Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34525 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0905; FRL–8930–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to General Air Quality Rules 

and the Mass Emissions Cap and 

Trade Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of one revision to the Texas 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Texas on 

August 16, 2007; these portions of the 

SIP revision proposed: Repeal an 

unnecessary effective date in the Texas 

SIP under Title 30 in the Texas 

Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 

101—General Air Quality Rules, 

Subchapter A—General Rules; and make 

non-substantive changes in the Texas 

SIP to the Mass Emissions Cap and 

Trade (MECT) Program under 30 TAC 

Chapter 101, Subchapter H—Emissions 

Banking and Trading, Division 3. EPA 

has determined that these changes to the 

Texas SIP comply with the Federal 

Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA 

regulations, are consistent with EPA 

policies, and will improve air quality. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 and parts C and D of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits 

Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the Rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning today’s 

proposal, please contact Ms. Adina 

Wiley (6PD–R), Air Permits Section, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD–R), 

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202–2733. The 

telephone number is (214) 665–2115. 

Ms. Wiley can also be reached via 

electronic mail at wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no relevant 

adverse comments. A detailed rationale 

for the approval is set forth in the direct 

final rule. If no relevant adverse 

comments are received in response to 

this action, no further activity is 

contemplated. If EPA receives relevant 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of the rule, and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: July 6, 2009. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–16865 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 58 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0338; FRL–8930–7] 

RIN 2060–AP15 

Ambient Ozone Monitoring 

Regulations: Revisions to Network 

Design Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

revise the monitoring network design 

requirements for ozone to assist in 

implementing changes to the primary 

and secondary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone 

that were promulgated on March 27, 

2008. EPA is proposing to modify 

minimum monitoring requirements in 

urban areas, add new minimum 

monitoring requirements in non-urban 

areas, and extend the length of the 

required ozone monitoring season in 

some States. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0338, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0338. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to (202) 

566–9744, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0338. 

• Mail: Send your comments to Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0338. Please 

include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to EPA Docket Center, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0338. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34526 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 Ambient Ozone Monitoring 

Regulations: Revisions to Network 

Design Requirements Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the 

Ambient Ozone Monitoring Regulations: 

Revisions to Network Design 

Requirements Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions, please contact Mr. 

Lewis Weinstock, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Assessment Division, Ambient Air 

Monitoring Group (C304–06), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–3661; fax 

number: (919) 541–1903; e-mail address: 

weinstock.lewis@epa.gov. For general 

questions, please contact Ms. Lula 

Melton, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Air Quality Assessment 

Division (C304–02), Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2910; fax number: 

(919) 541–4511; e-mail address: 

melton.lula@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include: 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Federal government ................... 924110 Federal agencies that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that conducted by States under 

40 CFR part 58 and that wish EPA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as State 

data. 

State/local/tribal government ..... 924110 State, territorial, and local air quality management programs that are responsible for ambient air 

monitoring under 40 CFR part 58. The proposal may also affect tribes that conduct ambient air 

monitoring similar to that conducted by States and that desire that EPA use their monitoring 

data in the same manner as State monitoring data. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), U.S. EPA, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0338. Clearly mark the 

part or all of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information in 

a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

as CBI, and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed rule is also available on the 

Worldwide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this proposed rule will be 

placed on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchanges in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. How Is This Document Organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

D. How is This Document Organized? 

II. Summary of Proposed Ozone Network 

Design Requirements and Rationale 

A. What Are the Proposed Revisions to 

Urban Network Design Requirements? 

B. What Are the Proposed Revisions to 

Non-Urban Network Design 

Requirements? 

C. What Are the Proposed Revisions to the 

Length of the Required O3 Monitoring 

Season? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

II. Summary of Proposed Ozone 

Network Design Requirements and 

Rationale 

A. What Are the Proposed Revisions to 

Urban Network Design Requirements? 

Presently, States (including the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 

the Virgin Islands) and local air quality 

management agencies when so 

delegated by the State are required to 

operate minimum numbers of EPAapproved ozone (O3) monitors based on 

the population of each of their 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and 

the most recently measured O3 levels for 

each area. These requirements are 

contained in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34527 

1MSA must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 

or more population. 

2http://www.census.gov/population/www/ 

estimates/metropop/2005/cbsa-01-fmt.xls. 

3Micropolitan Statistical Areas must have at least 

one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 

50,000 population. 

4Of these 992 monitors, 873 monitors provided 

complete data for calculation of design values. 

5Of these 55 monitors, 20 monitors provided 

complete data for calculation of design values. 

6States should document the required changes to 

O3 networks in their annual monitoring network 

plans that are required by 40 CFR part 58.10. Such 

plans are due by July 1 of each year and required 

to be made available for public inspection prior to 

submission to EPA Regional Offices for review and 

approval. 

7Based on 2005 to 2007 O3 design values and 

2005 Census Bureau population estimates, these 

MSAs are Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, Florida, and 

Salem, Oregon. 

8Approximately 18 of these MSAs have operating 

O3 monitors but incomplete data for the purposes 

of calculating design values for the 2004 to 2006 

and 2005 to 2007 time periods. 

9See the O3 NAAQS Response to Comments 

document in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0172, 

document number 7185, available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 

Continued 

D, SLAMS Minimum O3 Monitoring 

Requirements, Table D–2. These 

requirements were last revised on 

October 17, 2006, as part of a 

comprehensive review of ambient 

monitoring requirements for all criteria 

pollutants. (See 71 FR 61318 for the 

specific Table D–2 referenced above.) 

Currently, the minimum number of O3

monitors required in an MSA ranges 

from zero (for an area with a population 

of at least 50,000 and under 350,000 and 

no recent history of an O3 design value 

greater than 85 percent of the level of 

the NAAQS) to four (for an area with a 

population greater than 10 million and 

an O3 design value greater than 85 

percent of the level of the NAAQS). 

Because these requirements apply at the 

MSA level, large urban areas consisting 

of multiple MSAs can be required to 

have more than four monitors. 

Currently, there are 369 MSAs in the 

U.S. subject to minimum O3 monitoring 

requirements.1 Of these MSAs, 251 are 

required to have one or more monitors 

based on their 2005 population 

estimates 2 and 2005 to 2007 O3 design 

values compared to the revised O3

NAAQS, and the other 118 MSAs are 

not required to have monitors. The 

specific size range of MSAs that are not 

required to have monitors have urban 

area populations between 50,000 and 

less than 350,000, and have O3 design 

values less than 85 percent of the level 

of the NAAQS. Some of the MSAs do 

not have current design values due to 

the lack of monitors. Also note that 

monitoring requirements do not apply 

to Micropolitan Statistical Areas.3

In the 251 MSAs with one or more 

required O3 monitors, a total of 392 

monitors are required to meet the 

minimum requirements listed in Table 

D–2. In actuality, 992 monitors were in 

operation during 2005 to 2007 

representing these MSAs.4 This monitor 

count exceeds the minimum 

requirements based on Table D–2, 

indicating the typical practice of 

operating more than the minimum 

required number of monitors to support 

the basic monitoring objectives 

described in part 58, Appendix D. In 

addition, State and local agencies 

operated 55 monitors during 2005 to 

2007 in MSAs that were not required to 

have monitors.5

We note that many of the O3 monitors 

that are operated in excess of minimum 

requirements are necessary to 

characterize the O3 concentrations that 

occur in metropolitan areas and in 

downwind areas that are potentially 

impacted by transport from MSAs. As 

noted in Appendix D (see 71 FR 61318), 

O3 minimum monitoring requirements 

do not account for the full breadth of 

additional factors that would be 

considered in designing a complete O3

monitoring program for an area. Some of 

these additional factors include 

geographic size, population density, 

complexity of terrain and meteorology, 

adjacent O3 monitoring programs, air 

pollution transport from neighboring 

areas, and measured air quality in 

comparison to all forms of the O3

NAAQS (i.e., 8-hour and 1-hour forms). 

States and EPA Regional Administrators 

work together to design and/or maintain 

the most appropriate O3 network to 

service the variety of data needs in an 

area. The results of these negotiations 

are documented in annual monitoring 

network plans that are made available 

for public inspection and then approved 

by the EPA Regional Administrator, and 

the O3 monitoring requirements in 

approved plans become the basis for 

State O3 monitoring requirements for 

the one-year period following plan 

approval. 

Because existing minimum 

monitoring requirements include a 

factor based on the comparison of an 

area’s design value to the O3 NAAQS 

(see 71 FR 61318), the recent revisions 

to the O3 NAAQS (see 73 FR 16436) may 

already necessitate that some States 

make changes to their O3 monitoring 

network independent of the proposed 

changes described below. The 

requirements listed in Table D–2 of 40 

CFR part 58 Appendix D are based on 

how close measured ambient 

concentrations are to the level of the O3

NAAQS, with a design value threshold 

at 85 percent of the NAAQS. For an 

MSA of a given population size, there 

are a greater number of required 

monitors when the design value is 

greater than or equal to 85 percent of the 

O3 NAAQS than when the design value 

is less than 85 percent of the O3

NAAQS. With the recent decision to 

revise the 8-hour primary and secondary 

standards from a level of 0.08 ppm to a 

level of 0.075 ppm, the 8-hour O3 design 

value that will trigger increased 

minimum monitoring requirements for 

an MSA decreased from 0.068 ppm to 

0.064 ppm. Therefore, MSAs with 8- 

hour design values between 0.064 ppm 

and 0.067 ppm are now required to 

increase the number of monitors 

operating to meet minimum 

requirements based on existing 

monitoring requirements.6 A total of 15 

MSAs have O3 design values between 

0.064 ppm and 0.067 ppm based on 

2005 to 2007 design values. Of those 15 

MSAs, 13 MSAs are already meeting 

requirements based on the operation of 

additional monitors by the affected 

States. Thus, current data indicate that 

only two areas may need additional 

monitors 7 on the grounds that their 

design values are now greater than or 

equal to 85 percent of the revised 

NAAQS. 

