Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Determination of Termination of Section 185 Fees, 28696-28707 [2011-12063]

Download as PDF 28696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules Dated: May 12, 2011. Nancy K. Stade, Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. [FR Doc. 2011–12088 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2011–10; Order No. 727] Periodic Reporting Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service petition to initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes in analytical principles. Proposal Two involves changes affecting cost models for evaluating competitive Negotiated Service Agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, addresses preliminary procedural matters, and invites public comment. DATES: Comments are due: June 13, 2011. SUMMARY: Submit comments electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing Online’’ link in the banner at the top of the Commission’s Web site (http:// www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing the Commission’s Filing Online system at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who cannot submit their views electronically should contact the person identified in ADDRESSES: wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as the source for case-related information for advice on alternatives to electronic filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820 (case-related information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov (electronic filing assistance). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 10, 2011, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 asking the Commission to initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes in the analytical principles approved for use in periodic reporting.1 Proposal Two is a set of four changes that the Postal Service first presented in its FY 2010 Annual Compliance Report (ACR) modifying the cost models that are used to evaluate Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs) 1 Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), May 10, 2011 (Petition). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 for competitive products. These cost models were included in USPS–FY10– NP27 in that docket. The Petition notes that in its FY 2010 Annual Compliance Determination, the Commission made a preliminary determination that these four changes constitute changes to analytical principles that require prior Commission approval before being incorporated in an ACR.2 The Postal Service notes that the purpose of its Petition is to obtain the Commission’s approval of the referenced changes for use in future ACRs, even though some of the changes could be viewed as corrections to its models not requiring advance Commission approval. Petition at 1. The four changes for which the Postal Service seeks approval are: 1. The addition of a cost avoidance for Priority mailpieces; 2. The inclusion of D-Report adjustments; 3 3. The incorporation of the CRA adjustment for Alaska Air Priority transportation; and 4. Changes in the distribution of other costs for Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service. In the material supporting these changes, the Postal Service asserts that including them in the NSA cost models better matches the characteristics of the mail volume for the NSAs in question. It characterizes inclusion of the DReport and the Alaska Air adjustments as rectifying previous omissions from these models. It notes that the change in the distribution of ‘‘Other’’ costs for Parcel Select is made necessary by the inclusion of the D-Report adjustment. The Postal Service explains that if the D-Report adjustment is made, it will comprise the majority of ‘‘Other’’ costs. Since the D-Report adjustment is computed as a cost per piece, it contends, ‘‘Other’’ costs should be distributed on a per-piece basis, rather than treated as proportionate to mail processing, transportation, and delivery costs. It says that for consistency, a similar adjustment should be made to the costs of Parcel Return Service. Id. at 4. More detailed descriptions of the proposed changes can be found in USPS–RM2011–10/NP1, which is filed under seal. It is ordered: 2 See Docket No. ACR2010, FY 2010 Annual Compliance Determination, March 29, 2011, at 141. 3 The D-Report is one of six reports used to develop the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA). In the D-Report, the Postal Service provides attributable, product-specific, and volume variable costs for each product. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1. The Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), filed May 10, 2011, is granted. 2. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2011–10 to consider the matters raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 3. Interested persons may submit comments on Proposal Two no later than June 13, 2011. 4. The Commission will determine the need for reply comments after review of the initial comments. 5. John P. Klingenberg is appointed to serve as the Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. 6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011–12202 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0372; FRL–9307–4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Determination of Termination of Section 185 Fees Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the State of California is no longer required to submit or implement section 185 fee program State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy antibacksliding requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard. The Sacramento Metro Area consists of both Sacramento and Yolo counties and portions of four adjacent counties (Solano, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado). This proposed determination (‘‘Termination Determination’’) is based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 2007–2009, showing attainment of the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (1-hour ozone NAAQS or standard), which is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions implemented in the area. Complete and SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules quality-assured data for 2010 show that the area continues in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to exclude from use in determining attainment exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that occurred on three days in 2008, because the exceedances are due to exceptional events (wildfires). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– OAR–2011–0372, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: John J. Kelly at kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 3. Fax: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (Air-2), at fax number 415–947– 3579. 4. Mail: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. 5. Hand or Courier Delivery: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Section (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011– 0372. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Office (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection during normal business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Kelly, (415) 947–4151, or by e-mail at kelly.johnj@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What actions is EPA taking? II. Background III. What is the legal rationale for this proposed termination determination? IV. What is the effect of this proposed termination determination? V. What is EPA’s analysis? a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions VI. Proposed Actions VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What actions is EPA taking? EPA is proposing to determine that California is no longer required to submit or implement Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section 185 fee program SIP revisions for the Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy anti-backsliding requirements associated with the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard (1-hour standard or 1-hour) to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (8-hour standard or 8-hour). This proposed Termination Determination is based on PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 28697 EPA’s belief that the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions implemented in the area. In addition, EPA proposes to exclude from use in determining the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard certain air quality monitoring data because they meet the criteria for ozone exceptional events that are caused by wildfires. If finalized, the effect of EPA’s determination that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions would be to terminate the area’s obligations with respect to section 185 fee program requirements for the 1hour ozone standard. In a separate interim final action, published in the Rules section in today’s Federal Register, we are deferring sanctions that would otherwise apply to the entire Sacramento Metro Area with the exception of Sacramento County, that is, the entirety of Yolo County and the Sacramento Metro Area portions of Solano, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado counties. This action addresses only the CAA section 185 requirements for the 1hour ozone standard for the Sacramento Metro Area, and not for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. II. Background The Act requires us to establish NAAQS for certain widespread pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (sections 108 and 109 of the Act). In 1979, we promulgated the revised 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979).1 An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance with the regulation codified at 40 CFR section 50.9, based on three consecutive calendar years of complete, qualityassured and certified monitoring data. A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1.0) ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances per year at any site in the area, when averaged over three consecutive calendar years.2 An 1 For ease of communication, many reports of ozone concentrations are given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm × 1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 120 ppb (or between 120 to 124 ppb, when rounding is considered). 2 An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances is a statistical term that refers to an arithmetic average. An ‘‘expected number’’ of exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling. See, 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H. E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 28698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more information, please see ‘‘National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ (40 CFR part 50, Appendix H). The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 1989 period (section 107(d)(4) of the Act; 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on the severity of their nonattainment problem, as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. The control requirements and date by which attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area’s classification. Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993, while Severe and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent planning requirements and were provided more time to attain the standard. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Sacramento Metro Area’s History On November 6, 1991, EPA designated the Sacramento Metro Area as Serious nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, with an attainment date no later than November 15, 1999 (56 FR 56694). The Sacramento Metro Area consists of the entirety of both Sacramento and Yolo counties and portions of four adjacent counties (El Dorado, Placer, Solano and Sutter counties) (see 40 CFR section 81.305). Sacramento County is under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and the eastern portion of Solano County comprise the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. The southern portion of Sutter County is part of the Feather River Air Quality Management District. The western portion of Placer County is part of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District. Lastly, the western portion of El Dorado County is part of the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District. Under California law, each air district is responsible for adopting and implementing stationary source rules, such as the rules required under CAA section 185, while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopts and implements consumer products and mobile source rules. The VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 district and state rules are submitted to EPA by CARB. In 1995, EPA granted the State’s request to reclassify the Sacramento Metro Area as Severe. 60 FR 20237 (April 25, 1995). The reclassification of the area as Severe required the State to adopt a SIP revision creating a penalty fee program under CAA section 185 that would apply if the area failed to meet the November 15, 2005 attainment date that applies to Severe 1-hour ozone areas and to submit that SIP revision to EPA by December 31, 2000 (CAA section 182(d)(3)). On September 26, 2002, SMAQMD adopted Rule 307 (’’Clean Air Act Fees’’). CARB submitted Rule 307 to EPA as a SIP revision for the Sacramento County portion of the area on December 12, 2002 and EPA approved Rule 307 on August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51184). The other affected air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area did not submit 1-hour section 185 SIP revisions for their portions of the nonattainment area. EPA published findings of failure to submit on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232).3 These findings started sanctions clocks for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after January 5, 2010 and highway sanctions six months after the offset sanctions, pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR section 52.31. In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective standard for ozone based on an 8-hour average concentration (the 1997 8-hour ozone standard). In 2004, EPA published the 1997 8-hour ozone designations and classifications and a rule governing certain facets of implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April 30, 2004). By the Sacramento Metro Area’s 1-hour ozone 2005 attainment deadline, EPA had revoked the 1-hour standard and designated the area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. The area’s initial classification for 8-hour ozone was Serious, but EPA subsequently granted CARB’s request to reclassify the area to Severe for the 8-hour ozone standard. See 75 FR 24409, May 5, 2010. On July 7, 2010, and in an update on April 13, 2011, CARB requested that EPA find that the Sacramento Metro Area had attained the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and that EPA terminate 1-hour ozone CAA section 185 3 EPA’s findings also addressed two other 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas in California, which are not at issue here: Southeast Desert and the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 requirements for the area. See letters from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, with enclosures, dated July 7, 2010 and April 13, 2011. Section 185 1-Hour Ozone AntiBacksliding Requirements Although EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (effective June 15, 2005), during the transition from the 1-hour ozone to the 8-hour ozone standard, 1-hour nonattainment areas remain subject to certain requirements based on their 1-hour ozone classification. The section 185 fee program requirement applies to any ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe or Extreme, including any area that was classified Severe or Extreme under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as of the effective date of the area’s 8-hour designation (see 40 CFR part 81). Initially, in our rules to address the transition from the 1-hour to the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA did not include the section 185 fee penalty requirement as one of the measures necessary to meet Clean Air Act anti-backsliding requirements.4 However, on December 23, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that EPA should not have removed from its anti-backsliding requirements the application of the section 185 fee provision for Severe and Extreme nonattainment areas that failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by their attainment date. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). In light of the Court’s decision, on January 5, 2010 EPA issued guidance on the application of the section 185 1-hour antibacksliding requirement.5 EPA’s guidance addressed, among other matters, alternative methods of satisfying the section 185 1-hour antibacksliding requirement, and the circumstances under which EPA would determine that the obligation was terminated. After the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked, and in accordance with antibacksliding regulations that remain unchallenged, EPA was no longer obligated to find that an area attained by 4 Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 5 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, ‘‘Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ January 5, 2010. This memorandum is in the docket to this proposed action and can also be found on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/ 20100105185guidance.pdf. E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 its 1-hour attainment date, nor to reclassify 1-hour areas under CAA Sections 181(b)(2) or 179(c) (40 CFR 51.905(e)). (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). III. What is the legal rationale for this proposed termination determination? As a result of the court decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), states with areas classified as Severe or Extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard at the time of the area’s initial nonattainment designation for the 1997 8-hour standard are no longer categorically exempt from the anti-backsliding requirements imposed by section 185. EPA has issued guidance for states related to developing 1-hour ozone section 185 fee programs.6 As set forth in this guidance, EPA believes that states can meet the 1-hour ozone section 185 obligation through a SIP revision containing either the fee program prescribed in section 185 of the Act, or an equivalent alternative program, as further explained below. EPA believes that an alternative program may be acceptable if EPA determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that it is consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the CAA. Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding provision of the CAA that requires EPA to develop regulations to ensure that controls in a nonattainment area are ‘‘no less stringent’’ than those that applied to the area before EPA revised a NAAQS to make it less stringent. In the Phase 1 ozone implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA determined that although section 172(e) does not directly apply where EPA has strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 1997, it was reasonable to apply the same anti-backsliding principle that would apply to the relaxation of a standard for the transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 8-hour NAAQS. As part of applying the principle in section 172(e) for purposes of the transition from the 1-hour standard to the 1997 8-hour standard, EPA can either require states to retain programs that applied for purposes of the 1-hour standard, or alternatively can allow states to adopt alternative programs, but only if such alternatives are determined through notice-and-comment rulemaking to be ‘‘no less stringent’’ than the mandated program. EPA is electing to consider alternative programs to satisfy the 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program SIP revision 6 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 requirement. States choosing to adopt an alternative program to the section 185 fee program must demonstrate that the alternative program is no less stringent than the otherwise applicable section 185 fee program and EPA can only approve such demonstration after notice-and-comment rulemaking. As set forth in EPA’s January 5, 2010 guidance, EPA believes that for an area that we determine is attaining either the 1-hour ozone or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on permanent and enforceable emission reductions, the area would no longer be obligated to satisfy the section 185 anti-backsliding requirements associated with the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In such cases, an area’s existing SIP could be considered an adequate alternative program. Our reasoning follows from the fact that an area’s existing SIP measures, in conjunction with other enforceable Federal measures, are adequate for the area to achieve attainment, which is the purpose of the section 185 program. The section 185 fee program is an element of an area’s attainment demonstration and its objective is to bring about attainment after a failure of an area to attain by its attainment date. Thus, areas that have attained the 1-hour ozone standard, the standard for which the fee program was originally required, as a result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions, would have a SIP that is no less stringent than the SIP required under section 185. Therefore, EPA concludes that the obligation to submit a rule or to collect fees terminates once EPA determines that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on permanent and enforceable emission reductions. There is also an additional, independent basis for EPA’s approach to determining that the anti-backsliding requirements associated with section 185 have been satisfied. Although section 185 provides that fees are to continue until the area is redesignated to attainment for ozone, EPA no longer promulgates redesignations for the 1-hour ozone standard because that standard has been revoked. Therefore, relief from the 1-hour section 185 fee program requirements under the terms of the statute is an impossibility, since the conditions the statute envisioned for relieving an area of its fee program obligation no longer can exist. There is thus a gap in the statute which must be filled by EPA. We believe that under these circumstances we must exercise our discretion under Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to fill this gap, so PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 28699 as to carry out Congressional intent in the unique context of anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked standard. We believe that it is reasonable for the fee program obligation that applies for purposes of anti-backsliding to cease upon a determination, based on noticeand-comment rulemaking, that an area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable measures. This determination centers on the core criteria for redesignations under CAA section 107(d)(3). We believe these criteria provide reasonable assurance that the purpose of the 1-hour anti-backsliding fee program obligation has been fulfilled in the context of a regulatory regime where the area remains subject to other applicable 1-hour anti-backsliding and 8-hour nonattainment measures. Under these circumstances, retention of the fee program under the anti-backsliding rule is no longer necessary for the purpose of achieving attainment of the 8-hour standard. See EPA’s January 5, 2010 guidance (footnote 5, above). IV. What is the effect of this proposed termination determination? If this proposed determination to terminate the section 185 fee antibacksliding requirement for the 1-hour ozone standard is finalized, the requirement for the State of California to submit section 185 penalty fee program SIP revisions for the portions of the area for which we made findings of failure to submit, which would require major stationary sources under the Sacramento Metro Area 1-hour ozone Severe nonattainment classification to pay fees as a penalty for the area’s failure to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the area’s 1-hour ozone attainment date, as well as the requirement for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District portion of the area to implement its 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program, would be removed. A final Termination Determination for the 1-hour standard section 185 measures will not be rescinded based on subsequent nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. After EPA has determined that an area has attained the 1-hour standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, EPA believes that it would be unduly punitive, confusing, and potentially destabilizing to re-impose the years-old penalty requirements if at some point in the future the area lapses back into 1hour nonattainment. Moreover, EPA believes that under current circumstances, it would not be in keeping with the intent of Congress. First, we note that had the area attained the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 28700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 attainment date, no penalties at all would have been imposed even if the area subsequently lapsed into nonattainment. Second, the statute provides that penalties for failure to attain by an area’s attainment date would be terminated by redesignation of the area. Now that the 1-hour ozone standard has been revoked and EPA is no longer promulgating redesignations for that standard, relief from the 1-hour section 185 fee program requirements under the terms of the statute is an impossibility—the mechanism the statute envisioned for relief no longer exists. As EPA explains in its January 5, 2010 guidance, we have reasonably concluded in these circumstances that a determination of attainment due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, along with the area’s existing SIP and its continuing obligations to meet ever more stringent ozone standards, are a reasonable alternative means for terminating these unique anti-backsliding penalty provisions. EPA believes that, given the gap in the statute, and the intent of Congress as expressed in quite different regulatory circumstances, it would be counterproductive and in conflict with that intent for EPA’s determination to merely suspend rather than permanently terminate the 1-hour antibacksliding penalty fees. Requiring areas to remain subject to the threat of reviving stale penalty fees for an old revoked standard, when these areas and the sources subject to the penalties must now muster their resources to focus on meeting newer more stringent standards, would be at odds with the purposes of the Act and in conflict with the principle that penalty provisions should be narrowly construed. This is also true because the area is subject to a host of ongoing obligations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as well as the future anticipated new 8-hour ozone standard,7 when it has already shown great improvement towards meeting the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. V. What is EPA’s analysis? EPA’s proposed Termination Determination is based upon EPA’s belief that the area is attaining the 1hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions implemented in the area. In its January 5, 2010 guidance, EPA set forth its views as to potential rationales for terminating section 185 obligations for 1-hour ozone. This notice formally sets forth EPA’s legal interpretation 7 EPA anticipates announcing the reconsidered 8hour ozone standard in July 2011. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 concerning the basis for terminating those obligations. As explained above, EPA set forth our belief in our January 5, 2010 guidance that for an area that we determine is attaining either the 1-hour ozone or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on permanent and enforceable emission reductions, that the area would no longer be obligated to satisfy the antibacksliding requirements associated with the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard A determination of whether an area’s air quality meets the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at established National Air Monitoring Stations (‘‘NAMS’’) or State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (‘‘SLAMS’’) in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from air monitors operated by state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS database when determining the attainment status of an area. See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, Appendices A, C, D and E. All data are reviewed to determine the area’s air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.9, the 1-hour ozone standard is attained at a monitoring site when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 parts per million (235 micrograms per cubic meter) is equal to or less than 1, as determined by 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H. EPA proposes to determine that the Sacramento Metro Area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard; that is, the number of expected exceedances at any site in the nonattainment area is not greater than one per year.8 This proposed determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data in AQS showing 8 The average number of expected exceedances is determined by averaging the expected exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard over a consecutive three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix H. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for the 2007–2009 monitoring period, and complete, quality-assured data in AQS for 2008–2010 that show continued attainment. As explained below, in determining the area’s attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA is also proposing to exclude from consideration exceedances that occurred on three days in 2008, because they are due to wildfire exceptional events. Monitoring Network In the Sacramento Metro Area, the agencies responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements include CARB, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). Both CARB and SMAQMD submit annual monitoring network plans to EPA. SMAQMD Network Plans describe the monitoring network the district operates; CARB’s Network Plans describe the monitoring sites CARB operates, in addition to monitoring sites operated by smaller air districts, namely, for the Sacramento Metro Area, PCAPCD and YSAQMD. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10. Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews these annual plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, EPA has found that the area’s network plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB and SMAQMD approving their annual network plans for years 2007, 2009 and 2010.9 Furthermore, we concluded in our Technical System Audit of the CARB Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO),10 conducted during Summer 2007, that the combined ambient air monitoring network operated by CARB and the local air districts in their PQAO currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS monitoring sites for all criteria pollutants, and that all of the monitoring sites are properly located with respect to monitoring objectives, spatial scales and other site criteria, as 9 Neither CARB nor SMAQMD proposed modifications to their networks in 2008; therefore, neither agency was required to submit a network plan to EPA for approval that year. 10 A primary quality assurance organization is responsible for a group of monitoring stations for which data quality assessments can be pooled See 40 CFR section 58.1. CARB is the lead PQAO for all the air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area. E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules required by 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D. See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, transmitting ‘‘Technical System Audit of the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,’’ with enclosure, August 18, 2008. Also, CARB annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-assured. See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2009 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, May 19, 2010. There were 16 ozone monitoring sites located throughout the Sacramento Metro Area in calendar years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.11 Sacramento Metro AQMD operates six ozone monitors in Sacramento County: Elk Grove (southwest Sacramento County), Del Paso Manor (northeast City of Sacramento), Folsom (City of Folsom), Sacramento-Goldenland Court 12 (northwest City of Sacramento), North Highlands (north Sacramento County) and Sloughhouse Road (west Sacramento County). CARB operates six ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: Sacramento-T Street (City of Sacramento) in Sacramento County; Cool (City of Cool), Echo Summit (in the Sierra Nevada Mountains) and Placerville (City of Placerville) in El Dorado County; Roseville (City of Roseville) in Placer County; and Davis (City of Davis) in Yolo County. Placer County APCD operates two ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: Colfax (City of Colfax) and Auburn (City of Auburn). Yolo-Solano AQMD 28701 operates two ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: Vacaville (City of Vacaville) in Solano County, and Woodland (City of Woodland) in Yolo County. All Sacramento Metro Area sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption monitors.13 EPA defines specific monitoring site types and spatial scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and location of required monitors. See 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, § 1. Table 1 below lists the site types and spatial scale for each ozone monitoring site in the Sacramento Metro Area. Due to ozone precursor source distribution and general meteorological patterns in the area, the highest ozone concentrations for the past several years have typically occurred at the Folsom and Sloughhouse Road sites. TABLE 1—SITE TYPE AND SPATIAL SCALE a Site type b Site name Placerville (06–017–0010) ........................................................................................................................ Echo Summit (06–017–0012) ................................................................................................................... Cool (06–017–0020) ................................................................................................................................. Auburn (06–061–0002) ............................................................................................................................. Colfax (06–061–0004) ............................................................................................................................... Roseville (06–061–0006) .......................................................................................................................... North Highlands (06–067–0002) ............................................................................................................... Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06–067–0006) .......................................................................................... Sacramento-T Street (06–067–0010) ....................................................................................................... Elk Grove (06–067–0011) ......................................................................................................................... Folsom (06–067–0012) ............................................................................................................................. Sacramento-Airport Road (06–067–0013) ................................................................................................ Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06–067–0014) ........................................................................................ Sloughhouse Rd. (06–067–5003) ............................................................................................................. Vacaville (06–095–3003) .......................................................................................................................... Davis (06–113–0004) ................................................................................................................................ Woodland (06–113–1003) ......................................................................................................................... HC, HC, HC, HC HC HC RC HC RC RC HC RC RC RC HC, HC HC TR ................................... TR ................................... TR ................