................................................................................ HC, TR ................................... RS 

Echo Summit (06–017–0012) ................................................................................................................... HC, TR ................................... RS 

Cool (06–017–0020) ................................................................................................................................. HC, TR ................................... RS 

Auburn (06–061–0002) ............................................................................................................................. HC .......................................... US 

Colfax (06–061–0004) ............................................................................................................................... HC .......................................... US 

Roseville (06–061–0006) .......................................................................................................................... HC .......................................... US 

North Highlands (06–067–0002) ............................................................................................................... RC .......................................... NS 

Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06–067–0006) .......................................................................................... HC .......................................... NS 

Sacramento-T Street (06–067–0010) ....................................................................................................... RC .......................................... US 

Elk Grove (06–067–0011) ......................................................................................................................... RC .......................................... NS 

Folsom (06–067–0012) ............................................................................................................................. HC .......................................... NS 

Sacramento-Airport Road (06–067–0013) ................................................................................................ RC .......................................... NS 

Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06–067–0014) ........................................................................................ RC .......................................... NS 

Sloughhouse Rd. (06–067–5003) ............................................................................................................. RC .......................................... NS 

Vacaville (06–095–3003) .......................................................................................................................... HC, TR ................................... RS 

Davis (06–113–0004) ................................................................................................................................ HC .......................................... US 

Woodland (06–113–1003) ......................................................................................................................... HC .......................................... US 

aSource: SMAQMD’s ‘‘Annual Network Plan Report’’ (July 2010) and CARB’s ‘‘Monitoring Network Report for Small Districts in California’’ (July 

2010). bSite types are defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D section 1.1.1. The site types utilized in the Sacramento Metro Area include high concentration (HC), representative concentration (RC) and pollutant transport (TR). cSpatial scales are defined in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D section 1.2. The monitoring sites in the Sacramento Metro Area are either neighborhood scale (NS), urban scale (US) or regional scale (RS) sites. 

Exceptional Events 

On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a 

final rule, ‘‘Treatment of Data Influenced 

by Exceptional Events,’’ also known as 

the Exceptional Events Rule (EER), to 

govern the review and handling of 

certain air quality monitoring data for 

which the normal planning and 

regulatory processes are not appropriate 

(72 FR 13560). Under the EER, EPA may 

exclude data from use in determinations 

of NAAQS exceedances and violations if 

a state demonstrates that an 

‘‘exceptional event’’ caused the 

exceedance or exceedances. 40 CFR 

50.1, 50.14. Before EPA can exclude 

data from these regulatory 

determinations, the state must flag the 

data in EPA’s AQS database and, after 

public notice and opportunity for 

comment, submit a demonstration to 

EPA to justify the exclusion. EPA 

considers the demonstration and 

concurs or nonconcurs with the state’s 

flag. After notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, EPA determines whether to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

exclude the data from use when making 

a determination of attainment. 

In submittals dated September 17, 

2009 and March 30, 2011, CARB 

provided documentation for ozone 

exceedances that occurred at the Folsom 

monitor on three days in Summer 2008 

which the state had flagged as due to 

wildfire exceptional events. EPA 

reviewed the documentation and 

concurred with the June 23, June 27 and 

July 10, 2008 flags in a letter from Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

U.S. EPA Region IX, to Mary D. Nichols, 

Chairman, CARB, dated April 13, 2011. 

EPA included with the letter a 

document setting forth in detail the 

bases for EPA’s concurrences. See 

‘‘Review of Exceptional Events Request: 

Folsom, CA; 1-hour ozone; June 23, June 

27 and July 10, 2008,’’ dated April 13, 

2011 (in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking). For the reasons set forth in 

the concurrence letter and its enclosure, 

EPA is proposing to exclude from 

regulatory consideration data showing 

exceedances at the Folsom monitoring 

site on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 

2008. 

Monitoring Data 

EPA’s proposal to exclude ozone 

exceedances monitored at the Folsom 

site on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 

2008, if finalized, would result in a 

revision of the number of exceedances 

(as determined by 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix H and described in section II 

of this notice) for 2008 and, therefore, 

the average number of expected 

exceedances for the 2007–2009 period. 