There are 105 MSAs with populations 

between 50,000 and less than 350,000 

that are presently without any O3

monitors supporting design value 

calculations for either 2004 to 2006 or 

2005 to 2007.8 These unmonitored 

MSAs have a total population of 

approximately 18 million people and 

include areas in 37 States and Puerto 

Rico. The existing regulations do not 

require these MSAs to begin monitoring 

for O3. Comments that were received 

from State air monitoring agencies and 

from multi-State air planning 

organizations in response to the O3

NAAQS proposal expressed concern 

that these requirements ignore the needs 

that States and localities have for 

additional monitors to measure O3

levels in a variety of locations, 

particularly in areas with populations 

under 350,000. The commenters stated 

that unless this deficiency is corrected, 

the health benefits of EPA’s O3 NAAQS 

revision would likely be limited to those 

living in MSAs having populations of 

more than 350,000. Other commenters 

noted the difficulty in defining the 

boundaries of new attainment/ 

nonattainment areas without additional 

monitoring in the MSAs below 350,000 

population.9


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34528 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-HQ-OAR-2005- 

0172. 10 Due to the data handling regulations associated 

with the 1997 O3 NAAQS level, an 8-hour design 

value of 0.085 ppm was required to exceed the level 

of the NAAQS. 

11Three MSAs with a population of at least 

350,000 appear to have no design values for either 

the 2004–2006 or 2005–2007 periods. These MSAs 

include Anchorage, Alaska; Kileen-Temple-Fort 

Hood, Texas; and San Juan-Caguas-Guaymabo, 

Puerto Rico. The Alaska and Texas MSAs reached 

the 350,000 level based on the difference in the 

2005 population estimate compared with the 2000 

decennial census figure and would therefore be 

subject to minimum requirements of two monitors 

in each of these MSAs. 

EPA notes that States already have the 

discretion to add O3 monitors in these 

locations and in any currently 

unmonitored areas where applicable 

siting criteria can be satisfied, although 

they are not currently required to do so 

in the unmonitored MSAs below 

350,000 population based on existing O3

minimum monitoring requirements. 

EPA has conducted a review of 8-hour 

design values obtained from existing 

monitors that are in proximity to these 

unmonitored MSAs of population below 

350,000. Based on 2005 to 2007 data 

reported to the Air Quality System 

(AQS), approximately 25 percent of 

these unmonitored MSAs (26 of 105 

areas) had an O3 monitor within 20 

kilometers (approximately 12 miles) that 

violated the revised NAAQS. 

Approximately 42 percent (44 of 105 

areas) of the unmonitored MSAs had a 

violating O3 monitor within 50 

kilometers (approximately 31 miles). 

The close proximity of violating O3

monitors to unmonitored MSAs 

indicates a reasonable likelihood that 

monitors placed in many of these 

unmonitored areas would have recorded 

violating concentrations over the same 

time period. When these unmonitored 

MSAs are evaluated in comparison to 

the locations of non-violating O3

monitors that measured a level of 

greater than or equal to 85 percent of the 

revised NAAQS, approximately 34 

percent (36 of 105 areas) were within 20 

kilometers of such a monitor and 63 

percent (66 of 105 areas) were within 50 

kilometers. Concentrations of greater 

than or equal to 85 percent of the 

NAAQS to 100 percent of the NAAQS 

level obtained from many of the 

monitors in close proximity to these 

unmonitored MSAs indicates a 

reasonable likelihood that monitors 

placed in the unmonitored MSAs would 

have measured similar concentrations at 

levels over the same time period. This 

suggests the need for O3 monitoring in 

these unmonitored MSAs of between 

50,000 and 350,000 population to 

ensure that potential NAAQS violations 

are measured. 

Based on these analyses, EPA believes 

it is important to monitor O3

concentrations in the smaller MSAs 

with populations between 50,000 and 

less than 350,000 in light of the revised 

level of the standards. While it was less 

likely that violating concentrations of 

the former 0.08 parts per million 

(ppm 10) primary standard were being 

missed due to the lack of a monitoring 

requirement in these MSAs, the 

likelihood of missing violating 

concentrations of the 0.075 ppm 

primary standard is greater, and the 

public comments in regard to the 

potential need to revise applicable O3

monitoring regulations have merit. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

modify the minimum O3 monitoring 

requirements to require one monitor to 

be placed in MSAs of populations 

ranging from 50,000 to less than 350,000 

in situations where there is no current 

monitor and no history of O3 monitoring 

within the previous 5 years indicating a 

design value of less than 85 percent of 

the revised NAAQS. We propose to 

modify Table D–2 of 40 CFR part 58 

Appendix D by moving the current 

footnote 4 from the right column of the 

table to the middle column of the table. 

By doing so, we propose to require 

greater numbers of O3 monitors for 

MSAs that do not have design values 

compared with the requirements that 

were promulgated in the October 17, 

2006 revisions to ambient monitoring 

regulations (see 71 FR 61318). 

Functionally, this modification should 

mainly impact MSAs in the population 

range between 50,000 and 350,000 since 

virtually all MSAs of population 

350,000 or greater currently have at least 

two O3 monitors in operation.11

EPA solicits comment on whether the 

proposed 5-year historical data period is 

appropriate for demonstrating that O3

design values in a currently 

unmonitored MSA of population 

ranging from 50,000 to less than 350,000 

have been less than 85 percent of the 

revised NAAQS, or whether the time 

period for allowing the use of historical 

data should be longer or shorter than 5 

years. 

States may wish to relocate an 

existing O3 monitor to the unmonitored 

MSA to meet the proposed 

requirements. Opportunities for 

relocation may exist in areas where the 

current number of O3 monitors in 

another MSA in the same State exceeds 

minimum requirements and the 

relocation of one or more of the nonrequired monitors meets one or more of 

the conditions described in 40 CFR part 

58.14(c). States may also relocate a nonrequired O3 monitor from a location 

outside of an MSA to an unmonitored 

MSA that is subject to the proposed 

requirements. Relocations of monitors to 

meet the proposed requirements would 

be subject to EPA Regional 

Administrator approval, based on a 

review of State-supplied information 

such as the ambient data trend from the 

monitor being proposed for relocation, 

the potential impact on data 

stakeholders with the monitor 

discontinuance, and the ability of other 

nearby O3 monitors to characterize the 

O3 conditions in the area from which 

the monitor is being proposed to be 

removed. 

While States will be required to add 

some new monitors or relocate existing 

monitors to meet the proposed 

requirements, EPA notes that many of 

these unmonitored MSAs already have 

existing O3 monitors in close proximity 

to their geographic boundaries. Based 

on the siting characteristics and data 

record from the existing O3 monitors 

near the unmonitored MSAs, it is 

plausible that some of these monitors 

may adequately represent O3

concentrations in the unmonitored areas 

based on analyses of ambient 

concentrations, O3 precursor emissions, 

meteorology, photochemical modeling, 

and/or topography. Analyses based on 

these factors or other available 

information could be used to support 

case-by-case waivers from the 

requirement for monitoring within some 

of these unmonitored MSAs, as 

described below, thereby mitigating the 

expense and logistical hurdles involved 

with establishing new O3 monitors or 

relocating non-required existing 

monitors from other areas. 

In some cases where an existing 

monitor is located close to an 

unmonitored MSA that would be 

required to site a new monitor based on 

the proposed rule modification, the 

affected State may propose and EPA 

Regional Administrators may consider 

approving a waiver of monitoring 

requirements for the unmonitored MSA. 

When seeking such a waiver, the State 

must provide relevant information 

including the siting characteristics and 

data record from the existing O3

monitors near the unmonitored MSA, or 

other information sources that the 

Regional Administrator must consider 

in evaluating the estimation of current 

and future O3 levels in the unmonitored 

MSAs. The Regional Administrator may 

approve such requests under the waiver 

authority provided in paragraph 4.1.1(c) 

of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D of the 

proposed regulatory text. Any 

deviations based on the Regional 

Administrator’s waiver of requirements 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34529 

12States affected by Photochemical Assessment 

Monitoring Stations (PAMS) requirements may be 

required to establish O3 monitors outside of MSAs 

to characterize upwind or downwind 

concentrations. See 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D, 

section 5. 

must be described in the annual 

monitoring network plan. 

Such waiver requests must be 

accompanied by a letter documenting 

the State’s commitment to propose a 

nonattainment designation for the 

unmonitored MSA based on violating 

readings from the nearby monitor(s) and 

a commitment to modify a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to provide 

for a specific, reproducible approach to 

representing the O3 concentration of the 

unmonitored MSA in the absence of the 

actual monitoring data that would have 

been supplied by the required monitor. 

We request comment on the practicality 

of allowing States to enter into 

agreements with EPA Regional 

Administrators to use nearby O3

monitors to represent the conditions 

within unmonitored MSAs, the specific 

commitments that must be included in 

these agreements and/or submitted 

plans, and the implementation 

challenges that may arise during the O3

designation process if the EPA Regional 

Administrator approves of such 

arrangements. 

In all cases described above, proposed 

changes to O3 networks in response to 

the proposed new requirement would 

have to be documented in the annual 

monitoring network plans that are 

required by 40 CFR part 58.10 and are 

subject to approval by the EPA Regional 

Administrator. 