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... TR ................................... .......................................... .......................................... Spatial scale c RS RS RS US US US NS NS US NS NS NS NS NS RS US US a Source: SMAQMD’s ‘‘Annual Network Plan Report’’ (July 2010) and CARB’s ‘‘Monitoring Network Report for Small Districts in California’’ (July 2010). b Site types are defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D section 1.1.1. The site types utilized in the Sacramento Metro Area include high concentration (HC), representative concentration (RC) and pollutant transport (TR). c Spatial scales are defined in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D section 1.2. The monitoring sites in the Sacramento Metro Area are either neighborhood scale (NS), urban scale (US) or regional scale (RS) sites. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Exceptional Events On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, ‘‘Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events,’’ also known as the Exceptional Events Rule (EER), to govern the review and handling of certain air quality monitoring data for which the normal planning and regulatory processes are not appropriate (72 FR 13560). Under the EER, EPA may exclude data from use in determinations of NAAQS exceedances and violations if a state demonstrates that an ‘‘exceptional event’’ caused the exceedance or exceedances. 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14. Before EPA can exclude data from these regulatory determinations, the state must flag the data in EPA’s AQS database and, after public notice and opportunity for comment, submit a demonstration to EPA to justify the exclusion. EPA considers the demonstration and concurs or nonconcurs with the state’s flag. After notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA determines whether to 11 Enclosure 2 of CARB’s July 7, 2010 request includes a map on page 3.2 showing locations of all ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area. Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, requesting termination of CAA section 185 requirements as they pertain to the Sacramento Metro Area. The document can be found on the Internet at: http://www.airquality.org/notices/ 1hour/AttainmentReport.pdf. 12 The Sacramento-Airport Road site was relocated to Sacramento-Goldenland Court in August 2008. 13 Sacramento Metro Area monitoring agencies operate Federal equivalent method (FEM) monitors for ozone, specifically, API 400 Series ultraviolet absorption monitors. See SMAQMD’s ‘‘Annual Network Plan Report’’ (July 2010) and CARB’s ‘‘Monitoring Network Report for Small Districts in California’’ (July 2010). These monitoring devices have an EPA designation number EQOA–0992–087. See EPA ‘‘List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods, page 27 (February 1, 2011), available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ amtic/criteria.html. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 28702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules exclude the data from use when making a determination of attainment. In submittals dated September 17, 2009 and March 30, 2011, CARB provided documentation for ozone exceedances that occurred at the Folsom monitor on three days in Summer 2008 which the state had flagged as due to wildfire exceptional events. EPA reviewed the documentation and concurred with the June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 flags in a letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Mary D. Nichols, Chairman, CARB, dated April 13, 2011. EPA included with the letter a document setting forth in detail the bases for EPA’s concurrences. See ‘‘Review of Exceptional Events Request: Folsom, CA; 1-hour ozone; June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008,’’ dated April 13, 2011 (in the docket for this proposed rulemaking). For the reasons set forth in the concurrence letter and its enclosure, EPA is proposing to exclude from regulatory consideration data showing exceedances at the Folsom monitoring site on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008. Monitoring Data EPA’s proposal to exclude ozone exceedances monitored at the Folsom site on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008, if finalized, would result in a revision of the number of exceedances (as determined by 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H and described in section II of this notice) for 2008 and, therefore, the average number of expected exceedances for the 2007–2009 period. With the exclusion of the data for these three days, the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in the Sacramento Metro Area for 2007–2009 is 1.0, which shows attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1). For more information, please see ‘‘National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR section 50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ (40 CFR part 50, Appendix H). Consistent with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H, Tables 2 and 3 set forth the 1-hour ozone data for the Sacramento Metro Area monitors that show that the area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. TABLE 2—1-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA a Expected exceedances by year Expected exceedances 3-yr average Site (monitor ID) 2007 2008 2009 2007–2009 Placerville (06–017–0010) ........................................................................................... Echo Summit (06–017–0012) ...................................................................................... Cool (06–017–0020) .................................................................................................... Auburn (06–061–0002) ................................................................................................ Colfax (06–061–0004) ................................................................................................. Roseville (06–061–0006) ............................................................................................. North Highlands (06–067–0002) ................................................................................. Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06–067–0006) ............................................................. Sacramento-T Street (06–067–0010) .......................................................................... Elk Grove (06–067–0011) ........................................................................................... Folsom (06–067–0012) ................................................................................................ Sacramento-Airport Road (06–067–0013) .................................................................. Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06–067–0014) .......................................................... Sloughhouse Rd. (06–067–5003) ................................................................................ Vacaville (06–095–3003) ............................................................................................. Davis (06–113–0004) .................................................................................................. Woodland (06–113–1003) ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 b 2.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 NA 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). a 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H—Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. b Data shown exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events. c The Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008. NA—Data is not available. The data in Table 2 indicate a longterm trend observed in the Sacramento Metro Area. As described in CARB’s July 7, 2010 letter requesting a Termination Determination, the monitoring sites that historically experienced exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard are the Cool, Sloughhouse, Folsom and Del Paso Manor sites. For example, in 1998 five exceedances were monitored at Cool VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 and ten at Folsom. In 2009, by contrast, there were no exceedances at any monitor in the entire Sacramento Metro Area. In sum, EPA believes that, if the exceedances resulting from wildfire exceptional events on three days in 2008 are excluded from consideration, the 2007–2009 ambient air monitoring data for the Sacramento Metro Area show attainment of the 1-hour ozone PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 NAAQS. In addition, if EPA’s proposal to exclude exceedances on three days due to wildfire exceptional events is finalized, the data for 2010 (complete and quality-assured but not yet certified), shown in Table 3 for the 2008–2010 monitoring period, show continued attainment. Preliminary data available for 2011 are also consistent with continued attainment. E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 28703 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—2010 1-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA SHOWING CONTINUED ATTAINMENT a Expected exceedances by year Expected exceedances 3-yr average Site (monitor ID) 2008 2010 b 2009 2008–2010 b Placerville (06–017–0010) ........................................................................................... Echo Summit (06–017–0012) ...................................................................................... Cool (06–017–0020) .................................................................................................... Auburn (06–061–0002) ................................................................................................ Colfax (06–061–0004) ................................................................................................. Roseville (06–061–0006) ............................................................................................. North Highlands (06–067–0002) ................................................................................. Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06–067–0006) ............................................................. Sacramento-T Street (06–067–0010) .......................................................................... Elk Grove (06–067–0011) ........................................................................................... Folsom (06–067–0012) ................................................................................................ Sacramento-Airport Road (06–067–0013) .................................................................. Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06–067–0014) .......................................................... Sloughhouse Rd. (06–067–5003) ................................................................................ Vacaville (06–095–3003) ............................................................................................. Davis (06–113–0004) .................................................................................................. Woodland (06–113–1003) ........................................................................................... 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c 2.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 NA 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). a 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H—Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. b Data from 2010 are complete but have not yet been certified. c Data exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events. d The Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008. NA—Data are not available. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvements in the Sacramento Metro Area with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard are due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions through the implementation of state and district emission controls contained in the SIP and not due to favorable meteorology or temporary reductions in emission rates, such as temporary adverse economic conditions. See letter and accompanying documentation (Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area) from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, requesting termination of CAA section 185 requirements as they pertain to the Sacramento Metro Area (July 7, 2010 request). In 1994, California submitted a comprehensive ozone plan for all ozone nonattainment areas in California including the Sacramento Metro Area (1994 SIP), which EPA approved on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150). The plan provided a blueprint for attaining the 1-hour ozone standard that relied on a VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 combination of stationary and mobile source measures by the districts, and state and Federal governments. In addition, California air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area adopted and implemented emission control rules requiring many existing sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 14 to meet, at minimum, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). These requirements apply to sources in categories covered by Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs) and major non-CTG sources. Meteorology In its July 7, 2010 request (Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area), CARB provided documentation that the improvement in air quality in the Sacramento Metro Area is not due to favorable meteorology. CARB showed that the weather patterns in the last decade have not been unusually favorable. For example, looking at days equal to or over 95 degrees Fahrenheit in each of the last thirteen years (1997 to 2009) as an indicator of conditions conducive to ozone formation, the area had an annual average of 37 such ‘‘high temperature’’ 14 NO and VOCs are chemical precursors to X ozone. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 days, while in the last four years (2006– 2009), the area also had an annual average of 37 high temperature days. Economic Activity The State provided documentation showing that the improvement in air quality leading to 1-hour ozone attainment in the Sacramento Metro Area is not due to a temporary economic downturn. See July 7, 2010 request (Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area). As an indicator of economic activity, this analysis presented information on gasoline and diesel sales in California from 2000 to 2009. Fuel sales are an indicator of economic activity, and represent an indicator of emissions trends of both VOCs and NOX as well. The Sacramento Metro Area’s emissions inventory is dominated by mobile sources. See Table 7 below and Table 4.1 of Enclosure 2 of July 7, 2010 request. Although fuel sales have decreased in the last several years, perhaps coinciding with an overall economic downturn in California and nationally, we note that the decrease has been slight and that the last year presented, 2009, still had a higher level (14.8 billion gallons of fuel sold) than the first year presented (2001, at 14.5 billion gallons). Between those years, fuel sales increased gradually to a peak E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 28704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules between 2005 and 2006 (both at 15.9 billion gallons sold per year), before gradually declining. Given that the earliest years in that ten-year period were years when the area was not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA believes that any temporary emission reductions due to the more recent economic downturn in 2008 and later are relatively small and not a significant factor in the attainment of the 1-hour standard. Therefore, we conclude that economic conditions are not a source of temporary reductions in emission rates. On the contrary, EPA believes that the steady decline of emissions of NOX and VOCs during the same ten-year period is attributable to fleet turnover with newer vehicles having lower evaporative and tailpipe emissions, as well as greater fuel economy. Additionally, EPA notes that CARB’s emissions database (http:// www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm) shows that during 2006 through 2009, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have increased from approximately 68 million miles per day to 72 million miles per day in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. See CEPAM: 2009 Almanac— Population and Vehicle Trends Tool, Sacramento Valley Air Basin, Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled, All Vehicles. Local Districts’ Measures Since 1990 Since 1990, the Districts have adopted, implemented and submitted for EPA approval dozens of stationary source rules which achieve NOX and VOC emission reductions and have thus helped reduce ozone levels. Tables 4 through 7 below summarize the local air district rules adopted since 1990 and approved into the California SIP.15 16 TABLE 4—SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Rule No. 411 412 413 414 442 443 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 446 447 448 449 450 452 454 456 458 459 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 463 ............. 464 ............. 466 ............. Date rule adopted by district Rule NOX from Boilers, Process Heaters and Steam Generators .... Stationary Internal Combustion Engine ..................................... Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................................ Natural Gas-fired Water Heater ................................................. Architectural Coatings ................................................................ Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical & Polymer Manufacturing. Storage of Petroleum Products ................................................. Organic Liquid Loading .............................................................. Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers .............. Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks ........................... Graphic Arts ............................................................................... Can Coating ............................................................................... Degreasing Operations .............................................................. Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations ...... Large Commercial Bread Bakeries ............................................ Automotive, Truck and Heavy Equipment Refinishing Operations. Wood Products Coatings ........................................................... Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations ............................ Solvent Cleaning ........................................................................ Date rule approved into SIP Federal Register citation NOX VOC 08/23/2007 06/01/1995 03/24/2005 08/01/1996 09/05/1996 09/05/1996 5/6/2009 4/30/1996 1/10/2008 4/20/1999 11/9/1998 11/9/1998 74 61 73 64 63 63 FR FR FR FR FR FR 20880 18959 1819 19277 60214 60214 X X X X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X X 11/16/1993 04/02/1998 02/02/1995 09/26/2002 10/23/2008 09/25/2008 09/25/2008 10/23/2008 09/05/1996 10/02/1997 9/16/1994 11/26/1999 1/23/1996 3/24/2003 4/9/2010 4/9/2010 4/9/2010 7/14/2010 11/9/1998 11/13/1998 59 64 61 68 75 75 75 75 63 63 FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR 47544 66393 1716 14156 18068 18068 18068 40726 60214 63410 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X X X X X X X X X X 09/25/2008 07/23/1998 05/23/2002 4/9/2010 4/19/2000 5/5/2010 75 FR 18068 65 FR 20912 75 FR 24406 .......... .......... .......... X X X TABLE 5—EL DORADO COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Rule No. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 215 224 225 229 ............. ............. ............. ............. 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. Architectural Coatings ................................................................ Cutback Asphalt Paving Material ............................................... Solvent Cleaning (Degreasing) .................................................. Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters. Motor Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Coating .............................. Graphic Arts ............................................................................... Biomass Boilers ......................................................................... Stationary Internal Combustion Engines ................................... VOC RACT Rule—Sierra Pacific Industries .............................. Surface Preparation and Cleanup ............................................. Adhesives ................................................................................... Wood Products Coatings ........................................................... Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing ............................................ Natural Gas-fired Residential Water Heaters ............................ 15 Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) does not have any rules listed in the table because, since 1990, no additional FRAQMD VOC or NOX rules have been added to the SIP. FRAQMD consists of the entirety of both Sutter and Yuba counties. Only the very southern portion of VerDate Mar<15>2010 Date rule adopted by district Rule 15:12 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Federal Register citation NOX VOC 9/27/1994 9/27/1994 9/27/1994 1/23/2001 7/18/1996 8/21/1995 8/21/1995 10/10/2001 61 60 60 66 FR FR FR FR 37390 43383 43383 51578 .......... .......... .......... X X X X .......... 9/27/1994 9/27/1994 9/25/2001 6/11/2002 4/25/1995 6/27/1995 7/25/1995 6/27/1995 3/27/2001 3/24/1998 4/30/1996 7/11/1997 10/14/2003 9/13/2002 9/12/1995 4/30/1996 7/18/1996 7/18/1996 8/27/2001 3/30/1999 61 62 68 67 60 61 61 61 66 64 FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR 18962 37136 59121 57960 47273 18962 37390 37390 44974 15129 .......... .......... X X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X X X .......... .......... X X X X X .......... Sutter County falls within the Sacramento Metro Area, and that portion includes no major NOX or VOC stationary sources. 16 EPA is currently evaluating approximately 30 additional rules that have been adopted by PO 00000 Date rule approved into SIP Sacramento Metro Area air districts to control VOC and/or NOX and that were submitted to EPA as SIP revisions. Although EPA has not yet taken action on these submitted rules, they are currently being implemented by the air districts. E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 28705 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5—EL DORADO COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN—Continued Date rule adopted by district Rule No. Rule 240 ............. 244 ............. 245 ............. Polyester Resin Operations ....................................................... Organic Liquid Loading and Transport Vessels ........................ Valves and Flanges ................................................................... 2/15/2000 9/25/2001 3/27/2001 Date rule approved into SIP 7/17/2001 7/8/2002 8/27/2001 Federal Register citation NOX VOC 66 FR 37154 67 FR 45067 66 FR 44974 .......... .......... .......... X X X TABLE 6—PLACER COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Rule No. 212 213 214 215 ............. ............. ............. ............. 216 217 218 219 223 229 230 233 235 236 238 239 244 250 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. Date rule adopted by district Rule Storage of Organic Liquids ........................................................ Gasoline Transfer Into Stationary Storage Containers ............. Transfer of Gasoline Into Vehicle Fuel Tanks ........................... Transfer of Gasoline Into Tank Trucks, Trailers and Railroad Tank Cars at Loading Facilities. Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations ............ Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials .................... Architectural Coatings ................................................................ Organic Solvents ........................................................................ Metal Container Coating ............................................................ Fiberboard Manufacturing .......................................................... Plastic Products and Materials—Paper Treating Operation ...... Biomass Boilers ......................................................................... Adhesives ................................................................................... Wood Products Coating Operations .......................................... Factory Coating of Flat Wood Paneling .................................... Graphic Arts Operations ............................................................ Semiconductor Operations ........................................................ Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................................ Date rule approved into SIP Federal Register citation NOX VOC 6/19/1997 10/19/1993 10/19/1993 6/19/1997 6/11/2009 3/3/1997 4/30/1997 1/31/2011 74 62 62 76 FR FR FR FR 27714 23365 23365 5277 .......... .......... .......... .......... X X X X 12/11/2003 10/19/1993 02/09/1995 10/19/1993 10/6/1994 6/28/1994 6/28/1994 10/06/1994 6/08/1995 2/09/1995 6/18/1995 2/13/1997 2/9/1995 10/17/1994 5/5/2010 4/30/1997 7/18/1996 4/30/1997 3/23/1995 6/8/2001 12/14/1994 4/30/1996 7/18/1996 4/30/1996 2/12/1996 11/13/1998 7/25/1996 8/23/1995 75 62 61 62 60 66 59 61 61 61 61 63 61 60 FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR 24406 23365 37390 23365 15241 30815 64336 18959 37390 18962 5288 63410 38571 43713 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X X X X X X X X .......... X X X X X .......... TABLE 7—YOLO-SOLANO AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SINCE 1990 AND APPROVED INTO THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Rule No. wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 2.13 2.14 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.37 2.42 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ Organic Solvents ........................................................................ Architectural Coatings ................................................................ Organic Liquid Storage & Transfer ............................................ Gasoline Dispensing Facilities ................................................... Fugitive Hydrocarbon ................................................................. Solvent Cleaning Operations (Degreasing) ............................... Surface Coating or Manufactured Metal Parts and Products ... Motor Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Coating .............................. Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters. Cutback & Emulsified Asphalt ................................................... Graphic Arts Printing Operations ............................................... Polyester Resin Operation ......................................................... Surface Preparation and Cleanup ............................................. Stationary Internal Combustion Engines ................................... Adhesives Operation .................................................................. Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................................ Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Operations ................................ Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters and Small Boilers ................ Nitric Acid Production ................................................................ California State Measures Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for reducing emissions in California include most new and existing on- and off-road VerDate Mar<15>2010 Date rule adopted by district Rule 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Federal Register citation NOX VOC 5/24/1994 11/14/2001 9/14/2005 6/12/2002 8/13/1997 11/14/1990 4/27/1994 11/30/1994 8/14/1996 4/30/1996 1/2/2004 10/31/2006 1/23/2003 11/26/1999 12/13/1994 2/12/1996 4/30/1996 6/17/1997 61 69 71 68 64 59 61 61 62 FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR 18962 34 63694 3190 66393 64130 5288 18962 32691 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... X X X X X X X X X .......... 5/25/1994 5/25/1994 4/14/1999 04/27/1994 10/10/2001 3/12/2003 7/13/1994 11/30/1994 4/8/2009 5/13/2009 2/5/1996 8/21/1998 7/21/1999 4/2/1999 1/28/2002 3/22/2004 9/3/1998 2/24/1997 5/10/2010 5/10/2010 61 63 64 64 67 69 63 62 75 75 FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR 4215 44792 39037 15922 3816 13234 46892 8172 25778 25778 .......... .......... .......... .......... X .......... X .......... X X X X X X X X .......... X .......... .......... engines and vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and consumer products. In addition, California has unique authority under CAA section 209 (subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt PO 00000 Date rule approved into SIP and implement new emission standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines, and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. California has been a leader in the development of E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 28706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules some of the most stringent control measures nationwide for on-road and off-road mobile sources and the fuels that power them. These measures have helped reduce ozone levels in the Sacramento Metro Area and throughout the state. CARB’s 2007 State Strategy provides a recent summary of the measures adopted and implemented by the state. See ‘‘Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan,’’ release date: April 26, 2007. From 1994 to 2006, the state has taken more than 45 rulemaking actions which have achieved significant emission reductions needed for the state’s nonattainment areas such as the Sacramento Metro Area. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38.17 These measures include new emission standards and inuse requirements and have resulted in significant reductions in VOC and NOX emissions from categories such as passenger cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, locomotives, recreational boats, lawn and garden equipment and consumer products. EPA has generally approved all of the State’s measures that are not subject to the CAA section 209 waiver process. See EPA’s proposed approval of the San Joaquin Valley 1hour ozone plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final approval at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010). See also, EPA’s proposed partial approval/partial disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 plan at 75 FR 74518, 74526–7 (November 30, 2010) and EPA’s proposed partial approval/partial disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5 plan at 75 FR 71294, 71302–3 (November 22, 2010). Federal Measures Finally, in addition to the local district and state rules discussed above, the Sacramento Metro Area has also benefited from Federal mobile source measures such as emissions standards for new locomotive Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines, nationwide heavy-duty onhighway trucks, and new emission standards for pre-empted farm and construction equipment. Summary/Conclusion Based on the above discussion, EPA believes that the progress made to reduce emissions in the Sacramento Metro Area during the 1990–2009 timeframe resulting in achieving attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard is from permanent and enforceable measures which achieved significant reductions as summarized in Table 8 below: TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA [Tons per day] 1990 VOC 2008 VOC 1990 NOX 2008 NOX Stationary ......................................................................................................................................... Area-wide ......................................................................................................................................... On-road ............................................................................................................................................ Other mobile .................................................................................................................................... 39 34 140 49 22 28 45 41 22 4 148 69 15 3 95 53 Total .......................................................................................................................................... 262 136 242 167 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Source: Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, Table 4.1 of Enclosure 2, ‘‘1-Hour Ozone Attainment Determination Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area,’’ April 26, 2010, prepared by: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. The emission reduction trends shown in Table 8 are not only expected to be maintained at current levels, but are expected to continue in the next several decades, in spite of increasing population in the area, due to the continued replacement of older vehicles and engines with newer units subject to more stringent California and Federal emission control requirements. The exception is that there is projected to be a slight (1% annually) growth in VOC emissions starting in 2020, as activity growth overcomes emission reductions. See Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, Section 4.2 of Enclosure 2, ‘‘1-Hour Ozone Attainment Determination Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area,’’ April 26, 2010, prepared by: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. EPA believes the preceding discussion demonstrates that permanent and enforceable emission reduction measures adopted and implemented by the state have been effective in reaching attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, and that the improvement in the Sacramento Metro Area’s air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. VI. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to make a determination to terminate the 1-hour ozone section 185 penalty fee requirement (Termination Determination) for the Sacramento Metro Area. Our proposed determination is based on our finding that the Sacramento Metro Area is attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. In proposing this determination, EPA is also proposing to exclude 1-hour ozone NAAQS exceedances that occurred at the Folsom monitor on three days in 2008 because they were caused by wildfire exceptional events. For the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA’s proposed 1-hour ozone section 185 Termination Determination is based on EPA’s determination that the area has attained and continues to attain the 1hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This action proposes to make a determination of attainment and a determination of termination of the CAA section 185 penalty fee requirements based on attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and would, if finalized, result in the termination of the section 185 fee requirements for the 1-hour standard, and would not impose any 17 This document can be found on the Internet at: http://arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/apr07draft/ sipback.pdf. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Dated: May 9, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2011–12063 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0809; FRL–9307–6] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to approve and conditionally approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Colorado to demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that each state, after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs to ensure that they meet the requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State of Colorado submitted a certification of their infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, dated January 7, 2008 which was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205). EPA does not propose to act on the State’s January 7, 2008 submission to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to interstate transport of air pollution, for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the State’s interstate transport SIP submission at 75 FR 31306, 75 FR 71029, and 76 FR 22036. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– OAR–2009–0809, by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. • Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. • Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 28707 Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009– 0809. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through http:// www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I, General Information, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28696-28707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12063]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0372; FRL-9307-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
California; Determination of Termination of Section 185 Fees