With the exclusion of the data for these 

three days, the highest three-year 

average of expected exceedances at any 

site in the Sacramento Metro Area for 

2007–2009 is 1.0, which shows 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

(a three-year average of expected 

exceedances less than or equal to 1). For 

more information, please see ‘‘National 

1-hour primary and secondary ambient 

air quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 

section 50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 

1-Hour Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

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

Consistent with 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix H, Tables 2 and 3 set forth the 

1-hour ozone data for the Sacramento 

Metro Area monitors that show that the 

area is currently attaining the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—1-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA a

Site (monitor ID) 

Expected exceedances by year Expected 

exceedances 

3-yr average 

2007 2008 2009 

2007–2009 

Placerville (06–017–0010) ........................................................................................... 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 

Echo Summit (06–017–0012) ...................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cool (06–017–0020) .................................................................................................... 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 

Auburn (06–061–0002) ................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Colfax (06–061–0004) ................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Roseville (06–061–0006) ............................................................................................. 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 

North Highlands (06–067–0002) ................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06–067–0006) ............................................................. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Sacramento-T Street (06–067–0010) .......................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Elk Grove (06–067–0011) ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Folsom (06–067–0012) ................................................................................................ 1.0 b 2.0 0.0 1.0 

Sacramento-Airport Road (06–067–0013) .................................................................. 0.0 c 0.0 NA NA 

Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06–067–0014) .......................................................... NA c 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sloughhouse Rd. (06–067–5003) ................................................................................ 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 

Vacaville (06–095–3003) ............................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Davis (06–113–0004) .................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Woodland (06–113–1003) ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). 

a 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H—Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.

b Data shown exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events. 

cThe Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008. 

NA—Data is not available. 

The data in Table 2 indicate a longterm trend observed in the Sacramento 

Metro Area. As described in CARB’s 

July 7, 2010 letter requesting a 

Termination Determination, the 

monitoring sites that historically 

experienced exceedances of the 1-hour 

ozone standard are the Cool, 

Sloughhouse, Folsom and Del Paso 

Manor sites. For example, in 1998 five 

exceedances were monitored at Cool 

and ten at Folsom. In 2009, by contrast, 

there were no exceedances at any 

monitor in the entire Sacramento Metro 

Area. 

In sum, EPA believes that, if the 

exceedances resulting from wildfire 

exceptional events on three days in 

2008 are excluded from consideration, 

the 2007–2009 ambient air monitoring 

data for the Sacramento Metro Area 

show attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In addition, if EPA’s proposal 

to exclude exceedances on three days 

due to wildfire exceptional events is 

finalized, the data for 2010 (complete 

and quality-assured but not yet 

certified), shown in Table 3 for the 

2008–2010 monitoring period, show 

continued attainment. Preliminary data 

available for 2011 are also consistent 

with continued attainment. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28703 

14NOX and VOCs are chemical precursors to 

ozone. 

TABLE 3—2010 1-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA SHOWING

CONTINUED ATTAINMENT a

Site (monitor ID) 

Expected exceedances by year Expected 

exceedances 

3-yr average 

2008 2009 2010 b

2008–2010 b

Placerville (06–017–0010) ........................................................................................... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Echo Summit (06–017–0012) ...................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cool (06–017–0020) .................................................................................................... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Auburn (06–061–0002) ................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Colfax (06–061–0004) ................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Roseville (06–061–0006) ............................................................................................. 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

North Highlands (06–067–0002) ................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06–067–0006) ............................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-T Street (06–067–0010) .......................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Elk Grove (06–067–0011) ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Folsom (06–067–0012) ................................................................................................ c 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Sacramento-Airport Road (06–067–0013) .................................................................. d 0.0 NA NA NA 

Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06–067–0014) .......................................................... d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sloughhouse Rd. (06–067–5003) ................................................................................ 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Vacaville (06–095–3003) ............................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Davis (06–113–0004) .................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Woodland (06–113–1003) ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). 

a 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H—Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.

b Data from 2010 are complete but have not yet been certified. 

c Data exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events. 

dThe Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008. 