Based on the proposed requirements 

described above, EPA estimates that 

approximately 109 new O3 monitors 

would be required in the national O3

network if the proposed urban 

requirement was satisfied solely with 

new monitors installed in the 

unmonitored MSAs. In actuality, we 

expect the net addition of new monitors 

to the national O3 network to be less 

than 109 monitors due to the mitigating 

factors that have been previously 

described. These factors include the 

presence of existing monitors that could 

satisfy the proposed requirement in 

these unmonitored MSAs with 

improved data completeness, the 

proposed flexibility for States to relocate 

non-required O3 monitors to the 

unmonitored MSAs, and the possibility 

of States proposing that existing 

monitors in close proximity to the 

unmonitored MSAs be used to represent 

O3 concentrations within the 

unmonitored MSAs. 

It has been EPA’s recent practice to 

allow at least a one-year period for 

States to install new monitors when 

monitoring requirements are revised 

through rulemaking (see 71 FR 61241). 

Consistent with this practice and based 

on the projected schedule of completing 

a final O3 monitoring rulemaking in 

early 2010, EPA proposes that new O3

monitors be required to be installed and 

operating by the first day of the required 

O3 monitoring season that is effective in 

2012 as described in Table D–3 of 

Appendix D to part 58 (see Section II.C 

of this proposal for the proposed 

changes to the required O3 monitoring 

seasons). For some States, new monitors 

would be required to be installed and 

operating as early as January 1, 2012, 

while other States would have later 

deadlines based on their respective O3

monitoring seasons. 

States would be required to identify 

how their monitoring networks would 

be modified to meet the proposed new 

O3 requirements in the annual 

monitoring network plan due on July 1, 

2011. 

EPA also recognizes the logistical 

difficulty in siting new O3 monitors or 

in relocating existing O3 monitors that 

have been approved for discontinuation 

and subsequent relocation to meet the 

proposed requirements. Accordingly, 

we solicit comment on the proposed 

requirement for having new monitors 

operating in 2012, specifically whether 

States might need additional time to site 

all the new monitors (e.g., a staggered 2- 

year deployment schedule 

accomplished in 2012 and 2013) versus 

the single-year deadline described 

above. We note that the deployment 

schedule would be applicable to the 

proposed urban monitoring 

requirements as well as the proposed 

non-urban monitoring requirements 

described in the following section. 

B. What Are the Proposed Revisions to 

Non-Urban Network Design 

Requirements? 

The newly established secondary 

standard was put into place specifically 

to provide protection to sensitive 

vegetation in less urbanized areas, in 

particular those Class I Wilderness 

Areas set aside by Congress to be 

protected so as to conserve the scenic 

value and the natural vegetation and 

wildlife within such areas, and to leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations. The secondary O3

NAAQS also considered the benefits 

that would be provided to the public 

welfare from increased protection of 

sensitive vegetation in other Federal, 

State, Tribal and/or public interest lands 

that have been set aside for a similar 

purpose. These areas are characterized 

by the presence of O3-sensitive species 

of native vegetation that have been 

shown to be subject to O3-induced 

visible foliar injury, impaired growth, 

and/or other adverse impacts to a degree 

that could be considered adverse. 

Currently, existing O3 monitoring 

requirements and current State 

monitoring practices are primarily 

oriented towards protecting against 

human health effects and therefore 

towards reporting compliance with the 

primary NAAQS. This accounts for the 

current focus of the monitoring 

requirements on urban areas, where 

large populations reside, in which 

significant emissions of O3-forming 

precursors are found, and where O3

concentrations of concern have been 

historically measured. EPA believes that 

the previously described proposed 

changes to urban monitoring 

requirements will be adequate for 

determining compliance with the 

secondary NAAQS in MSAs, noting that 

the assessment of welfare effects has not 

been a traditional objective of urbanbased O3 monitoring networks. 

It is now known, however, that O3

concentrations of concern for vegetation 

can also occur in areas far downwind of 

urban areas. In addition, the new more 

stringent level of the primary and 

secondary NAAQS make it likely that 

O3 levels of concern for both plants and 

people will be found outside of urban 

areas. Thus, EPA believes that there is 

merit in proposing additional limited 

monitoring requirements in non-urban 

areas to address both secondary and 

primary standard needs. 

Although there are currently no EPA 

requirements for O3 monitoring other 

than in or adjacent to MSAs12, there are 

at present about 200 State-operated O3

monitors in counties that are not part of 

MSAs, and these monitors can be 

categorized in several ways. States 

commonly locate O3 monitors both 

upwind and downwind of major urban 

areas to evaluate the spatial gradient or 

extent of transported O3 pollution and 

the lag time typically associated with 

photochemical production. In some 

cases, these O3 monitors are located in 

non-urban or rural areas within MSAs 

or physically outside the MSA boundary 

if the expected location of maximum 

downwind O3 concentration is outside 

the MSA. These monitors are counted 

toward meeting the minimum urban O3

monitoring requirements listed in Table 

D–2 of Appendix D since they provide 

information about the air quality status 

of an urban MSA. 

States may also operate monitors in 

non-urban or rural areas to meet other 

objectives such as the support of 

research programs including studies of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34530 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

13http://www.epa.gov/castnet/library/qapp_v4/ 

QAPP_v4_Main_Body.pdf, page 105. 

14Based on an AQS retrieval of O3 monitors 

reporting any data in 2007, regardless of data 

completeness requirements, the following States 

had one or zero non-urban O3 monitors: Georgia, 

Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Montana, and 

Oregon. If data completeness is taken into 

consideration, a total of 13 States had zero nonurban O3 monitors that could provide a design 

value for either 2004–2006 or 2005–2007. 

atmospheric chemistry and ecosystem 

impacts, and these monitors are not 

typically counted toward meeting 

minimum monitoring requirements 

applicable to urban areas. States often 

categorize these non-required monitors 

as special purpose monitors (SPMs). 

This provides inherent flexibility 

because States are allowed to 

discontinue operation of SPMs without 

EPA Regional Administrator approval, 

subject to the conditions of 40 CFR 

58.20. Furthermore, SPMs can be 

operated for a period of up to 24 months 

without being considered in NAAQS 

compliance determinations. 

As part of the Clean Air Status and 

Trends Network (CASTNET), the EPA 

operates 57 O3 monitors, and the 

National Park Service (NPS) operates 23 

monitors across the eastern and western 

U.S. The NPS also operates additional 

O3 monitors independent of CASTNET 

stations. CASTNET O3 monitors operate 

year-round and are primarily located in 

rural areas; siting criteria require 

distances of at least 40 kilometers from 

cities of greater than 50,000 population 

as well as other separation requirements 

from air pollution sources.13

Taking into account both State and 

EPA/NPS-operated non-urban O3

monitors, an analysis of the distribution 

of these monitors indicates a relatively 

uniform spatial density in the eastern 

one-third of the U.S. and in California, 

with significant gaps in coverage 

elsewhere across the country. Virtually 

all States east of the Mississippi River 

have at least two to four non-urban O3

monitors, while many large mid-western 

and western States have one or no nonurban monitors.14

Comments that were received from 

State monitoring agencies, State 

organizations, and private individuals 

in response to the O3 NAAQS proposal 

noted the voluntary nature of most rural 

O3 monitoring and the resulting relative 

lack of rural O3 monitors in some areas. 

These commenters stated that EPA 

should consider adding monitoring 

requirements to support the secondary 

NAAQS by requiring O3 monitors in 

locations that contain O3-sensitive 

plants or ecosystems. These commenters 

also noted that the placement of current 

O3 monitors may not be appropriate for 

evaluating issues such as vegetation 

exposure since many of these monitors 

were likely located to meet other 

objectives. 

As explained in the following 

paragraphs, EPA agrees with the public 

input received on this issue and 

believes that several important 

objectives would be served by having 

additional non-urban monitoring 

requirements. These objectives include: 

(1) Provide better characterization of O3

exposures to O3-sensitive vegetation and 

ecosystems in rural/remote areas to 

ensure that potential secondary NAAQS 

violations are measured. This objective 

would also serve the purpose of 

providing more consistent support for 

studies examining the impact of 

elevated O3 levels in wilderness areas, 

locations with O3-sensitive natural 

vegetation, and in areas such as 

National Parks; (2) assessment of 

population exposure due to elevated 

ambient O3 levels in smaller 

communities located outside of the 

larger urban MSAs covered by the 

monitoring requirements described in 

Section II.A; and (3) the assessment of 

the location and severity of maximum 

O3 concentrations that occur in nonurban areas and may be attributable to 

upwind urban sources. Each of these 

three objectives is described below. 

With regard to the first objective, 

there is evidence that ambient 

concentrations of O3 in rural and other 

non-urban areas may be adversely 

affecting sensitive natural vegetation. As 

noted previously by the public 

commenters, this objective addresses 

the uncertainties that remain about the 

impact that O3 concentrations have on 

sensitive natural vegetation, ecosystems, 

and wilderness areas. Additional 

monitors in National Parks and as well 

as State and/or tribal areas set aside to 

provide similar public welfare benefits 

would support evaluation of the revised 

secondary NAAQS as well as future 

reviews of the secondary O3 NAAQS by 

providing a more robust data set with 

which to assess actual vegetation 

exposure in rural areas, and thereby 

reducing the need for interpolations of 

rural air quality. 