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the State of California 
is no longer required to submit or implement section 185 fee program 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the Sacramento Metro 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy anti-
backsliding requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard. The Sacramento 
Metro Area consists of both Sacramento and Yolo counties and portions 
of four adjacent counties (Solano, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado). This 
proposed determination (``Termination Determination'') is based on 
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring 
data for 2007-2009, showing attainment of the 1-hour ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (1-hour ozone NAAQS or standard), which is 
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions implemented in the 
area. Complete and

[[Page 28697]]

quality-assured data for 2010 show that the area continues in 
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to exclude 
from use in determining attainment exceedances of the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS that occurred on three days in 2008, because the exceedances are 
due to exceptional events (wildfires).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0372, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: John J. Kelly at kelly.johnj@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (Air-2), at fax number 
415-947-3579.
    4. Mail: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (Air-2), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 
Francisco, California 94105.
    5. Hand or Courier Delivery: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Section 
(Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, 
San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Docket's normal hours of operation. Special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0372. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be 
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning 
Office (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection during normal business 
hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Kelly, (415) 947-4151, or by 
e-mail at kelly.johnj@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What actions is EPA taking?
II. Background
III. What is the legal rationale for this proposed termination 
determination?
IV. What is the effect of this proposed termination determination?
V. What is EPA's analysis?
    a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard
    b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that California is no longer required 
to submit or implement Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section 185 fee 
program SIP revisions for the Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy anti-backsliding 
requirements associated with the transition from the 1-hour ozone 
standard (1-hour standard or 1-hour) to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
(8-hour standard or 8-hour). This proposed Termination Determination is 
based on EPA's belief that the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone 
standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions 
implemented in the area. In addition, EPA proposes to exclude from use 
in determining the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard certain 
air quality monitoring data because they meet the criteria for ozone 
exceptional events that are caused by wildfires. If finalized, the 
effect of EPA's determination that the area has attained the 1-hour 
ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions 
would be to terminate the area's obligations with respect to section 
185 fee program requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard. In a 
separate interim final action, published in the Rules section in 
today's Federal Register, we are deferring sanctions that would 
otherwise apply to the entire Sacramento Metro Area with the exception 
of Sacramento County, that is, the entirety of Yolo County and the 
Sacramento Metro Area portions of Solano, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado 
counties. This action addresses only the CAA section 185 requirements 
for the 1-hour ozone standard for the Sacramento Metro Area, and not 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