NA—Data are not available. 

b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

EPA believes that the State has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvements in the 

Sacramento Metro Area with respect to 

the 1-hour ozone standard are due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions through the implementation 

of state and district emission controls 

contained in the SIP and not due to 

favorable meteorology or temporary 

reductions in emission rates, such as 

temporary adverse economic conditions. 

See letter and accompanying 

documentation (Enclosure 2, 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District 1-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Request for 

the Sacramento Federal Ozone 

Nonattainment Area) from James 

Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

dated July 7, 2010, requesting 

termination of CAA section 185 

requirements as they pertain to the 

Sacramento Metro Area (July 7, 2010 

request). 

In 1994, California submitted a 

comprehensive ozone plan for all ozone 

nonattainment areas in California 

including the Sacramento Metro Area 

(1994 SIP), which EPA approved on 

January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150). The plan 

provided a blueprint for attaining the 

1-hour ozone standard that relied on a 

combination of stationary and mobile 

source measures by the districts, and 

state and Federal governments. In 

addition, California air districts in the 

Sacramento Metro Area adopted and 

implemented emission control rules 

requiring many existing sources of 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) 14 to meet, 

at minimum, Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT). These 

requirements apply to sources in 

categories covered by Control 

Technology Guidelines (CTGs) and 

major non-CTG sources. 

Meteorology 

In its July 7, 2010 request (Enclosure 

2, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District 1-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Request for 

the Sacramento Federal Ozone 

Nonattainment Area), CARB provided 

documentation that the improvement in 

air quality in the Sacramento Metro 

Area is not due to favorable 

meteorology. CARB showed that the 

weather patterns in the last decade have 

not been unusually favorable. For 

example, looking at days equal to or 

over 95 degrees Fahrenheit in each of 

the last thirteen years (1997 to 2009) as 

an indicator of conditions conducive to 

ozone formation, the area had an annual 

average of 37 such ‘‘high temperature’’ 

days, while in the last four years (2006– 

2009), the area also had an annual 

average of 37 high temperature days. 

Economic Activity 

The State provided documentation 

showing that the improvement in air 

quality leading to 1-hour ozone 

attainment in the Sacramento Metro 

Area is not due to a temporary economic 

downturn. See July 7, 2010 request 

(Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management District 1-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

Request for the Sacramento Federal 

Ozone Nonattainment Area). As an 

indicator of economic activity, this 

analysis presented information on 

gasoline and diesel sales in California 

from 2000 to 2009. Fuel sales are an 

indicator of economic activity, and 

represent an indicator of emissions 

trends of both VOCs and NOX as well. 

The Sacramento Metro Area’s emissions 

inventory is dominated by mobile 

sources. See Table 7 below and Table 

4.1 of Enclosure 2 of July 7, 2010 

request. Although fuel sales have 

decreased in the last several years, 

perhaps coinciding with an overall 

economic downturn in California and 

nationally, we note that the decrease has 

been slight and that the last year 

presented, 2009, still had a higher level 

(14.8 billion gallons of fuel sold) than 

the first year presented (2001, at 14.5 

billion gallons). Between those years, 

fuel sales increased gradually to a peak 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

15Feather River Air Quality Management District 

(FRAQMD) does not have any rules listed in the 

table because, since 1990, no additional FRAQMD 

VOC or NOX rules have been added to the SIP. 

FRAQMD consists of the entirety of both Sutter and 

Yuba counties. Only the very southern portion of 

Sutter County falls within the Sacramento Metro 

Area, and that portion includes no major NOX or 

VOC stationary sources. 

16EPA is currently evaluating approximately 30 

additional rules that have been adopted by 

Sacramento Metro Area air districts to control VOC 

and/or NOX and that were submitted to EPA as SIP 

revisions. Although EPA has not yet taken action 

on these submitted rules, they are currently being 

implemented by the air districts. 

between 2005 and 2006 (both at 15.9 

billion gallons sold per year), before 

gradually declining. 