With regard to the second objective as 

noted earlier in Section II.A, O3

monitoring requirements do not 

currently apply to Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas, defined as areas 

having at least one urban cluster of at 

least 10,000 but less than a population 

of 50,000. The lack of such monitoring 

requirements for smaller communities 

has historically been based on the 

concept that the concentrations of O3 in 

these non-urban areas would not be 

high enough relative to the NAAQS to 

justify the imposition of national 

monitoring requirements in less 

populated areas. However, in light of 

the revised level of the O3 NAAQS, it is 

far more likely that these smaller 

communities could be exposed to 

elevated concentrations that approach 

or exceed the NAAQS due to the 

transport of O3 from upwind areas and/ 

or the formation of O3 due to precursor 

emissions from industrial sources 

outside of urban areas. We note that 

there are 582 Micropolitan Statistical 

Areas in the U.S. with a total population 

of just under 2 million people based on 

the 2005 census estimate. Although 

States are not required to monitor in 

these areas, over 90 monitors providing 

2005 to 2007 O3 design values were 

operated. Of these 90 monitors, 45 

monitors recorded design values 

exceeding the level of the revised 

NAAQS. A total of 86 of these 90 

monitors recorded design values greater 

than or equal to 85 percent of the 

revised NAAQS. These data from 

monitors located in Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas clearly indicate the 

potential for violations of the NAAQS in 

some smaller communities located 

outside the boundaries of MSAs that 

currently have minimum monitoring 

requirements. 

The third objective is the assessment 

of the location and severity of maximum 

O3 concentrations that occur outside of 

urban areas. Although the location of 

maximum non-urban O3 concentrations 

could occur within the boundary of a 

Micropolitan Statistical Area or 

sensitive ecosystem, it is also possible 

that such concentrations could occur in 

an unpopulated and unmonitored area. 

Without specific information about the 

location and distribution of such 

potentially violating maximum O3

concentration areas, it would be 

difficult to ensure that all parts of a 

State meet the revised NAAQS and that 

all necessary emission control strategies 

have been accounted for in SIPs. We 

believe that the identification of such 

non-urban maximum concentration 

areas would support objectives 

including: (1) The understanding of the 

role of upwind urban-generated O3

transport and impact in locations 

between MSAs, (2) the verification of 

photochemical models at various timescales (i.e., diurnal fluctuations, 

seasonal patterns) used for assessing the 

effectiveness of control measures as well 

as real-time models supporting O3

forecasts, and (3) the understanding of 

the role of O3 precursor emissions from 

industrial sources and development in 

more remote areas in the potential 

creation of high-O3 areas in lightly 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34531 

15Monitors installed to meet the Micropolitan 

Statistical Area requirement could be discontinued, 

with Regional Administrator approval, after 

demonstrating an O3 design value of less than 85 

percent of the NAAQS. 

16An example of available resources is posted by 

the National Park Service at http:// 

www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/ 

NPSO3sensppFLAG06.pdf. 

17 Guideline on Ozone Monitoring Site Selection, 

EPA–454/R–98–002, August 1998, http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/ 

reldocs/r-98-002.pdf. 

18CASTNET O3 monitors are operated by the 

Clean Air Markets Division of EPA’s Office of 

Atmospheric Programs (OAP). Some CASTNET 

sites are operated by the National Park Service in 

a cooperative agreement with OAP. 

inhabited areas that historically have 

been unmonitored. 

Given the three objectives described 

above, EPA believes that there is strong 

justification for proposing additional 

limited monitoring requirements in nonurban areas to evaluate compliance with 

both the secondary and primary 

NAAQS. EPA proposes to modify 40 

CFR part 58 Appendix D by adding the 

requirement (in proposed rule section 

4.1.2) that each State operate non-urban 

O3 monitors in addition to the current 

and proposed urban O3 monitoring 

requirements detailed in Table D–2 and 

described in section II.A of this 

preamble. The first required non-urban 

monitor is proposed to be located in 

areas such as some Federal, State, or 

Tribal lands, including wilderness areas 

that have O3-sensitive natural vegetation 

and/or ecosystems; lands with other 

ownership may also be appropriate. The 

second required non-urban monitor is 

proposed to be required to be placed in 

a Micropolitan Statistical Area expected 

to have O3 design value concentrations 

of at least 85 percent of the NAAQS.15

The third required non-urban monitor is 

proposed to be in the area of expected 

maximum O3 concentration outside of 

any MSA, potentially including the fardownwind transport zones of currently 

well-monitored urban areas. 

EPA proposes to require that States 

will propose new non-urban O3

monitoring sites to meet each of the 

distinct monitoring objectives, and that 

the resulting expanded network will 

provide the foundation for an improved 

level of characterization of O3

concentrations outside of urban areas in 

support of the secondary and primary 

NAAQS. In some cases, States may wish 

to operate additional non-urban 

monitors beyond the proposed 

minimum requirements where, for 

example, there are multiple sensitive 

ecosystems or wilderness areas 

impacted by O3, multiple Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas exposed to high levels 

of O3, or in States with multiple isolated 

locations of similarly high projected O3

concentrations. 

EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed non-urban O3 monitoring 

requirements including the total number 

of required monitors per State, the 

appropriateness of the distinct nonurban objectives, the ability of such an 

expanded network to improve 

characterization of O3 concentrations in 

support of the revised secondary and 

primary NAAQS, and the capability of 

the proposed network to support other 

objectives such as model validation. 

States will likely need to perform 

additional analyses to help determine 

the appropriate locations for non-urban 

monitors meeting the proposed 

requirements. States are encouraged to 

confer with partners familiar with the 

patterns of vegetation damage and 

distribution of O3 sensitive species in 

their areas, such as Federal Land 

Managers, State, local, or Tribal 

ecosystem assessment experts, or 

academic researchers who have 

established experience in the field.16

Resources and analyses such as the 

availability of photochemical modeling, 

spatial interpolation of ambient data 

from existing O3 monitors, or other 

quantitative assessment tools are useful 

to determine the areas where there are 

projected maximum non-urban O3

concentrations, and where these regions 

with elevated O3 (typically greater than 

or equal to 85 percent of the revised 

NAAQS) might overlap locations with 

O3-sensitive ecosystems and other 

important wilderness areas and 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas. The 

availability of regional photochemical 

modeling based on updated emissions 

inventories is a very useful tool to 

inform proposed non-urban and/or rural 

O3 monitoring locations in areas, such 

as the western U.S., where national 

assessments have not fully accounted 

for recent changes in emissions from 

industrial activities. EPA plans to 

update the current O3 network design 

guidance document 17 in time to support 

the siting of new urban and non-urban 

O3 monitors that are required by the 

final monitoring rule. 

Monitors counted toward satisfying 

these proposed non-urban requirements 

would have to be operated in 

compliance with all requirements of 40 

CFR part 58 and Appendices A, C, D, 

and E. EPA recognizes that a different 

set of monitor placement criteria from 

the current Appendix E requirements 

might be appropriate for locating nonurban O3 monitors compared with urban 

O3 monitors. For example, in less 

populated areas, States may wish to 

establish different setback requirements 

from roadways, minimum distances 

from urban areas or significant pollution 

sources, or consider a different set of 

vertical probe height requirements. EPA 

is not proposing specific changes to the 

monitoring regulations to support nonurban O3 monitoring other than the 

changes already noted to Appendix D. 

EPA encourages States to consider 

guidelines such as the previously noted 

siting guidelines used for the CASTNET 

network. We solicit comment on the 

need and substance of alternative nonurban O3 siting requirements and what 

changes would be appropriate for sites 

that will support the previously stated 

non-urban monitoring objectives. 

EPA also acknowledges that there 

may be a logistical challenge in 

operating monitors that are more 

physically remote than the monitors 

that States have typically run to satisfy 

urban monitoring requirements. The 

operation of such monitors could, in 

some cases, create additional challenges 

for monitoring agencies. EPA solicits 

comment on any changes to the 

monitoring requirements that apply 

specifically to non-urban monitors that 

might be appropriate to mitigate any 

increased challenges potentially 

associated with their operation. 

As noted earlier in section II.A, States 

may wish to relocate existing O3

monitors to appropriate non-urban 

locations to meet the proposed 

requirements. Relocations of State and 

local air monitoring station (SLAMS) 

monitors must meet the applicable 

monitoring requirements and would be 

subject to EPA Regional Administrator 

approval. States may also propose that 

existing non-required O3 monitors or 

those O3 monitors at existing candidate 

or approved rural national core (NCore) 

stations be counted toward meeting the 

proposed requirements if these monitors 

are located in areas that satisfy the 

proposed non-urban monitoring 

objectives. 

EPA expects that some States may be 

interested in the possibility of existing 

CASTNET or NPS O3 monitors, or 

monitors operated by some other 

organization, being counted towards 

meeting the proposed non-urban 

minimum monitoring requirements. In 

these cases, EPA would require States to 

enter into agreements with the 

operators 18 of the candidate sites to 

insure that the sites are operated 

according to all 40 CFR part 58 

monitoring regulations that apply to 

monitors categorized as SLAMS while 

also maintaining the monitoring 

requirements of the existing program. 

Candidate O3 sites (e.g., CASTNET or 

NPS) utilized for meeting minimum 

monitoring requirements would be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34532 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

19See 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D, section 2.5 for 

a table of required O3 seasons. 

20Certain States, such as California and Arizona, 

have been approved for shorter seasons for a subset 

of O3 sites, based on Regional Administrator review 

and approval (see 71 FR 61319 for the waiver 

authority). 

21Camalier, L. and Weinstock, L. (2008) 

Documentation of O3 Monitoring Season Analysis 

for the Proposed O3 Monitoring Rule, available in 

docket. 

22Approximately 530 O3 monitors are currently 

operated year-round, representing 45 percent of the 

total O3 monitoring network. They include monitors 

that are mandated to operate year-round due to the 

required O3 season and other monitors that are 

voluntarily operated year-round by States and other 

organizations including EPA-operated monitors at 

CASTNET sites. 