II. Background

    The Act requires us to establish NAAQS for certain widespread 
pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (sections 108 and 109 
of the Act). In 1979, we promulgated the revised 1-hour ozone standard 
of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For ease of communication, many reports of ozone 
concentrations are given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm x 
1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 120 ppb (or between 120 to 124 ppb, 
when rounding is considered).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if 
there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance 
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR section 50.9, based on three 
consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured and certified 
monitoring data. A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality 
monitoring data show greater than one (1.0) ``expected number'' of 
exceedances per year at any site in the area, when averaged over three 
consecutive calendar years.\2\ An

[[Page 28698]]

exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during 
any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more information, please see ``National 
1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone'' 
(40 CFR 50.9) and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An ``expected number'' of exceedances is a statistical term 
that refers to an arithmetic average. An ``expected number'' of 
exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances 
plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling. See, 40 CFR 
part 50, Appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as 
nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard, 
generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 
1989 period (section 107(d)(4) of the Act; 56 FR 56694, November 6, 
1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on the severity of 
their nonattainment problem, as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or 
Extreme.
    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's classification. 
Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated control requirements 
and had the earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993, while Severe 
and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent planning requirements 
and were provided more time to attain the standard.

Sacramento Metro Area's History

    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated the Sacramento Metro Area as 
Serious nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, with an attainment 
date no later than November 15, 1999 (56 FR 56694). The Sacramento 
Metro Area consists of the entirety of both Sacramento and Yolo 
counties and portions of four adjacent counties (El Dorado, Placer, 
Solano and Sutter counties) (see 40 CFR section 81.305). Sacramento 
County is under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air 
Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and the eastern 
portion of Solano County comprise the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 
Management District. The southern portion of Sutter County is part of 
the Feather River Air Quality Management District. The western portion 
of Placer County is part of the Placer County Air Pollution Control 
District. Lastly, the western portion of El Dorado County is part of 
the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District. Under California 
law, each air district is responsible for adopting and implementing 
stationary source rules, such as the rules required under CAA section 
185, while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopts and 
implements consumer products and mobile source rules. The district and 
state rules are submitted to EPA by CARB.
    In 1995, EPA granted the State's request to reclassify the 
Sacramento Metro Area as Severe. 60 FR 20237 (April 25, 1995). The 
reclassification of the area as Severe required the State to adopt a 
SIP revision creating a penalty fee program under CAA section 185 that 
would apply if the area failed to meet the November 15, 2005 attainment 
date that applies to Severe 1-hour ozone areas and to submit that SIP 
revision to EPA by December 31, 2000 (CAA section 182(d)(3)). On 
September 26, 2002, SMAQMD adopted Rule 307 (''Clean Air Act Fees''). 
CARB submitted Rule 307 to EPA as a SIP revision for the Sacramento 
County portion of the area on December 12, 2002 and EPA approved Rule 
307 on August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51184). The other affected air districts 
in the Sacramento Metro Area did not submit 1-hour section 185 SIP 
revisions for their portions of the nonattainment area. EPA published 
findings of failure to submit on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232).\3\ These 
findings started sanctions clocks for imposition of offset sanctions 18 
months after January 5, 2010 and highway sanctions six months after the 
offset sanctions, pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and our 
regulations at 40 CFR section 52.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's findings also addressed two other 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas in California, which are not at issue here: 
Southeast Desert and the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective standard for ozone 
based on an 8-hour average concentration (the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard). In 2004, EPA published the 1997 8-hour ozone designations 
and classifications and a rule governing certain facets of 
implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23858 
and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April 30, 2004).
    By the Sacramento Metro Area's 1-hour ozone 2005 attainment 
deadline, EPA had revoked the 1-hour standard and designated the area 
as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. 
The area's initial classification for 8-hour ozone was Serious, but EPA 
subsequently granted CARB's request to reclassify the area to Severe 
for the 8-hour ozone standard. See 75 FR 24409, May 5, 2010. On July 7, 
2010, and in an update on April 13, 2011, CARB requested that EPA find 
that the Sacramento Metro Area had attained the 1-hour ozone standard 
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and that EPA 
terminate 1-hour ozone CAA section 185 requirements for the area. See 
letters from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, with 
enclosures, dated July 7, 2010 and April 13, 2011.

Section 185 1-Hour Ozone Anti-Backsliding Requirements

    Although EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (effective June 15, 
2005), during the transition from the 1-hour ozone to the 8-hour ozone 
standard, 1-hour nonattainment areas remain subject to certain 
requirements based on their 1-hour ozone classification. The section 
185 fee program requirement applies to any ozone nonattainment area 
classified as Severe or Extreme, including any area that was classified 
Severe or Extreme under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as of the effective date 
of the area's 8-hour designation (see 40 CFR part 81).
    Initially, in our rules to address the transition from the 1-hour 
to the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA did not include the section 185 fee 
penalty requirement as one of the measures necessary to meet Clean Air 
Act anti-backsliding requirements.\4\ However, on December 23, 2006, 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
determined that EPA should not have removed from its anti-backsliding 
requirements the application of the section 185 fee provision for 
Severe and Extreme nonattainment areas that failed to attain the 1-hour 
ozone standard by their attainment date. South Coast Air Quality 
Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). In light of 
the Court's decision, on January 5, 2010 EPA issued guidance on the 
application of the section 185 1-hour anti-backsliding requirement.\5\ 
EPA's guidance addressed, among other matters, alternative methods of 
satisfying the section 185 1-hour anti-backsliding requirement, and the 
circumstances under which EPA would determine that the obligation was 
terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard--Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
    \5\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, 
``Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act 
Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS,'' January 5, 2010. This 
memorandum is in the docket to this proposed action and can also be 
found on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20100105185guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked, and in accordance with 
anti-backsliding regulations that remain unchallenged, EPA was no 
longer obligated to find that an area attained by

[[Page 28699]]

its 1-hour attainment date, nor to reclassify 1-hour areas under CAA 
Sections 181(b)(2) or 179(c) (40 CFR 51.905(e)). (69 FR 23951, April 
30, 2004).