Given that the earliest years in that 

ten-year period were years when the 

area was not attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard, EPA believes that any 

temporary emission reductions due to 

the more recent economic downturn in 

2008 and later are relatively small and 

not a significant factor in the attainment 

of the 1-hour standard. Therefore, we 

conclude that economic conditions are 

not a source of temporary reductions in 

emission rates. On the contrary, EPA 

believes that the steady decline of 

emissions of NOX and VOCs during the 

same ten-year period is attributable to 

fleet turnover with newer vehicles 

having lower evaporative and tailpipe 

emissions, as well as greater fuel 

economy. Additionally, EPA notes that 

CARB’s emissions database (http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm) 

shows that during 2006 through 2009, 

the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have 

increased from approximately 68 

million miles per day to 72 million 

miles per day in the Sacramento Valley 

Air Basin. See CEPAM: 2009 Almanac— 

Population and Vehicle Trends Tool, 

Sacramento Valley Air Basin, Daily 

Vehicle Miles Traveled, All Vehicles. 

Local Districts’ Measures Since 1990 

Since 1990, the Districts have 

adopted, implemented and submitted 

for EPA approval dozens of stationary 

source rules which achieve NOX and 

VOC emission reductions and have thus 

helped reduce ozone levels. Tables 4 

through 7 below summarize the local air 

district rules adopted since 1990 and 

approved into the California SIP.15 16

TABLE 4—SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND

APPROVED INTO THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Rule No. Rule 

Date rule 

adopted by 

district 

Date rule 

approved into 

SIP 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

NOX VOC 

411 ............. NOX from Boilers, Process Heaters and Steam Generators .... 08/23/2007 5/6/2009 74 FR 20880 X ..........

412 ............. Stationary Internal Combustion Engine ..................................... 06/01/1995 4/30/1996 61 FR 18959 X ..........

413 ............. Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................................ 03/24/2005 1/10/2008 73 FR 1819 X ..........

414 ............. Natural Gas-fired Water Heater ................................................. 08/01/1996 4/20/1999 64 FR 19277 X ..........

442 ............. Architectural Coatings ................................................................ 09/05/1996 11/9/1998 63 FR 60214 .......... X 

443 ............. Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical & Polymer Manufacturing.09/05/1996 11/9/1998 63 FR 60214 .......... X 

446 ............. Storage of Petroleum Products ................................................. 11/16/1993 9/16/1994 59 FR 47544 .......... X 

447 ............. Organic Liquid Loading .............................................................. 04/02/1998 11/26/1999 64 FR 66393 .......... X 

448 ............. Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers .............. 02/02/1995 1/23/1996 61 FR 1716 .......... X 

449 ............. Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks ........................... 09/26/2002 3/24/2003 68 FR 14156 .......... X 

450 ............. Graphic Arts ............................................................................... 10/23/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 .......... X 

452 ............. Can Coating ............................................................................... 09/25/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 .......... X 

454 ............. Degreasing Operations .............................................................. 09/25/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 .......... X 

456 ............. Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations ...... 10/23/2008 7/14/2010 75 FR 40726 .......... X 

458 ............. Large Commercial Bread Bakeries ............................................ 09/05/1996 11/9/1998 63 FR 60214 .......... X 

459 ............. Automotive, Truck and Heavy Equipment Refinishing Operations.10/02/1997 11/13/1998 63 FR 63410 .......... X 

463 ............. Wood Products Coatings ........................................................... 09/25/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 .......... X 

464 ............. Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations ............................ 07/23/1998 4/19/2000 65 FR 20912 .......... X 

466 ............. Solvent Cleaning ........................................................................ 05/23/2002 5/5/2010 75 FR 24406 .......... X 

TABLE 5—EL DORADO COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO

THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Rule No. Rule 

Date rule 

adopted by 

district 

Date rule 

approved into 

SIP 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

NOX VOC 

215 ............. Architectural Coatings ................................................................ 9/27/1994 7/18/1996 61 FR 37390 .......... X 

224 ............. Cutback Asphalt Paving Material ............................................... 9/27/1994 8/21/1995 60 FR 43383 .......... X 

225 ............. Solvent Cleaning (Degreasing) .................................................. 9/27/1994 8/21/1995 60 FR 43383 .......... X 

229 ............. Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters.1/23/2001 10/10/2001 66 FR 51578 X ..........