23We note that an 8-hour concentration of 0.060 

ppm also corresponds to the threshold defining the 

revised Air Quality Index (AQI) breakpoint between 

the Good and Moderate indicator level (see 73 FR 

16484). 

required to be included in a State’s 

annual monitoring network plan and 

would be subject to EPA Regional 

Administrator review and approval as 

with all other SLAMS monitors. Of the 

currently operating CASTNET O3

monitors, the 23 NPS-operated monitors 

are meeting applicable quality assurance 

requirements and currently reporting 

data to AQS. The remaining CASTNET 

monitors are in the process of being 

upgraded to meet the quality assurance 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and all 

sites are expected to be upgraded and 

reporting to AQS by the latter part of 

2009. 

In certain cases, it may be difficult to 

identify suitable areas to meet each of 

the proposed non-urban monitoring 

objectives. For example, in a small 

relatively urbanized State, it may be 

difficult to distinguish between 

monitoring requirements for a 

Micropolitan Statistical Area versus a 

rural area impacted by maximum O3

concentrations. In a remote or isolated 

area without significant local pollution 

sources or likelihood of being impacted 

by transport of O3 precursors from 

another area (e.g., Guam or American 

Samoa), it may be unwarranted to 

require the placement of additional nonurban monitors. States with historically 

lower ambient O3 levels may not have 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas likely to 

experience O3 concentrations of at least 

85 percent of the NAAQS. It is also 

plausible that a State may not have 

ecosystems characterized by O3- 

sensitive natural vegetation that have 

been designated for providing specific 

public welfare amenities or benefits. 

States might expect in some cases that 

the establishment of multiple non-urban 

O3 monitors to meet one or two of the 

proposed non-urban monitoring 

objectives (e.g., three monitors located 

in areas with sensitive ecosystems), 

would be more important than 

allocating an additional monitor to meet 

each of the three distinct monitoring 

objectives. In addition, one monitor 

could conceivably serve multiple 

purposes so that fewer than three 

monitors would be needed to meet these 

objectives. 

In situations like those described 

above, States may choose to seek from 

the EPA Regional Administrator a 

deviation from such requirements that 

either modify or waive these 

requirements, consistent with the 

authority to approve deviations from 

non-urban O3 minimum monitoring 

requirements stated in the proposed 

regulatory language in paragraph 

4.1.2(e) of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D. 

When seeking approval of such 

deviations, the State must provide 

relevant information specific to the 

basis for which the waiver is sought. 

Any deviations based on the Regional 

Administrator’s waiver of requirements 

must be described in the annual 

monitoring network plan. 

Based on the proposed requirements 

described above, EPA estimates that 

approximately 159 new non-urban O3

monitors would be required in the 

national O3 network if the proposed 

non-urban requirements were satisfied 

solely with new monitors. In actuality, 

we expect the net addition of less than 

159 additional monitors to the national 

O3 network due to the mitigating factors 

that have been previously described. 

These factors include the presence of 

existing non-urban monitors that are 

satisfactorily located to meet one or 

more of the proposed monitoring 

objectives, the proposed flexibility for 

States to relocate existing non-required 

O3 monitors to non-urban areas, the 

option of States proposing that some 

existing CASTNET or NPS monitors be 

counted towards meeting the proposed 

non-urban requirements, and the 

possibility of States obtaining Regional 

Administrator waivers of certain nonurban minimum requirements based on 

the situations described above. 

EPA solicits comment on the 

appropriateness of these proposed 

minimum non-urban monitoring 

requirements, including the distinct 

monitoring objectives, the required 

number of monitors, the criteria for 

placement, and the need to allow EPA 

Regional Administrators discretion to 

waive or modify siting criteria or 

minimum requirements. 

C. What Are the Proposed Revisions to 

the Length of the Required O3

Monitoring Season? 

Unlike the ambient monitoring 

requirements for other criteria 

pollutants that mandate year-round 

monitoring, O3 monitoring is currently 

only required during the seasons of the 

year that are conducive to O3 formation. 

These seasons vary in length from place 

to place as the conditions that 

determine the likely O3 formation (i.e., 

seasonally-dependent factors such as 

ambient temperature, strength of solar 

insolation, and length of day) differ by 

location.19 In some locations, conditions 

conducive to O3 formation are limited to 

a few summer months of the year. For 

example, in States with colder climates 

such as Montana and South Dakota, the 

currently required O3 monitoring season 

has a length of 4 months. However, in 

other States with warmer climates such 

as California, Nevada, and Arizona, the 

currently required O3 monitoring season 

for most sites continues all 12 months 

of the year.20

With the recent revision of the 

primary and secondary NAAQS to a 

more stringent level, the issue arises of 

whether in some areas the required O3

monitoring season should be made 

longer. Lengthening the season in 

certain States may be appropriate as 

ambient O3 concentrations could 

approach or exceed the level of the 

revised standard more frequently and 

during more months of the year than 

before. As noted later in this section, a 

related issue is the status of any 

currently effective Regional 

Administrator-granted waiver approvals 

to O3 monitoring seasons, and the 

impact of proposed changes to 

monitoring requirements on such 

waiver approvals. 

EPA has done an analysis to address 

the issue of whether extensions of 

currently required monitoring seasons 

are appropriate in light of the revised 

NAAQS.21 In the analysis, we 

determined the number of exceedences 

of the revised NAAQS (i.e., daily 

maximum 8-hour O3 averages above 

0.075 ppm) in the months falling 

outside the currently required local O3

monitoring season using monitors in 

areas that collected O3 data year-round 

in 2004–2006.22 Additionally, we 

examined occurrences of daily 

maximum 8-hour O3 averages of at least 

0.060 ppm. This threshold represents 80 

percent of the 0.075 ppm NAAQS level 

and provides an indicator of ambient 

conditions that may be conducive to the 

formation of O3 concentrations that 

approach or exceed the revised 

NAAQS.23

While proposals for revising each 

State’s required monitoring season have 

been based on observed data in and 

surrounding the State, statistically 

predicted exceedences were used to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34533 

24See: Camalier, L., Cox, B., and Dolwick, P., 

2007. The effects of meteorology on O3 in urban 

areas and their use in assessing O3 trends. 

Atmospheric Environment 41, 7127–7137. 

25Additional information on this O3 situation is 

available on the Wyoming DEQ Web site: http:// 

deq.State.wy.us/aqd/Monitoring%20Data.asp. 

26Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wyoming. 

27Public reporting requirements are detailed in 

40 CFR part 58 Appendix G, Uniform Air Quality 

Index (AQI) and Daily Reporting. Appendix G 

describes the requirements for the AQI and notes 

that it conveys health implications of air quality 

and that the reports may contain appropriate health 

and cautionary statements. CAA section 319(a) 

provides EPA with a general authority to 

‘‘promulgate regulations establishing an air quality 

monitoring system’’ that uses ‘‘uniform air quality 

monitoring criteria and measures such air quality 

according to a uniform air quality index.’’ 

28 Guideline for Selecting and Modifying the 

Ozone Season Based on an 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 

EPA–454/R–98–001, June 1998, http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/ 

reldocs/ozsea8hr.pdf. 

29 Delaware, Iowa, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. 

30See 64 FR 3028, 67 FR 57332, 69 FR 52836 

validate conclusions for each State. For 

States where year-round data were not 

available, EPA developed and employed 

a regression model to predict the 

frequency of exceedences in areas 

during unmonitored months. The model 

was fit separately for each major urban 

area and uses the relationship between 

daily maximum 8-hour O3

concentrations and certain 

meteorological variables, including 

temperature and relative humidity, to 

predict exceedences of a particular O3

level.24

In reviewing the year-round or close 

to year-round O3 data between 2004 and 

2006, EPA’s analysis found observed 

exceedences of the revised O3 NAAQS 

in eight States during months outside of 

the current required monitoring season. 

The eight States are Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, South Carolina, 

Vermont, and Wyoming. With the 

exception of Wyoming, the exceedances 

occurred in a very limited manner and 

timeframe, just before the beginning of 

these States’ required O3 monitoring 

season (beginning in these States on 

April 1). Every exceedance in the 

aforementioned States was found to 

occur either on March 30 or March 31. 

In Wyoming, the frequency of O3

exceedances before the beginning of the 

required O3 season was higher, with 

multiple occurrences noted at several 

sites up to 2 months before the April 1 

startup of required O3 monitoring.25

The frequency of observed 

occurrences of maximum 8-hour average 

O3 readings of at least 0.060 ppm was 

quite high across the country in months 

outside of the current required 

monitoring season. A total of 32 States 

experienced such occurrences; 22 States 

had such readings only before the 

required monitoring season; 9 States 

had such levels both before and after the 

required monitoring season; and 1 State 

had such levels only after the required 

monitoring season. In a number of cases, 

the frequency of such ambient 

concentrations was high, with some 

States experiencing between 31 to 46 

out-of-season days during 2004 to 2006 

at a high percentage of all operating 

year-round O3 monitors.26

EPA believes that these occurrences of 

O3 levels greater than the 0.075 ppm 

NAAQS and as well as greater than or 

equal to a threshold level of 0.060 ppm 

in months that are not within the 

currently required O3 monitoring season 

support the proposed lengthening of the 

O3 monitoring season requirements. We 

note that basing O3 monitoring season 

requirements on the goal of ensuring 

monitoring when ambient O3 levels 

reach 80 percent of the NAAQS 

supports established monitoring 

network objectives described in 

Appendix D of part 58, including the 

requirement to provide air pollution 

data to the general public in a timely 

manner 27 and to support comparisons 

of an area’s air pollution levels against 

the NAAQS. 