III. What is the legal rationale for this proposed termination 
determination?

    As a result of the court decision in South Coast Air Quality 
Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), states with 
areas classified as Severe or Extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour 
ozone standard at the time of the area's initial nonattainment 
designation for the 1997 8-hour standard are no longer categorically 
exempt from the anti-backsliding requirements imposed by section 185. 
EPA has issued guidance for states related to developing 1-hour ozone 
section 185 fee programs.\6\ As set forth in this guidance, EPA 
believes that states can meet the 1-hour ozone section 185 obligation 
through a SIP revision containing either the fee program prescribed in 
section 185 of the Act, or an equivalent alternative program, as 
further explained below. EPA believes that an alternative program may 
be acceptable if EPA determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, 
that it is consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding provision of the CAA that 
requires EPA to develop regulations to ensure that controls in a 
nonattainment area are ``no less stringent'' than those that applied to 
the area before EPA revised a NAAQS to make it less stringent. In the 
Phase 1 ozone implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS published on 
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA determined that although section 
172(e) does not directly apply where EPA has strengthened the NAAQS, as 
it did in 1997, it was reasonable to apply the same anti-backsliding 
principle that would apply to the relaxation of a standard for the 
transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 8-hour 
NAAQS. As part of applying the principle in section 172(e) for purposes 
of the transition from the 1-hour standard to the 1997 8-hour standard, 
EPA can either require states to retain programs that applied for 
purposes of the 1-hour standard, or alternatively can allow states to 
adopt alternative programs, but only if such alternatives are 
determined through notice-and-comment rulemaking to be ``no less 
stringent'' than the mandated program.
    EPA is electing to consider alternative programs to satisfy the 1-
hour ozone section 185 fee program SIP revision requirement. States 
choosing to adopt an alternative program to the section 185 fee program 
must demonstrate that the alternative program is no less stringent than 
the otherwise applicable section 185 fee program and EPA can only 
approve such demonstration after notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    As set forth in EPA's January 5, 2010 guidance, EPA believes that 
for an area that we determine is attaining either the 1-hour ozone or 
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions, the area would no longer be obligated to satisfy the 
section 185 anti-backsliding requirements associated with the 
transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. In such cases, an area's existing SIP could be considered an 
adequate alternative program. Our reasoning follows from the fact that 
an area's existing SIP measures, in conjunction with other enforceable 
Federal measures, are adequate for the area to achieve attainment, 
which is the purpose of the section 185 program. The section 185 fee 
program is an element of an area's attainment demonstration and its 
objective is to bring about attainment after a failure of an area to 
attain by its attainment date. Thus, areas that have attained the 1-
hour ozone standard, the standard for which the fee program was 
originally required, as a result of permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions, would have a SIP that is no less stringent than the SIP 
required under section 185. Therefore, EPA concludes that the 
obligation to submit a rule or to collect fees terminates once EPA 
determines that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard based 
on permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
    There is also an additional, independent basis for EPA's approach 
to determining that the anti-backsliding requirements associated with 
section 185 have been satisfied. Although section 185 provides that 
fees are to continue until the area is redesignated to attainment for 
ozone, EPA no longer promulgates redesignations for the 1-hour ozone 
standard because that standard has been revoked. Therefore, relief from 
the 1-hour section 185 fee program requirements under the terms of the 
statute is an impossibility, since the conditions the statute 
envisioned for relieving an area of its fee program obligation no 
longer can exist. There is thus a gap in the statute which must be 
filled by EPA. We believe that under these circumstances we must 
exercise our discretion under Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources 
Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to fill this gap, so as to carry 
out Congressional intent in the unique context of anti-backsliding 
requirements for a revoked standard. We believe that it is reasonable 
for the fee program obligation that applies for purposes of anti-
backsliding to cease upon a determination, based on notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, that an area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard due to 
permanent and enforceable measures. This determination centers on the 
core criteria for redesignations under CAA section 107(d)(3). We 
believe these criteria provide reasonable assurance that the purpose of 
the 1-hour anti-backsliding fee program obligation has been fulfilled 
in the context of a regulatory regime where the area remains subject to 
other applicable 1-hour anti-backsliding and 8-hour nonattainment 
measures. Under these circumstances, retention of the fee program under 
the anti-backsliding rule is no longer necessary for the purpose of 
achieving attainment of the 8-hour standard. See EPA's January 5, 2010 
guidance (footnote 5, above).

IV. What is the effect of this proposed termination determination?

    If this proposed determination to terminate the section 185 fee 
anti-backsliding requirement for the 1-hour ozone standard is 
finalized, the requirement for the State of California to submit 
section 185 penalty fee program SIP revisions for the portions of the 
area for which we made findings of failure to submit, which would 
require major stationary sources under the Sacramento Metro Area 1-hour 
ozone Severe nonattainment classification to pay fees as a penalty for 
the area's failure to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the area's 1-
hour ozone attainment date, as well as the requirement for the 
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District portion of the 
area to implement its 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program, would be 
removed.
    A final Termination Determination for the 1-hour standard section 
185 measures will not be rescinded based on subsequent nonattainment of 
the 1-hour ozone standard. After EPA has determined that an area has 
attained the 1-hour standard due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions, EPA believes that it would be unduly punitive, confusing, 
and potentially destabilizing to re-impose the years-old penalty 
requirements if at some point in the future the area lapses back into 
1-hour nonattainment. Moreover, EPA believes that under current 
circumstances, it would not be in keeping with the intent of Congress. 
First, we note that had the area attained the 1-hour ozone standard 
prior to its

[[Page 28700]]

attainment date, no penalties at all would have been imposed even if 
the area subsequently lapsed into nonattainment. Second, the statute 
provides that penalties for failure to attain by an area's attainment 
date would be terminated by redesignation of the area. Now that the 1-
hour ozone standard has been revoked and EPA is no longer promulgating 
redesignations for that standard, relief from the 1-hour section 185 
fee program requirements under the terms of the statute is an 
impossibility--the mechanism the statute envisioned for relief no 
longer exists. As EPA explains in its January 5, 2010 guidance, we have 
reasonably concluded in these circumstances that a determination of 
attainment due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, along 
with the area's existing SIP and its continuing obligations to meet 
ever more stringent ozone standards, are a reasonable alternative means 
for terminating these unique anti-backsliding penalty provisions. EPA 
believes that, given the gap in the statute, and the intent of Congress 
as expressed in quite different regulatory circumstances, it would be 
counterproductive and in conflict with that intent for EPA's 
determination to merely suspend rather than permanently terminate the 
1-hour anti-backsliding penalty fees. Requiring areas to remain subject 
to the threat of reviving stale penalty fees for an old revoked 
standard, when these areas and the sources subject to the penalties 
must now muster their resources to focus on meeting newer more 
stringent standards, would be at odds with the purposes of the Act and 
in conflict with the principle that penalty provisions should be 
narrowly construed. This is also true because the area is subject to a 
host of ongoing obligations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as well 
as the future anticipated new 8-hour ozone standard,\7\ when it has 
already shown great improvement towards meeting the 1-hour and 1997 8-
hour ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA anticipates announcing the reconsidered 8-hour ozone 
standard in July 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is EPA's analysis?

    EPA's proposed Termination Determination is based upon EPA's belief 
that the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent 
and enforceable emission reductions implemented in the area. In its 
January 5, 2010 guidance, EPA set forth its views as to potential 
rationales for terminating section 185 obligations for 1-hour ozone. 
This notice formally sets forth EPA's legal interpretation concerning 
the basis for terminating those obligations.
    As explained above, EPA set forth our belief in our January 5, 2010 
guidance that for an area that we determine is attaining either the 1-
hour ozone or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions, that the area would no longer be 
obligated to satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements associated with 
the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent three years of 
complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data 
gathered at established National Air Monitoring Stations (``NAMS'') or 
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (``SLAMS'') in the 
nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) 
database. Data from air monitors operated by state/local agencies in 
compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the 
AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are 
accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies 
primarily on data in its AQS database when determining the attainment 
status of an area. See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H; 40 CFR 
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, Appendices A, C, D and E. All data are 
reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 
40 CFR part 50, Appendix H.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.9, the 1-hour ozone standard is 
attained at a monitoring site when the expected number of days per 
calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 
parts per million (235 micrograms per cubic meter) is equal to or less 
than 1, as determined by 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H.
    EPA proposes to determine that the Sacramento Metro Area has 
attained the 1-hour ozone standard; that is, the number of expected 
exceedances at any site in the nonattainment area is not greater than 
one per year.\8\ This proposed determination is based on three years of 
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring 
data in AQS showing attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for the 
2007-2009 monitoring period, and complete, quality-assured data in AQS 
for 2008-2010 that show continued attainment. As explained below, in 
determining the area's attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA is 
also proposing to exclude from consideration exceedances that occurred 
on three days in 2008, because they are due to wildfire exceptional 
events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The average number of expected exceedances is determined by 
averaging the expected exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard over 
a consecutive three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 
Appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring Network
    In the Sacramento Metro Area, the agencies responsible for assuring 
that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements include CARB, 
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), 
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano 
Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). Both CARB and SMAQMD submit 
annual monitoring network plans to EPA. SMAQMD Network Plans describe 
the monitoring network the district operates; CARB's Network Plans 
describe the monitoring sites CARB operates, in addition to monitoring 
sites operated by smaller air districts, namely, for the Sacramento 
Metro Area, PCAPCD and YSAQMD. These plans discuss the status of the 
air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10.
    Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews these annual plans for compliance 
with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With 
respect to ozone, EPA has found that the area's network plans meet the 
applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB 
and SMAQMD approving their annual network plans for years 2007, 2009 
and 2010.\9\ Furthermore, we concluded in our Technical System Audit of 
the CARB Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO),\10\ conducted 
during Summer 2007, that the combined ambient air monitoring network 
operated by CARB and the local air districts in their PQAO currently 
meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS 
monitoring sites for all criteria pollutants, and that all of the 
monitoring sites are properly located with respect to monitoring 
objectives, spatial scales and other site criteria, as