230 ............. Motor Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Coating .............................. 9/27/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 18962 .......... X 

231 ............. Graphic Arts ............................................................................... 9/27/1994 7/11/1997 62 FR 37136 .......... X 

232 ............. Biomass Boilers ......................................................................... 9/25/2001 10/14/2003 68 FR 59121 X ..........

233 ............. Stationary Internal Combustion Engines ................................... 6/11/2002 9/13/2002 67 FR 57960 X ..........

234 ............. VOC RACT Rule—Sierra Pacific Industries .............................. 4/25/1995 9/12/1995 60 FR 47273 .......... X 

235 ............. Surface Preparation and Cleanup ............................................. 6/27/1995 4/30/1996 61 FR 18962 .......... X 

236 ............. Adhesives ................................................................................... 7/25/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 37390 .......... X 

237 ............. Wood Products Coatings ........................................................... 6/27/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 37390 .......... X 

238 ............. Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing ............................................ 3/27/2001 8/27/2001 66 FR 44974 .......... X 

239 ............. Natural Gas-fired Residential Water Heaters ............................ 3/24/1998 3/30/1999 64 FR 15129 X ..........


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28705 

TABLE 5—EL DORADO COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO

THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN—Continued 

Rule No. Rule 

Date rule 

adopted by 

district 

Date rule 

approved into 

SIP 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

NOX VOC 

240 ............. Polyester Resin Operations ....................................................... 2/15/2000 7/17/2001 66 FR 37154 .......... X 

244 ............. Organic Liquid Loading and Transport Vessels ........................ 9/25/2001 7/8/2002 67 FR 45067 .......... X 

245 ............. Valves and Flanges ................................................................... 3/27/2001 8/27/2001 66 FR 44974 .......... X 

TABLE 6—PLACER COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO THE

CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Rule No. Rule 

Date rule 

adopted by 

district 

Date rule 

approved into 

SIP 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

NOX VOC 

212 ............. Storage of Organic Liquids ........................................................ 6/19/1997 6/11/2009 74 FR 27714 .......... X 

213 ............. Gasoline Transfer Into Stationary Storage Containers ............. 10/19/1993 3/3/1997 62 FR 23365 .......... X 

214 ............. Transfer of Gasoline Into Vehicle Fuel Tanks ........................... 10/19/1993 4/30/1997 62 FR 23365 .......... X 

215 ............. Transfer of Gasoline Into Tank Trucks, Trailers and Railroad 

Tank Cars at Loading Facilities.

6/19/1997 1/31/2011 76 FR 5277 .......... X 

216 ............. Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations ............ 12/11/2003 5/5/2010 75 FR 24406 .......... X 

217 ............. Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials .................... 10/19/1993 4/30/1997 62 FR 23365 .......... X

218 ............. Architectural Coatings ................................................................ 02/09/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 37390 .......... X 

219 ............. Organic Solvents ........................................................................ 10/19/1993 4/30/1997 62 FR 23365 .......... X 

223 ............. Metal Container Coating ............................................................ 10/6/1994 3/23/1995 60 FR 15241 .......... X 

229 ............. Fiberboard Manufacturing .......................................................... 6/28/1994 6/8/2001 66 FR 30815 .......... X 

230 ............. Plastic Products and Materials—Paper Treating Operation ...... 6/28/1994 12/14/1994 59 FR 64336 .......... X 

233 ............. Biomass Boilers ......................................................................... 10/06/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 18959 X ..........

235 ............. Adhesives ................................................................................... 6/08/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 37390 .......... X 

236 ............. Wood Products Coating Operations .......................................... 2/09/1995 4/30/1996 61 FR 18962 .......... X 

238 ............. Factory Coating of Flat Wood Paneling .................................... 6/18/1995 2/12/1996 61 FR 5288 .......... X 

239 ............. Graphic Arts Operations ............................................................ 2/13/1997 11/13/1998 63 FR 63410 .......... X 

244 ............. Semiconductor Operations ........................................................ 2/9/1995 7/25/1996 61 FR 38571 .......... X 

250 ............. Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................................ 10/17/1994 8/23/1995 60 FR 43713 X ..........