We note that the operation of O3

monitors during periods of time when 

ambient levels reach at least 80 percent 

of the NAAQS ensures that persons 

unusually sensitive to O3 are alerted to 

potential NAAQS exceedances. The 

majority of O3 monitors in the U.S. 

report to AIRNOW, as well as to Stateoperated web sites and automated 

phone reporting systems. These 

programs support many objectives 

including real-time air quality reporting 

to the public, O3 forecasting programs, 

and the verification of real-time air 

quality forecast models. 

In conclusion, EPA believes that the 

stated approach of ensuring that O3

monitors are operating during all 

periods likely to involve NAAQS 

exceedances supports the proposed 

lengthening of required O3 monitoring 

seasons as described in detail below. 

We note that basing these proposed 

revisions, in part, on occurrences of O3

levels representing at least 80 percent of 

revised NAAQS represents a 

modification of previous guidance.28 In 

the past, monitoring season 

requirements were based solely on O3

NAAQS exceedences, although previous 

guidance did utilize the number of days 

in each month in which at least one 8- 

hour average O3 concentration exceeded 

0.080 ppm, a value slightly lower than 

the value of 0.084 ppm used for 

nonattainment determinations. This use 

of 0.080 ppm rather than 0.08(4) ppm as 

articulated in the previous NAAQS for 

O3 resulted in a more conservative 

benchmark that required monitoring in 

months that, given reasonable 

measurement uncertainty, had the 

potential to violate the previous 

NAAQS. 

The specific proposed changes to the 

required State O3 monitoring seasons 

are detailed in the proposed changes to 

Table D–3 of 40 CFR part 58 Appendix 

D (O3 Monitoring Season by State). 

These changes entail a proposed 

decrease of one month for Minnesota, an 

increase of 1 month (19 States), 2 

months (6 States), 4 months (3 States), 

and 5 months (Wyoming). O3 season 

requirements are currently split by Air 

Quality Control Region in Louisiana and 

Texas. Included in the above State-byState accounting is the proposal to 

lengthen the required season in the 

northern part of Louisiana by 1 month 

(southern Louisiana O3 monitors would 

remain on a required year-round 

schedule) and the proposal for the 

required season in Texas to become 

year-round for the entire State. Proposed 

modifications to the current 

requirements were based on the 

previously described technical analysis. 

In several States with limited available 

data, proposed changes were made 

using supporting information from the 

surrounding States; these changes were 

all minor, involving the addition of a 

maximum of 1 month to the current 

required season.29

EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed changes to the required O3

monitoring seasons. We note that EPA 

Regional Administrators have 

previously approved deviations from 

the required O3 monitoring seasons in 

direct final rulemakings, the process 

required before the latest monitoring 

rule revisions.30 Deviations from the 

required O3 monitoring seasons are 

currently permitted by paragraph 4.1(i) 

of 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D (see 71 

FR 61319) as revised in the October 17, 

2006 revisions to the ambient 

monitoring regulations without 

rulemaking. EPA is retaining the rule 

language permitting such deviations 

from the required O3 monitoring seasons 

in proposed paragraph 4.1.1(j) of 40 CFR 

part 58, Appendix D. The proposed 

changes to O3 monitoring season 

requirements, if finalized, will render 

moot previous Regional Administratorgranted waiver approvals. Post-final rule 

requests submitted along with relevant 

supporting information by States for 

monitoring season waivers from the 

revised requirements will be reviewed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34534 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

by Regional Administrators using, at a 

minimum, the same criteria discussed 

in this proposal, i.e., the frequency of 

out-of-season O3 NAAQS exceedances 

as well as occurrences of the Moderate 

AQI. Any deviations based on the 

Regional Administrator’s waiver of 

requirements must be described in the 

annual monitoring network plan and 

updated in the AQS. 

Current regulations permit O3

monitors located at NCore multipollutant stations to be counted toward 

meeting minimum network monitoring 

requirements (see 71 FR 61318). The 

NCore network requirements were 

promulgated in the October 17, 2006 

revisions to ambient monitoring 

regulations in order to build a longterm, nationwide network that supports 

multiple objectives including air quality 

trends analyses, model evaluation, 

ecosystem studies, and assessment of 

transport between urban and rural areas. 

In the 2006 rulemaking, EPA did not 

propose a different O3 monitoring 

season for NCore stations. 

NCore stations are required to operate 

a full suite of gaseous and particulate 

matter monitors as well as basic 

meteorology to support these objectives. 

Given the potential value of NCore data 

to support year-round scientific studies, 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

require that O3 monitors at NCore 

stations be operated on a year-round 

basis. Accordingly, EPA proposes that 

the required monitoring season for 

NCore stations be January through 

December regardless of the length of the 

required O3 monitoring season for the 

remainder of the SLAMS monitors 

within a State. EPA solicits comment on 

this proposed requirement. 

As mentioned in Section II.A of this 

preamble, EPA is proposing to require 

that additional urban and non-urban O3

monitors needed to meet the revised 

minimum network requirements be 

documented in the annual monitoring 

network plan, due by July 1, 2011, and 

that the monitors be operational by 

January 1, 2012. For existing O3

monitors, we believe that a shorter 

timeline is reasonable for States to 

adjust their monitoring programs to 

reflect the proposed O3 monitoring 

season changes. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that the revised O3

monitoring seasons become effective on 

January 1, 2011. We encourage 

monitoring agencies to voluntarily 

adopt the new O3 monitoring seasons, 

where appropriate, during 2010. We 

invite comment on this proposed 

schedule, including whether it is 

reasonable for States to adopt the 

revised O3 monitoring season 1 year 

prior to the deadline for installing and 

operating newly required O3 monitors 

based on the proposed requirements. 

EPA notes that in the proposed 

regulatory language for 40 CFR part 58 

Appendix D, we are reprinting a number 

of existing paragraphs without change, 

including paragraphs 4.1.1(d), 4.1.1(e), 

4.1.1(f), 4.1.1(g), and 4.1.1(h). We are 

doing so solely for the readers’ 

convenience in order that the proposed 

revisions to section 4 of Appendix D 

appear in a single context. EPA is not 

re-proposing, reconsidering, or 

otherwise reopening any of these 

reprinted provisions. We will regard any 

comments as to these provisions as 

outside the scope of this proposal. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it may raise novel legal 

or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the EO. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under EO 12866, and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR No. 2313.01. 

The information collected and 

reported under 40 CFR part 58 is needed 

to determine compliance with the 

NAAQS, to characterize air quality and 

associated health and ecosystems 

impacts, to develop emission control 

strategies, and to measure progress for 

the air pollution program. We are 

proposing to modify minimum 

monitoring requirements in urban areas, 

add new minimum monitoring 

requirements in non-urban areas, and to 

extend the length of the required O3

monitoring season in some States. We 

are proposing that new O3 monitors be 

required to be established and operating 

by January 1, 2012. In addition, we are 

proposing that the revised O3

monitoring seasons become effective on 

January 1, 2011. 

Based on these assumptions, the 

annual average reporting burden for the 

collection under 40 CFR part 58 

(averaged over the first 3 years of this 

ICR) for 145 respondents is estimated to 

be a total of 72,393 labor hours per year 

with a total of $6,320,187 per year. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

State, local, and tribal entities are 

eligible for State assistance grants 

provided by the Federal government 

under the CAA which can be used for 

monitors and related activities. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0338. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after July 16, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by August 17, 2009. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an Agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34535 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. The 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 

58 would affect State and larger local 

agencies. Monitoring regulations have 

typically not applied to government 

jurisdictions of less than 50,000 people. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. We 

estimate the cost to State, local, and 

tribal governments to be approximately 

$6 million. Therefore, the costs of this 

proposed rule is much less than $100 

million, and we conclude that this rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

Federalism implications. EPA estimates 

the total cost of the proposed rule to be 

approximately $6 million. Therefore, it 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

EPA recognizes that States will have 

a substantial interest in this proposed 

rule and any corresponding revisions to 

associated air quality surveillance 

requirements in 40 CFR part 58. 

Accordingly, EPA did consult with the 

Monitoring Steering Committee of the 

National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies during the preparation of this 

proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive 

Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 

policy to promote communications 

between EPA and State and local 

governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed rule from 

State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

Tribes, since Tribes are not obligated to 

conduct ambient monitoring for ozone 

or to adopt the ambient monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Order has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to EO 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 

(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. No significant change in the use 

of energy is expected because the total 

number of additional monitors would be 

relatively small. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

environmental monitoring and 

measurement. Consistent with the 

Agency’s Performance Based 

Measurement System (PBMS), EPA 

proposed not to require the use of 

specific, prescribed analytical methods. 

Rather, the Agency plans to allow the 

use of any method that meets the 

prescribed performance criteria. 

Ambient air concentrations of ozone are 

currently measured by the Federal 

reference method (FRM) in 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix D (Measurement Principle 

and Calibration Procedure for the 

Measurement of Ozone in the 

Atmosphere) or by Federal equivalent 

methods (FEM) that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 53. 

Procedures are available in part 53 that 

allow for the approval of an FEM for 

ozone that is similar to the FRM. Any 

method that meets the performance 

criteria for a candidate equivalent 

method may be approved for use as an 

FEM. This approach is consistent with 

EPA’s PBMS. The PBMS approach is 

intended to be more flexible and costeffective for the regulated community; it 

is also intended to encourage innovation 

in analytical technology and improved 

data quality. The EPA is not precluding 

the use of any method, whether it 

constitutes a voluntary consensus 

standard or not, as long as it meets the 

specified performance criteria. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and 

specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this 

regulation. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposed rule 

amendment does not relax the control 

measures on sources regulated by the 

rule and therefore will not cause 

emissions increases nor decrease 

environmental protection from these 

sources. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 8, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 58—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 58 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7410, 7601(a), 

7611, and 7619. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

2. Section 58.10 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan 

and periodic assessment. 

