Approval of One-Year Extension for Attaining the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard in the Baltimore Moderate Nonattainment Area, 13289-13292 [2011-5631]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
closed position from 4 a.m. on March
10, 2011 through 11 p.m. on March 11,
2011. Vessels that can pass under the
bridge without a bridge opening may do
so at all times.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the bridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the designated time period. This
deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: February 28, 2011.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011–5671 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[USCG–2011–0099]
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to
Shinnecock Canal, Hempstead, NY
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation
from regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commander, First Coast
Guard District, has issued a temporary
deviation from the regulation governing
the operation of the Meadowbrook State
Parkway Bridge across the Sloop
Channel, mile 12.8, at Hempstead, New
York. The deviation is necessary to
install new link arms at the bridge. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in
the closed position.
DATES: This deviation is effective from
7 a.m. on March 14, 2011 through 3 p.m.
on March 25, 2011.
DATES: Documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket USCG–2011–
0099 and are available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2011–0099 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ and
then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are also
available for inspection or copying at
the Docket Management Facility (M–30),
U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project
Officer, First Coast Guard District,
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:32 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil, telephone
(212) 668–7165. If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Meadowbrook State Parkway
Bridge has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 22 feet at mean high
water and 25 feet at mean low water.
The existing drawbridge operation
regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.799(h).
The waterway has seasonal
recreational vessels and fishing vessels
of various sizes. We contacted the
commercial fishermen and no objections
were received.
The New York Department of
Transportation, requested a temporary
deviation to facilitate installation of new
link arms.
Under this temporary deviation the
Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge at
mile 12.8, across Sloop Channel, may
remain in the closed position between
7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, from March 14, 2011 through
March 25, 2011. Vessels that can pass
under the bridge during the closed
periods without a bridge opening may
do so at all times.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the bridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the designated time period. This
deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: February 28, 2011.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011–5666 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0431; FRL–9278–8]
Approval of One-Year Extension for
Attaining the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard in the Baltimore Moderate
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving the
extension of the attainment date from
June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the
Baltimore nonattainment area, which is
classified as moderate for the 1997 8hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13289
extension is based on the air quality
data for the 4th highest daily 8-hour
monitored value during the 2009 ozone
season. Accordingly, EPA is revising the
table concerning the 8-hour ozone
attainment dates in the State of
Maryland. EPA is approving the
extension of the attainment date for the
Baltimore moderate ozone
nonattainment area in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on April 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0431. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during
normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by
e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43114), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of
Maryland. The NPR proposed approval
of the attainment date extension from
June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the
Baltimore nonattainment area. The
Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) formally requested
the extension on March 12, 2010.
II. Summary
Section 172(a)(2)(C) of subpart 1 of
the CAA provides for EPA to extend the
attainment date for an area by one year
if the State has complied with all the
requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the applicable
implementation plan and no more than
a minimal number of exceedances of the
NAAQS has occurred in the attainment
E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM
11MRR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
13290
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
year. Section 181(a)(5) of subpart 2
contains a similar provision for the
ozone NAAQS. It also requires that an
area seeking an extension must have
met all applicable requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in
the applicable State Implementation
Plan. However, instead of providing for
an extension where there has been a
‘‘minimal’’ number of exceedances, it
allows an extension only if there is no
more than one exceedance of the
NAAQS in the year proceeding the
extension year. The language in Section
181(a)(5) reflects the form of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS and not the 1997 form of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. To address
this, EPA interpreted this provision for
purposes of implementing the 1997 8hour ozone standard, as set forth at 40
CFR 51.907. Under 40 CFR 51.907, an
area will meet the requirement
addressing ‘‘exceedances’’ of the
standard if:
(a) For the first one-year extension,
the area’s 4th highest daily 8-hour
average in the attainment year is 0.084
parts per million (ppm) or less.
(b) For the second one-year extension,
the area’s 4th highest daily 8-hour
value, averaged over both the original
attainment year and the first extension
year, is 0.084 ppm or less.
(c) For purposes of paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section, the area’s 4th highest
daily 8-hour average shall be from the
monitor with the 4th highest daily 8hour average of all the monitors that
represent that area.
The State of Maryland submitted the
monitoring data for the Baltimore
moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. EPA’s review of the actual ozone
air quality data in the Air Quality
System shows that the 4th highest daily
average 8-hour ozone concentration for
the 2009 attainment year ozone season,
for all monitors in the Baltimore
moderate ozone nonattainment area
measured at 0.084 ppm or less, as
required by 40 CFR 51.907(a). EPA has
determined that the requirements for a
one-year extension of the attainment
date have been fulfilled as follows:
(1) The State of Maryland has
complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in
the applicable ozone implementation
plan; and
(2) The Baltimore nonattainment
area’s 4th highest daily 8-hour
monitored value during the 2009 ozone
season is 0.084 ppm or less.