TABLE 7—YOLO-SOLANO AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO THE

CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Rule No. Rule 

Date rule 

adopted by 

district 

Date rule 

approved into 

SIP 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

NOX VOC 

2.13 ............ Organic Solvents ........................................................................ 5/24/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 18962 .......... X 

2.14 ............ Architectural Coatings ................................................................ 11/14/2001 1/2/2004 69 FR 34 .......... X 

2.21 ............ Organic Liquid Storage & Transfer ............................................ 9/14/2005 10/31/2006 71 FR 63694 .......... X 

2.22 ............ Gasoline Dispensing Facilities ................................................... 6/12/2002 1/23/2003 68 FR 3190 .......... X 

2.23 ............ Fugitive Hydrocarbon ................................................................. 8/13/1997 11/26/1999 64 FR 66393 .......... X 

2.24 ............ Solvent Cleaning Operations (Degreasing) ............................... 11/14/1990 12/13/1994 59 FR 64130 .......... X 

2.25 ............ Surface Coating or Manufactured Metal Parts and Products ... 4/27/1994 2/12/1996 61 FR 5288 .......... X 

2.26 ............ Motor Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Coating .............................. 11/30/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 18962 .......... X 

2.27 ............ Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters.8/14/1996 6/17/1997 62 FR 32691 X ..........

2.28 ............ Cutback & Emulsified Asphalt ................................................... 5/25/1994 2/5/1996 61 FR 4215 .......... X 

2.29 ............ Graphic Arts Printing Operations ............................................... 5/25/1994 8/21/1998 63 FR 44792 .......... X 

2.30 ............ Polyester Resin Operation ......................................................... 4/14/1999 7/21/1999 64 FR 39037 .......... X 

2.31 ............ Surface Preparation and Cleanup ............................................. 04/27/1994 4/2/1999 64 FR 15922 .......... X 

2.32 ............ Stationary Internal Combustion Engines ................................... 10/10/2001 1/28/2002 67 FR 3816 X X 

2.33 ............ Adhesives Operation .................................................................. 3/12/2003 3/22/2004 69 FR 13234 .......... X 

2.34 ............ Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................................ 7/13/1994 9/3/1998 63 FR 46892 X ..........

2.35 ............ Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Operations ................................ 11/30/1994 2/24/1997 62 FR 8172 .......... X 

2.37 ............ Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters and Small Boilers ................ 4/8/2009 5/10/2010 75 FR 25778 X ..........

2.42 ............ Nitric Acid Production ................................................................ 5/13/2009 5/10/2010 75 FR 25778 X ..........

California State Measures 

Source categories for which CARB has 

primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In 

addition, California has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 

(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt 

and implement new emission standards 

for many categories of on-road vehicles 

and engines, and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. California 

has been a leader in the development of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17This document can be found on the Internet at: 

http://arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/apr07draft/ 

sipback.pdf. 

some of the most stringent control 

measures nationwide for on-road and 

off-road mobile sources and the fuels 

that power them. These measures have 

helped reduce ozone levels in the 

Sacramento Metro Area and throughout 

the state. 

CARB’s 2007 State Strategy provides 

a recent summary of the measures 

adopted and implemented by the state. 

See ‘‘Air Resources Board’s Proposed 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan,’’ release date: 

April 26, 2007. From 1994 to 2006, the 

state has taken more than 45 rulemaking 

actions which have achieved significant 

emission reductions needed for the 

state’s nonattainment areas such as the 

Sacramento Metro Area. See 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 38.17 These measures 

include new emission standards and inuse requirements and have resulted in 

significant reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions from categories such as 

passenger cars, trucks, buses, 

motorcycles, locomotives, recreational 

boats, lawn and garden equipment and 

consumer products. EPA has generally 

approved all of the State’s measures that 

are not subject to the CAA section 209 

waiver process. See EPA’s proposed 

approval of the San Joaquin Valley 1- 

hour ozone plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 

(July 14, 2009) and final approval at 75 

FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). See also, 

EPA’s proposed partial approval/partial 

disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 plan at 75 FR 74518, 74526–7 

(November 30, 2010) and EPA’s 

proposed partial approval/partial 

disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5 

plan at 75 FR 71294, 71302–3 

(November 22, 2010). 