(a) * * * 

(5) A plan for establishing O3

monitoring sites in accordance with the 

requirements of appendix D to this part 

shall be submitted to the EPA Regional 

Administrator by July 1, 2011. The plan 

shall provide for the required O3 sites to 

be operational by January 1, 2012 or the 

first day of the applicable required O3

monitoring season that is effective in 

2012 as listed in Table D–3 of appendix 

D of this part, whichever date is later. 

* * * * * 

3. Appendix D to Part 58 is amended 

by revising section 4.1 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix D to Part 58—Network 

Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring: 

* * * * * 

4. * * * 

4.1 Ozone (O3) Design Criteria. State, and 

where appropriate, local agencies must 

operate O3 sites to appropriately characterize 

urban areas as well as a limited number of 

non-urban areas for each State. 

4.1.1 Urban Requirements. (a) The 

minimum monitoring requirements for 

characterizing O3 across an urban area 

depend upon area size (in terms of 

population and geographic characteristics) 

and typical peak concentrations (expressed 

in percentages below, or near the O3

NAAQS). Specific SLAMS O3 site minimum 

requirements are included in Table D–2 of 

this appendix. The NCore sites are expected 

to complement the O3 data collection that 

takes place at SLAMS sites with one or more 

pollutant measurements, and both types of 

sites can be used to meet the network 

minimum requirements. The total number of 

O3 sites needed to support the basic 

monitoring objectives of public data 

reporting, air quality mapping, compliance, 

and understanding O3-related atmospheric 

processes will include more sites than these 

minimum numbers required in Table D–2 of 

this appendix. The EPA Regional 

Administrator and the responsible State or 

local air monitoring agency must work 

together to design and/or maintain the most 

appropriate O3 network to service the variety 

of data needs in an area. 

TABLE D–2 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58—SLAMS MINIMUM O3 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

MSA population 1 2

Most recent 3- 

year design value 

concentrations 

≥85% of any O3

NAAQS3 4

Most recent 3- 

year design value 

concentrations 

<85% of any O3

NAAQS3

>10 million ................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 

4–10 million .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1 

350,000–<4 million ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1 

50,000–<350,000 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 0 

1 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). 

2Population based on latest available census figures. 

3The ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50. 4These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value. 

5 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 or more population. 

(b) Within an O3 network, at least one O3

site for each MSA, or CSA if multiple MSAs 

are involved, must be designed to record the 

maximum concentration for that particular 

metropolitan area. More than one maximum 

concentration site may be necessary in some 

areas. Table D–2 of this appendix does not 

account for the full breadth of additional 

factors that would be considered in designing 

a complete O3 monitoring program for an 

urban area. Some of these additional factors 

include geographic size, population density, 

complexity of terrain and meteorology, 

adjacent O3 monitoring programs, air 

pollution transport from neighboring areas, 

and measured air quality in comparison to all 

forms of the O3 NAAQS (i.e., 8-hour and 1- 

hour forms). Networks must be designed to 

account for all of these area characteristics. 

Network designs must be re-examined in 

periodic network assessments that document 

the particular factors used in determining the 

size of the required O3 monitoring network. 

(c) Deviations from the above urban O3

requirements are allowed if approved by the 

EPA Regional Administrator. States may 

propose and EPA Regional Administrators 

may consider approving a waiver of 

monitoring requirements for unmonitored 

MSAs with populations between 50,000 and 

less than 350,000 based on the presence of 

nearby existing monitors. When seeking such 

a waiver, the State must provide relevant 

information including the siting 

characteristics and data record from the 

existing O3 monitors near the unmonitored 

MSA, or other information sources that the 

Regional Administrator must consider in 

evaluating the estimation of current and 

future O3 levels in the unmonitored MSAs. 

Such waiver requests must be accompanied 

by a letter documenting the State’s 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34537 

commitment to propose a nonattainment 

designation for the unmonitored MSA based 

on violating readings from the nearby 

monitor(s) and a commitment to modify a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to provide 

for a specific, reproducible approach to 

representing the O3 concentration of the 

unmonitored MSA in the absence of the 

actual monitoring data that would have been 

supplied by the required monitor. Any 

deviations based on the Regional 

Administrator’s waiver of requirements must 

be described in the annual monitoring 

network plan. 

(d) The appropriate spatial scales for O3

sites are neighborhood, urban, and regional. 

Since O3 requires appreciable formation time, 

the mixing of reactants and products occurs 

over large volumes of air, and this reduces 

the importance of monitoring small scale 

spatial variability. 

(1) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in 

this category represent conditions throughout 

some reasonably homogeneous urban subregion, with dimensions of a few kilometers. 

Homogeneity refers to pollutant 

concentrations. Neighborhood scale data will 

provide valuable information for developing, 

testing, and revising concepts and models 

that describe urban/regional concentration 

patterns. These data will be useful to the 

understanding and definition of processes 

that take periods of hours to occur and hence 

involve considerable mixing and transport. 

Under stagnation conditions, a site located in 

the neighborhood scale may also experience 

peak concentration levels within a 

metropolitan area. 

(2) Urban scale—Measurement in this scale 

will be used to estimate concentrations over 

large portions of an urban area with 

dimensions of several kilometers to 50 or 

more kilometers. Such measurements will be 

used for determining trends, and designing 

area-wide control strategies. The urban scale 

sites would also be used to measure high 

concentrations downwind of the area having 

the highest precursor emissions. 

(3) Regional scale—This scale of 

measurement will be used to typify 

concentrations over large portions of a 

metropolitan area and even larger areas with 

dimensions of as much as hundreds of 

kilometers. Such measurements will be 

useful for assessing the O3 that is transported 

to and from a metropolitan area, as well as 

background concentrations. In some 

situations, particularly when considering 

very large metropolitan areas with complex 

source mixtures, regional scale sites can be 

the maximum concentration location. 

(e) EPA’s technical guidance documents on 

O3 monitoring network design should be 

consulted to evaluate the adequacy of each 

existing O3 monitor, to relocate an existing 

site, or to locate any new O3 sites. 

(f) For locating a neighborhood scale site to 

measure typical city concentrations, a 

reasonably homogeneous geographical area 

near the center of the region should be 

selected which is also removed from the 

influence of major NOX sources. For an urban 

scale site to measure the high concentration 

areas, the emission inventories should be 

used to define the extent of the area of 

important nonmethane hydrocarbons and 

NOX emissions. The meteorological 

conditions that occur during periods of 

maximum photochemical activity should be 

determined. These periods can be identified 

by examining the meteorological conditions 

that occur on the highest O3 air quality days. 

Trajectory analyses, an evaluation of wind 

and emission patterns on high O3 days, can 

also be useful in evaluating an O3 monitoring 

network. In areas without any previous O3 air 

quality measurements, meteorological and O3

precursor emissions information would be 

useful. 

(g) Once the meteorological and air quality 

data are reviewed, the prospective maximum 

concentration monitor site should be selected 

in a direction from the city that is most likely 

to observe the highest O3 concentrations, 

more specifically, downwind during periods 

of photochemical activity. In many cases, 

these maximum concentration O3 sites will 

be located 10 to 30 miles or more downwind 

from the urban area where maximum O3

precursor emissions originate. The 

downwind direction and appropriate 

distance should be determined from 

historical meteorological data collected on 

days which show the potential for producing 

high O3 levels. Monitoring agencies are to 

consult with their EPA Regional Office when 

considering siting a maximum O3

concentration site. 

(h) In locating a neighborhood scale site 

which is to measure high concentrations, the 

same procedures used for the urban scale are 

followed except that the site should be 

located closer to the areas bordering on the 

center city or slightly further downwind in 

an area of high density population. 

(i) For regional scale background 

monitoring sites and non-urban monitoring 

sites, similar meteorological analysis as for 

the maximum concentration sites may also 

inform the decisions for locating regional 

scale sites. Regional scale sites may be 

located to provide data on O3 transport 

between cities, as background sites, or for 

other data collection purposes. Consideration 

of both area characteristics, such as 

meteorology, and the data collection for both 

urban and non-urban objectives, such as 

transport, must be jointly considered for a 

regional scale site to be useful. 

(j) Since O3 levels decrease significantly in 

the colder parts of the year in many areas, O3

is required to be monitored at SLAMS 

monitoring sites only during the ‘‘ozone 

season’’ as designated in the AQS files on a 

State-by-State basis and described below in 

Table D–3 of this appendix. Deviations from 

the O3 monitoring season must be approved 

by the EPA Regional Administrator. Requests 

for monitoring season waivers must be 

accompanied by relevant supporting 

information. These requests will be reviewed 

by Regional Administrators using, at a 

minimum, the frequency of out-of-season O3

NAAQS exceedances as well as occurrences 

of the Moderate air quality index level. Any 

deviations based on the Regional 

Administrator’s waiver of requirements must 

be described in the annual monitoring 

network plan and updated in AQS. Changes 

to the O3 monitoring season requirements in 

Table D–3 moot any previously approved 

Regional Administrator waivers for affected 

States. O3 monitors at NCore stations are 

required to be operated on a year-round 

basis, i.e., January to December. Information 

on how to analyze O3 data to support a 

change to the O3 season in support of the 8- 

hour standard for a specific State can be 

found in reference 8 to this appendix. 

TABLE D–3 TO APPENDIX D OF PART 58—OZONE MONITORING SEASON BY STATE 1

State Begin month End month 

Alabama .................................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 

Alaska ...................................................................................................... April ................................................ October. 

Arizona .................................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

Arkansas .................................................................................................. March ............................................. November. 

California ................................................................................................. January .......................................... December. 