On July 23, 2010, EPA received
adverse comments from the Gwynns
Falls Watershed Association and on
August 23, 2010, EPA received adverse
comments from the Environmental
Integrity Project and the Baltimore
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:32 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Harbor Waterkeep on the NPR. A
summary of the comments submitted
and EPA’s response is provided in
Section III of this document.
III. Summary of Public Comments and
EPA Responses
Comment: The two adverse comments
received were substantially similar in
regards to the proposed one-year
extension for attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard in the Baltimore
nonattainment area. The commenters
are concerned that the extension of the
attainment date extension from June 15,
2010 to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore
nonattainment area will only lead to
further health issues. The commenters
also are concerned about the precision
of the instrumentation used to collect
the fourth highest daily 8-hour average
of 0.083 parts per million (ppm) and the
standard error of the measurement for
the Harford County site in 2009.
Response: In response to the
commenters first concern, the CAA and
our regulations address the health issues
by ensuring that ambient levels for the
attainment year are at or below the level
of the NAAQS. The requirement that
primary standards include an adequate
margin of safety is a requisite to protect
the public health and intended to
provide a reasonable degree of
protection against hazards that research
has not yet identified. In response to the
commenters second concern about the
precision of the instrumentation and the
standard error of the measurement,
Appendix A to part 58 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (Appendix
A) provides the quality assurance
requirements for air monitoring. The
appendix specifies the minimum quality
system requirements applicable to air
monitoring data for ozone submitted to
EPA. Additional guidance for the
requirements in Appendix A can be
found in the ‘‘Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems,’’ volume II, part
I. Appendix A requires States to perform
precision checks on all monitors to
assess data quality and consistency with
the established acceptance criteria.
Section 3.2.1 of Appendix A requires
States to perform a one-point quality
control (QC) check at least once every 2
weeks to measure ozone. Section 4.1.2
of Appendix A provides the method for
calculating the precision of the data
measurements. The precision estimate is
used to assess the one-point QC checks
for all monitors. The ozone precision
acceptance criterion is met for the 90
percent Confidence Level of coefficient
of variation when the calculated value
is less than or equal to 7 percent. The
commenters correctly note that the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Harford County site measured at 0.083
ppm in 2009. EPA’s review of the data
showed that MDE performed the
required amount of one-point QC checks
in 2009 for the Harford County ozone
monitor. Results of these one-point QC
checks were all less than 7 percent,
consistent with the established
acceptance criteria. The 2009 one-point
QC check results for the Harford County
ozone monitor were used to calculate
the 90 percent Confidence Level of
coefficient of variation. Using the
precision calculation detailed in Section
4.1.2, the results showed that the
Harford County ozone monitor was
below the less than or equal to 7 percent
precision ozone acceptance criteria for a
90 percent Confidence Limit of
coefficient of variation. Therefore, the
area satisfied the measurement quality
requirements according to Appendix A
for data compliance.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the attainment date
extension from June 15, 2010 to June 15,
2011 for the Baltimore nonattainment
area, which is classified as moderate for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
State law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under State law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM
11MRR1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Government and Indian Tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it 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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
determines that each of two areas has
attained a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically
significant.
This rule does not involve
establishment of technical standards,
and thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As
required by section 3 of Executive Order
12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.
EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance
with the ‘‘Attorney General’s
Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings issued under the
executive order.
Executive Order (EO) 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 final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:32 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the
environment. The rulemaking does not
affect the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment
because extending the attainment date
does not alter the emission reduction
measures that are required to be
implemented in the Baltimore Area,
which is classified as moderate
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. See, 69 FR at 23909
(April 30, 2004). Additionally, if the
Baltimore Area were not granted an
extension of its attainment date, EPA’s
recourse would be to initiate a
reclassification of the Baltimore Area
from its current classification of
moderate nonattainment to serious
nonattainment, pursuant to section
181(b)(2) of the CAA. Because the
Baltimore area was formerly a severe
nonattainment area under the revoked
1-hour ozone standard (see, 56 FR at
56773, November 6, 1991), it is required
to continue to implement severe area
requirements pursuant to EPA’s
interpretation of ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision of section 172(e) of the CAA.
See 69 FR at 23973, April 30, 2004,
South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir.