Federal Measures 

Finally, in addition to the local 

district and state rules discussed above, 

the Sacramento Metro Area has also 

benefited from Federal mobile source 

measures such as emissions standards 

for new locomotive Tier 1 and Tier 2 

engines, nationwide heavy-duty onhighway trucks, and new emission 

standards for pre-empted farm and 

construction equipment. 

Summary/Conclusion 

Based on the above discussion, EPA 

believes that the progress made to 

reduce emissions in the Sacramento 

Metro Area during the 1990–2009 

timeframe resulting in achieving 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

is from permanent and enforceable 

measures which achieved significant 

reductions as summarized in Table 8 

below: 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

[Tons per day] 

1990 

VOC 

2008 

VOC 

1990 

NOX

2008 

NOX

Stationary ......................................................................................................................................... 39 22 22 15 

Area-wide ......................................................................................................................................... 34 28 4 3 

On-road ............................................................................................................................................ 140 45 148 95 

Other mobile .................................................................................................................................... 49 41 69 53 

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 262 136 242 167 

Source: Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 

7, 2010, Table 4.1 of Enclosure 2, ‘‘1-Hour Ozone Attainment Determination Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area,’’ 

April 26, 2010, prepared by: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 

The emission reduction trends shown 

in Table 8 are not only expected to be 

maintained at current levels, but are 

expected to continue in the next several 

decades, in spite of increasing 

population in the area, due to the 

continued replacement of older vehicles 

and engines with newer units subject to 

more stringent California and Federal 

emission control requirements. The 

exception is that there is projected to be 

a slight (1% annually) growth in VOC 

emissions starting in 2020, as activity 

growth overcomes emission reductions. 

See Letter from James Goldstene, CARB 

Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 

Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, Section 

4.2 of Enclosure 2, ‘‘1-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Determination Request for 

the Sacramento Federal Ozone 

Nonattainment Area,’’ April 26, 2010, 

prepared by: Sacramento Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management District. 

EPA believes the preceding 

discussion demonstrates that permanent 

and enforceable emission reduction 

measures adopted and implemented by 

the state have been effective in reaching 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard, and that the improvement in 

the Sacramento Metro Area’s air quality 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination to terminate the 1-hour 

ozone section 185 penalty fee 

requirement (Termination 

Determination) for the Sacramento 

Metro Area. Our proposed 

determination is based on our finding 

that the Sacramento Metro Area is 

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS due 

to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions. In proposing 

this determination, EPA is also 

proposing to exclude 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS exceedances that occurred at 

the Folsom monitor on three days in 

2008 because they were caused by 

wildfire exceptional events. For the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA’s 

proposed 1-hour ozone section 185 

Termination Determination is based on 

EPA’s determination that the area has 

attained and continues to attain the 1- 

hour ozone standard due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment and a 

determination of termination of the 

CAA section 185 penalty fee 

requirements based on attainment of the 

1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, and would, if finalized, 

result in the termination of the section 

185 fee requirements for the 1-hour 

standard, and would not impose any 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28707 

additional requirements. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, 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, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12063 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0809; FRL–9307–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Colorado 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

and conditionally approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

from the State of Colorado to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires that each state, after a new or 

revised NAAQS is promulgated, review 

their SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State 

of Colorado submitted a certification of 

their infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, dated January 7, 2008 

which was determined to be complete 

on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205). 

EPA does not propose to act on the 

State’s January 7, 2008 submission to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to 

interstate transport of air pollution, for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 

the State’s interstate transport SIP 

submission at 75 FR 31306, 75 FR 

71029, and 76 FR 22036. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0809, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009– 

0809. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I, 

General Information, of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1