Colorado .................................................................................................. March ............................................. September. 

Connecticut .............................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 

Delaware ................................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 

District of Columbia ................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 

Florida ...................................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

Georgia .................................................................................................... February ........................................ October. 

Hawaii ...................................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

Idaho ........................................................................................................ April ................................................ September. 

Illinois ....................................................................................................... April ................................................ October. 

Indiana ..................................................................................................... March ............................................. October. 

Iowa ......................................................................................................... April ................................................ October. 

Kansas ..................................................................................................... April ................................................ October. 

Kentucky .................................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE D–3 TO APPENDIX D OF PART 58—OZONE MONITORING SEASON BY STATE 1—Continued 

State Begin month End month 

Louisiana AQCR 019,022 ....................................................................... March ............................................. November. 

Louisiana AQCR 106 .............................................................................. January .......................................... December. 

Maine ....................................................................................................... April ................................................ September. 

Maryland .................................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 

Massachusetts ......................................................................................... March ............................................. September. 

Michigan .................................................................................................. April ................................................ September. 

Minnesota ................................................................................................ April ................................................ September. 

Mississippi ............................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

Missouri ................................................................................................... March ............................................. October. 

Montana ................................................................................................... May ................................................ September. 

Nebraska ................................................................................................. April ................................................ October. 

Nevada .................................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

New Hampshire ....................................................................................... March ............................................. September. 

New Jersey .............................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 

New Mexico ............................................................................................. January .......................................... December. 

New York ................................................................................................. March ............................................. October. 

North Carolina ......................................................................................... March ............................................. October. 

North Dakota ........................................................................................... April ................................................ September. 

Ohio ......................................................................................................... April ................................................ October. 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................ March ............................................. November. 

Oregon ..................................................................................................... May ................................................ September. 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................... March ............................................. October. 

Puerto Rico .............................................................................................. January .......................................... December. 

Rhode Island ........................................................................................... April ................................................ September. 

South Carolina ......................................................................................... February ........................................ October. 

South Dakota ........................................................................................... April ................................................ September. 

Tennessee ............................................................................................... February ........................................ October. 

Texas ....................................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

Utah ......................................................................................................... April ................................................ October. 

Vermont ................................................................................................... March ............................................. September. 

Virginia ..................................................................................................... March ............................................. October. 

Washington .............................................................................................. March ............................................. September. 

West Virginia ........................................................................................... April ................................................ October. 

Wisconsin ................................................................................................ April ................................................ October. 

Wyoming .................................................................................................. January .......................................... December. 

American Samoa ..................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

Guam ....................................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

Virgin Islands ........................................................................................... January .......................................... December. 

1The required O3 monitoring season for NCore stations is January through December. 

4.1.2 Non-urban Requirements. (a) 

Each State shall install and operate at 

least three O3 sites to monitor 

concentrations in non-urban areas. 

Three non-urban sites cannot fully 

characterize O3 levels across most 

States; however, in many cases these 

sites can provide important 

representative characterization of O3 not 

addressed by O3 sites in or immediately 

downwind of urban areas. The total 

number of non-urban O3 sites necessary 

for any one State may be more than are 

required in this section, especially for 

those States that have multiple 

ecosystems or wilderness areas with O3- 

sensitive natural vegetation and/or 

significantly large distances between 

multiple Micropolitan Statistical Areas. 

These non-urban O3 monitoring sites are 

in addition to the required sites used to 

satisfy requirements listed in Table D– 

2 of this appendix and their operation 

will be determined through negotiations 

between the EPA Regional 

Administrator and the responsible State 

or local air monitoring agency. Nonurban O3 sites must be operated during 

the O3 season as designated in Table D– 

3 of this appendix unless deviations 

have been approved by the EPA 

Regional Administrator. 

(b) For sites chosen to meet non-urban 

monitoring requirements, each of the 

following objectives must be met. 

(1) To provide characterization of O3

exposures to O3-sensitive vegetation and 

important ecosystems, at least one 

monitoring site is to be located in an 

area such as those set aside to conserve 

the scenic value and the natural 

vegetation and wildlife within such 

areas. These areas may include Federal, 

State, or Tribal and/or public interest 

lands that are subject to elevated O3

concentrations compared with the rest 

of the State and are characterized by 

areas of O3-sensitive natural vegetation 

species subject to visible foliar injury, 

seedling and biomass loss, and other 

adverse impacts to a degree that could 

be considered adverse. 

(2) To provide O3 characterization of 

less-populated areas, at least one 

monitoring site is to be located to 

represent a Micropolitan Statistical Area 

expected to have a maximum O3 design 

value concentration of at least 85 

percent of the NAAQS. Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas have at least one urban 

cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 

50,000 population. Monitors meeting 

this requirement can be discontinued, 

with Regional Administrator approval, 

after demonstrating a design value of 

less than 85 percent of the NAAQS. 

(3) To provide O3 characterization in 

non-urban areas impacted by transport, 

at least one monitoring site is to be 

located in the area of expected 

maximum O3 concentration outside of 

currently monitored MSAs, 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and 

sensitive ecosystems. This type of site 

could potentially include upwind 

transport areas or rural locations that are 

farther downwind from existing 

maximum concentration O3 sites 

intended to represent an urban area. 

(c) States are encouraged to utilize 

resources and analyses such as 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34539 

photochemical modeling, spatial 

interpolation of ambient data from 

existing O3 monitors, or other 

quantitative assessment tools to 

determine the areas where there are 

projected maximum non-urban O3

concentrations, and where these regions 

with elevated O3 might overlap O3- 

sensitive ecosystems, and other 

important wilderness areas and 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Federal 

Land Managers, State, local, or Tribal 

ecosystem assessment experts, or 

academic researchers who are familiar 

with the patterns of vegetation damage 

and distribution of O3 sensitive species 

in their areas should also be consulted. 

A State may propose establishing or 

moving a site as part of their annual 

monitoring network plan due each year 

as provided in § 58.10; however, such 

quantitative assessments to determine 

the required non-urban O3 monitors 

shall be updated as part of the 

assessment of their air quality 

surveillance system due to the EPA 

Regional Administrator every 5 years as 

required by § 58.10. 

(d) In some cases, non-urban O3

monitors may already be operating by 

monitoring organizations (e.g., the 

National Park Service) other than the 

responsible State or local agency. State 

or local agencies may utilize such O3

monitors for one or more of the required 

non-urban monitors under the following 

provisions: 

(1) The O3 monitor in use by another 

monitoring organization meets the 

quality assurance, method requirements, 

and probe and siting criteria as provided 

for in Appendices A, C, and E of this 

part, including any applicable approved 

waivers according to the conditions of 

each applicable appendix. 

(2) The O3 monitor is included in the 

applicable State or local agency annual 

monitoring network plan as provided 

for § 58.10. 

(3) Data are included in the Annual 

Air Monitoring Data Certification as 

provided for in § 58.15. 

(4) Data are submitted according to 

the requirements of § 58.16. 

(5) Data are made available to the 

State or local agency in a timely manner 

for reports of the air quality index 

according to the requirements of § 58.50 

and to support other real-time data 

objectives such as national air quality 

mapping or forecasting. 

(6) If for any reason the O3 monitor is 

shut down, the applicable State or local 

agency must address how it proposes to 

meet the loss of data in the next 

required annual monitoring network 

plan as provided for in § 58.10. 

(e) States may choose to seek from the 

EPA Regional Administrator a deviation 

from non-urban requirements that either 

modify or waive these requirements, for 

example, in a small, relatively 

urbanized State, in situations where a 

State believes that one of the required 

non-urban monitors can meet more than 

one objective, or where a State can 

demonstrate that no Micropolitan 

Statistical Area will experience design 

value concentrations of at least 85 

percent of the NAAQS. When seeking 

approval of such deviations, the State 

must provide relevant information 

specific to the basis for which the 

waiver is sought. Any deviations based 

on the Regional Administrator’s waiver 

of requirements must be described in 

the annual monitoring network plan. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–16802 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0084; 14420–1113– 

0000–C6] 

RIN 1018–AW16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To Remove the Utah (Desert) 

Valvata Snail (Valvata utahensis) From 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding; proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to 

remove the Utah (desert) valvata snail 

(Valvata utahensis) from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife (List) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Based on a thorough review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, the Utah valvata snail is more 

widespread and occurs in a greater 

variety of habitats in the Snake River 

than known at the time of listing in 

1992. We now know that the Utah 

valvata snail is not limited to areas of 

cold-water springs or spring outflows; 

rather, it persists in a variety of aquatic 

habitats, including cold-water springs, 

spring creeks and tributaries, the 

mainstem Snake River and associated 

tributary stream habitats, and reservoirs 

influenced by dam operations. Given 

our current understanding of the 

species’ habitat requirements and 

threats, the species does not meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species under the Act. Therefore, we are 

proposing to remove the Utah valvata 

snail from the List, thereby removing all 

protections provided by the Act. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until September 

14, 2009. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by August 

31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018– 

AW16, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffery L. Foss, State Supervisor, Idaho 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. 

Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709 

(telephone 208/378–5243; facsimile 

208/378–5262). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877–8339, 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

Our intent is to use the best available 

commercial and scientific data as the 

foundation for all endangered and 

threatened species classification 

decisions. Comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule to remove the Utah 

valvata snail from the List are hereby 

solicited. Comments particularly are 

sought concerning: 

(1) Additional information regarding 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of the Utah valvata snail, including 

the locations of any additional colonies 

or populations; 

(2) Data on any threats (or lack 

thereof) to the Utah valvata snail; 

(3) Current or planned activities in the 

areas occupied by the Utah valvata snail 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1