2006), modified and rehearing den., 489
F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2007). The severe
area requirements are more stringent
than both the moderate and serious area
requirements set forth in Title I, part D,
subpart 2 of the CAA. Therefore, even
if EPA were to not grant the attainment
date extension and instead move to
reclassify the area to serious
nonattainment, no additional emission
reduction measures would be required
to be implemented in the Baltimore area
through a 181(b)(2) reclassification. The
extension of the attainment deadline for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS does not
impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13291
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by May 10, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This 1-year
attainment date extension for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Baltimore
Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: March 1, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:
PART 81—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 81.321, the table entitled
‘‘Maryland—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’
is amended by revising the entry for
Baltimore, MD (Anne Arundel County,
City of Baltimore, Baltimore County,
Carroll County, Harford County, and
Howard County) and adding footnote 4
to read as follows:
■
§ 81.321
*
E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM
*
Maryland.
*
11MRR1
*
*
13292
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
MARYLAND—OZONE
[8-Hour standard]
Designation a
Designated area
Category/classification
Date 1
Type
Date 1
Baltimore, MD:
Anne Arundel County ................................
....................................
Nonattainment ...........
....................................
City of Baltimore ........................................
....................................
Nonattainment ...........
....................................
Baltimore County .......................................
....................................
Nonattainment ...........
....................................
Carroll County ...........................................
....................................
Nonattainment ...........
....................................
Harford County ..........................................
....................................
Nonattainment ...........
....................................
Howard County ..........................................
....................................
Nonattainment ...........
....................................
*
*
*
*
*
Type
Subpart 2/Moderate. 4
Subpart 2/Moderate. 4
Subpart 2/Moderate. 4
Subpart 2/Moderate. 4
Subpart 2/Moderate. 4
Subpart 2/Moderate. 4
*
*
a Includes
Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * *
4 Attainment date extended to June 15, 2011.
1 This
*
*
*
*
Furnished in Rural Hospitals and
Critical Access Hospitals.’’
DATES: Effective Date: This document is
effective on January 1, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Division of Outpatient Care, (410) 786–
0378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
*
[FR Doc. 2011–5631 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
[CMS–1504–CN]
RIN 0938–AP41
Medicare Program: Changes to the
Hospital Outpatient Prospective
Payment System and CY 2011 Payment
Rates; Changes to the Ambulatory
Surgical Center Payment System and
CY 2011 Payment Rates; Changes to
Payments to Hospitals for Graduate
Medical Education Costs; Corrections
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
This document corrects
technical errors that appeared in the
final rule published on November 24,
2010, entitled ‘‘Medicare Program:
Hospital Outpatient Prospective
Payment System and CY 2011 Payment
Rates; Ambulatory Surgical Center
Payment System and CY 2011 Payment
Rates; Payments to Hospitals for
Graduate Medical Education Costs;
Physician Self-Referral Rules and
Related Changes to Provider Agreement
Regulations; Payment for Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetist Services
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:32 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
II. Summary of Errors
I. Background
42 CFR Parts 410, 416, and 419
In FR Doc. 2010–27926 of November
24, 2010 (75 FR 71800) (hereinafter
referred to as the CY 2011 OPPS/ASC
final rule), there were several technical
and typographic errors that we describe
in the ‘‘Summary of Errors’’ section and
correct in the ‘‘Correction of Errors’’
section below. In addition to correcting
errors in the preamble and Addendum
B, this correction notice corrects errors
in Addenda AA and BB to the CY 2011
OPPS/ASC final rule. Most of the
changes to these Addenda are based on
changes to the practice expense (PE)
relative value units (RVUs) and the
conversion factor (CF) for the Medicare
Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) for CY
2011. In the January 11, 2011 CY 2011
MPFS correction notice (76 FR 1670),
we corrected errors in the November 29,
2010 Medicare Program; Payment
Policies Under the Physician Fee
Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B
for CY 2011 final rule with comment
period (hereinafter referred to as the CY
2011 MPFS final rule) to the PE RVUs
and the CF for the CY 2011 MPFS (75
FR 73170). The revised ASC payment
system uses the PE RVUs and the CF for
the MPFS as part of the office-based and
ancillary radiology payment
methodology. This correction notice
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
updates the CY 2011 OPPS/ASC final
rule to include these corrections.
The provisions in this correction
document are effective as if they had
been included in the CY 2011 OPPS/
ASC final rule appearing in the CY 2011
OPPS/ASC final rule. Accordingly, the
corrections are effective January 1, 2011.
Sfmt 4700
A. Errors in the November 24, 2010
Final Rule
In the CY 2011 OPPS/ASC final rule,
we have identified a number of
technical and typographic errors.
Specifically, on page 71913, we are
correcting the inadvertent inclusion of
the word ‘‘stated’’ and deleting this word
from the description of the public
comment in the preamble section
entitled ‘‘Revision/Removal of
Neurostimulator Electrodes (APC
0687).’’ On pages 71915 and 71916, we
incorrectly stated the number of single
and total claims used in the ratesetting
process for APCs 0664 and 0667, in the
‘‘Proton Beam Therapy (APCs 0664 and
0667)’’ section of the preamble.
Specifically, on page 71915 we
incorrectly stated that 11,963 single
claims out of 12,995 total claims were
used in the ratesetting process for APC
0664. On page 71916, we also
incorrectly stated that 2,799 single
claims out of 3,081 total claims were
used in the ratesetting process for APC
0667. We are changing this section to
correctly state that we used 10,943
single claims out of 11,895 total claims
in the ratesetting process for APC 0664
and that we used 2,569 single claims out
of 2,831 total claims in the ratesetting
E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM
11MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13289-13292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5631]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0431; FRL-9278-8]
Approval of One-Year Extension for Attaining the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard in the Baltimore Moderate Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the extension of the attainment date from
June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore nonattainment area,
which is classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This extension is based on the
air quality data for the 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored value
during the 2009 ozone season. Accordingly, EPA is revising the table
concerning the 8-hour ozone attainment dates in the State of Maryland.
EPA is approving the extension of the attainment date for the Baltimore
moderate ozone nonattainment area in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on April 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0431. All documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at
Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard,
Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by
e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43114), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval
of the attainment date extension from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011
for the Baltimore nonattainment area. The Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) formally requested the extension on March 12, 2010.
II. Summary
Section 172(a)(2)(C) of subpart 1 of the CAA provides for EPA to
extend the attainment date for an area by one year if the State has
complied with all the requirements and commitments pertaining to the
area in the applicable implementation plan and no more than a minimal
number of exceedances of the NAAQS has occurred in the attainment
[[Page 13290]]
year. Section 181(a)(5) of subpart 2 contains a similar provision for
the ozone NAAQS. It also requires that an area seeking an extension
must have met all applicable requirements and commitments pertaining to
the area in the applicable State Implementation Plan. However, instead
of providing for an extension where there has been a ``minimal'' number
of exceedances, it allows an extension only if there is no more than
one exceedance of the NAAQS in the year proceeding the extension year.
The language in Section 181(a)(5) reflects the form of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS and not the 1997 form of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. To address this,
EPA interpreted this provision for purposes of implementing the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, as set forth at 40 CFR 51.907. Under 40 CFR
51.907, an area will meet the requirement addressing ``exceedances'' of
the standard if:
(a) For the first one-year extension, the area's 4th highest daily
8-hour average in the attainment year is 0.084 parts per million (ppm)
or less.
(b) For the second one-year extension, the area's 4th highest daily
8-hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the
first extension year, is 0.084 ppm or less.
(c) For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the
area's 4th highest daily 8-hour average shall be from the monitor with
the 4th highest daily 8-hour average of all the monitors that represent
that area.
The State of Maryland submitted the monitoring data for the
Baltimore moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA's review of the
actual ozone air quality data in the Air Quality System shows that the
4th highest daily average 8-hour ozone concentration for the 2009
attainment year ozone season, for all monitors in the Baltimore
moderate ozone nonattainment area measured at 0.084 ppm or less, as
required by 40 CFR 51.907(a). EPA has determined that the requirements
for a one-year extension of the attainment date have been fulfilled as
follows:
(1) The State of Maryland has complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable ozone
implementation plan; and
(2) The Baltimore nonattainment area's 4th highest daily 8-hour
monitored value during the 2009 ozone season is 0.084 ppm or less.
On July 23, 2010, EPA received adverse comments from the Gwynns
Falls Watershed Association and on August 23, 2010, EPA received
adverse comments from the Environmental Integrity Project and the
Baltimore Harbor Waterkeep on the NPR. A summary of the comments
submitted and EPA's response is provided in Section III of this
document.
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
Comment: The two adverse comments received were substantially
similar in regards to the proposed one-year extension for attaining the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in the Baltimore nonattainment area. The
commenters are concerned that the extension of the attainment date
extension from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore
nonattainment area will only lead to further health issues. The
commenters also are concerned about the precision of the
instrumentation used to collect the fourth highest daily 8-hour average
of 0.083 parts per million (ppm) and the standard error of the
measurement for the Harford County site in 2009.
Response: In response to the commenters first concern, the CAA and
our regulations address the health issues by ensuring that ambient
levels for the attainment year are at or below the level of the NAAQS.
The requirement that primary standards include an adequate margin of
safety is a requisite to protect the public health and intended to
provide a reasonable degree of protection against hazards that research
has not yet identified. In response to the commenters second concern
about the precision of the instrumentation and the standard error of
the measurement, Appendix A to part 58 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (Appendix A) provides the quality assurance
requirements for air monitoring. The appendix specifies the minimum
quality system requirements applicable to air monitoring data for ozone
submitted to EPA. Additional guidance for the requirements in Appendix
A can be found in the ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems,'' volume II, part I. Appendix A requires States to
perform precision checks on all monitors to assess data quality and
consistency with the established acceptance criteria. Section 3.2.1 of
Appendix A requires States to perform a one-point quality control (QC)
check at least once every 2 weeks to measure ozone. Section 4.1.2 of
Appendix A provides the method for calculating the precision of the
data measurements. The precision estimate is used to assess the one-
point QC checks for all monitors. The ozone precision acceptance
criterion is met for the 90 percent Confidence Level of coefficient of
variation when the calculated value is less than or equal to 7 percent.
The commenters correctly note that the Harford County site measured at
0.083 ppm in 2009. EPA's review of the data showed that MDE performed
the required amount of one-point QC checks in 2009 for the Harford
County ozone monitor. Results of these one-point QC checks were all
less than 7 percent, consistent with the established acceptance
criteria. The 2009 one-point QC check results for the Harford County
ozone monitor were used to calculate the 90 percent Confidence Level of
coefficient of variation. Using the precision calculation detailed in
Section 4.1.2, the results showed that the Harford County ozone monitor
was below the less than or equal to 7 percent precision ozone
acceptance criteria for a 90 percent Confidence Limit of coefficient of
variation. Therefore, the area satisfied the measurement quality
requirements according to Appendix A for data compliance.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the attainment date extension from June 15, 2010
to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore nonattainment area, which is
classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly,
the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
[[Page 13291]]
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely determines that each of two areas has attained a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically significant.
This rule does not involve establishment of technical standards,
and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under
the executive order.
Executive Order (EO) 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 final 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. The rulemaking does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment because extending the
attainment date does not alter the emission reduction measures that are
required to be implemented in the Baltimore Area, which is classified
as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See, 69
FR at 23909 (April 30, 2004). Additionally, if the Baltimore Area were
not granted an extension of its attainment date, EPA's recourse would
be to initiate a reclassification of the Baltimore Area from its
current classification of moderate nonattainment to serious
nonattainment, pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA. Because the
Baltimore area was formerly a severe nonattainment area under the
revoked 1-hour ozone standard (see, 56 FR at 56773, November 6, 1991),
it is required to continue to implement severe area requirements
pursuant to EPA's interpretation of ``anti-backsliding'' provision of
section 172(e) of the CAA. See 69 FR at 23973, April 30, 2004, South
Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir.
2006), modified and rehearing den., 489 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2007). The
severe area requirements are more stringent than both the moderate and
serious area requirements set forth in Title I, part D, subpart 2 of
the CAA. Therefore, even if EPA were to not grant the attainment date
extension and instead move to reclassify the area to serious
nonattainment, no additional emission reduction measures would be
required to be implemented in the Baltimore area through a 181(b)(2)
reclassification. The extension of the attainment deadline for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 10, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This 1-year attainment date extension for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the Baltimore Area may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: March 1, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 81.321, the table entitled ``Maryland--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for Baltimore, MD (Anne
Arundel County, City of Baltimore, Baltimore County, Carroll County,
Harford County, and Howard County) and adding footnote 4 to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.321 Maryland.
* * * * *
[[Page 13292]]
Maryland--Ozone
[8-Hour standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated area Designation \a\ Category/classification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, MD:
Anne Arundel County........ ............................. Nonattainment............... ............................ Subpart 2/Moderate.\ 4\
City of Baltimore.......... ............................. Nonattainment............... ............................ Subpart 2/Moderate.\ 4\
Baltimore County........... ............................. Nonattainment............... ............................ Subpart 2/Moderate.\ 4\
Carroll County............. ............................. Nonattainment............... ............................ Subpart 2/Moderate.\ 4\
Harford County............. ............................. Nonattainment............... ............................ Subpart 2/Moderate.\ 4\
Howard County.............. ............................. Nonattainment............... ............................ Subpart 2/Moderate.\ 4\
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * *
\4\ Attainment date extended to June 15, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-5631 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P