[[Page 28701]]

required by 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D. See letter from Deborah Jordan, 
Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, 
Executive Officer, CARB, transmitting ``Technical System Audit of the 
California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,'' 
with enclosure, August 18, 2008. Also, CARB annually certifies that the 
data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-assured. See, e.g., 
letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning 
and Technical Support Division, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2009 
ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, May 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Neither CARB nor SMAQMD proposed modifications to their 
networks in 2008; therefore, neither agency was required to submit a 
network plan to EPA for approval that year.
    \10\ A primary quality assurance organization is responsible for 
a group of monitoring stations for which data quality assessments 
can be pooled See 40 CFR section 58.1. CARB is the lead PQAO for all 
the air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were 16 ozone monitoring sites located throughout the 
Sacramento Metro Area in calendar years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.\11\ 
Sacramento Metro AQMD operates six ozone monitors in Sacramento County: 
Elk Grove (southwest Sacramento County), Del Paso Manor (northeast City 
of Sacramento), Folsom (City of Folsom), Sacramento-Goldenland Court 
\12\ (northwest City of Sacramento), North Highlands (north Sacramento 
County) and Sloughhouse Road (west Sacramento County). CARB operates 
six ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: Sacramento-T Street 
(City of Sacramento) in Sacramento County; Cool (City of Cool), Echo 
Summit (in the Sierra Nevada Mountains) and Placerville (City of 
Placerville) in El Dorado County; Roseville (City of Roseville) in 
Placer County; and Davis (City of Davis) in Yolo County. Placer County 
APCD operates two ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: Colfax 
(City of Colfax) and Auburn (City of Auburn). Yolo-Solano AQMD operates 
two ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: Vacaville (City of 
Vacaville) in Solano County, and Woodland (City of Woodland) in Yolo 
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Enclosure 2 of CARB's July 7, 2010 request includes a map 
on page 3.2 showing locations of all ozone monitors in the 
Sacramento Metro Area. Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive 
Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 
Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, requesting termination of CAA section 
185 requirements as they pertain to the Sacramento Metro Area. The 
document can be found on the Internet at: http://www.airquality.org/notices/1hour/AttainmentReport.pdf.
    \12\ The Sacramento-Airport Road site was relocated to 
Sacramento-Goldenland Court in August 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All Sacramento Metro Area sites monitor ozone concentrations on a 
continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption monitors.\13\ EPA defines 
specific monitoring site types and spatial scales of representativeness 
to characterize the nature and location of required monitors. See 40 
CFR part 58, Appendix D, Sec.  1. Table 1 below lists the site types 
and spatial scale for each ozone monitoring site in the Sacramento 
Metro Area. Due to ozone precursor source distribution and general 
meteorological patterns in the area, the highest ozone concentrations 
for the past several years have typically occurred at the Folsom and 
Sloughhouse Road sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Sacramento Metro Area monitoring agencies operate Federal 
equivalent method (FEM) monitors for ozone, specifically, API 400 
Series ultraviolet absorption monitors. See SMAQMD's ``Annual 
Network Plan Report'' (July 2010) and CARB's ``Monitoring Network 
Report for Small Districts in California'' (July 2010). These 
monitoring devices have an EPA designation number EQOA-0992-087. See 
EPA ``List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods, page 27 
(February 1, 2011), available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.

                 Table 1--Site Type and Spatial Scale a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Spatial scale
            Site name                  Site type \b\           \c\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placerville (06-017-0010)........  HC, TR..............  RS
Echo Summit (06-017-0012)........  HC, TR..............  RS
Cool (06-017-0020)...............  HC, TR..............  RS
Auburn (06-061-0002).............  HC..................  US
Colfax (06-061-0004).............  HC..................  US
Roseville (06-061-0006)..........  HC..................  US
North Highlands (06-067-0002)....  RC..................  NS
Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06-067- HC..................  NS
 0006).
Sacramento-T Street (06-067-0010)  RC..................  US
Elk Grove (06-067-0011)..........  RC..................  NS
Folsom (06-067-0012).............  HC..................  NS
Sacramento-Airport Road (06-067-   RC..................  NS
 0013).
Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06-   RC..................  NS
 067-0014).
Sloughhouse Rd. (06-067-5003)....  RC..................  NS
Vacaville (06-095-3003)..........  HC, TR..............  RS
Davis (06-113-0004)..............  HC..................  US
Woodland (06-113-1003)...........  HC..................  US
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: SMAQMD's ``Annual Network Plan Report'' (July 2010) and
  CARB's ``Monitoring Network Report for Small Districts in California''
  (July 2010).
\b\ Site types are defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D section 1.1.1.
  The site types utilized in the Sacramento Metro Area include high
  concentration (HC), representative concentration (RC) and pollutant
  transport (TR).
\c\ Spatial scales are defined in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D section 1.2.
  The monitoring sites in the Sacramento Metro Area are either
  neighborhood scale (NS), urban scale (US) or regional scale (RS)
  sites.

Exceptional Events
    On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, ``Treatment of Data 
Influenced by Exceptional Events,'' also known as the Exceptional 
Events Rule (EER), to govern the review and handling of certain air 
quality monitoring data for which the normal planning and regulatory 
processes are not appropriate (72 FR 13560). Under the EER, EPA may 
exclude data from use in determinations of NAAQS exceedances and 
violations if a state demonstrates that an ``exceptional event'' caused 
the exceedance or exceedances. 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14. Before EPA can 
exclude data from these regulatory determinations, the state must flag 
the data in EPA's AQS database and, after public notice and opportunity 
for comment, submit a demonstration to EPA to justify the exclusion. 
EPA considers the demonstration and concurs or nonconcurs with the 
state's flag. After notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA determines 
whether to

[[Page 28702]]

exclude the data from use when making a determination of attainment.
    In submittals dated September 17, 2009 and March 30, 2011, CARB 
provided documentation for ozone exceedances that occurred at the 
Folsom monitor on three days in Summer 2008 which the state had flagged 
as due to wildfire exceptional events. EPA reviewed the documentation 
and concurred with the June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 flags in a 
letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 
IX, to Mary D. Nichols, Chairman, CARB, dated April 13, 2011. EPA 
included with the letter a document setting forth in detail the bases 
for EPA's concurrences. See ``Review of Exceptional Events Request: 
Folsom, CA; 1-hour ozone; June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008,'' dated 
April 13, 2011 (in the docket for this proposed rulemaking). For the 
reasons set forth in the concurrence letter and its enclosure, EPA is 
proposing to exclude from regulatory consideration data showing 
exceedances at the Folsom monitoring site on June 23, June 27 and July 
10, 2008.
Monitoring Data
    EPA's proposal to exclude ozone exceedances monitored at the Folsom 
site on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008, if finalized, would result 
in a revision of the number of exceedances (as determined by 40 CFR 
part 50, Appendix H and described in section II of this notice) for 
2008 and, therefore, the average number of expected exceedances for the 
2007-2009 period. With the exclusion of the data for these three days, 
the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in 
the Sacramento Metro Area for 2007-2009 is 1.0, which shows attainment 
of the 1-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected 
exceedances less than or equal to 1). For more information, please see 
``National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards 
for ozone'' (40 CFR section 50.9) and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour 
Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, Appendix H). Consistent with 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix H, Tables 2 and 3 set forth the 1-hour ozone data for the 
Sacramento Metro Area monitors that show that the area is currently 
attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

              Table 2--1-Hour Ozone Data for the Sacramento Metro 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Expected exceedances by year         Expected
                                                          --------------------------------------- exceedances 3-
                    Site (monitor ID)                                                               yr average
                                                               2007         2008         2009    ---------------
                                                                                                     2007-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placerville (06-017-0010)................................          0.0          2.0          0.0             0.7
Echo Summit (06-017-0012)................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Cool (06-017-0020).......................................          0.0          2.0          0.0             0.7
Auburn (06-061-0002).....................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Colfax (06-061-0004).....................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Roseville (06-061-0006)..................................          0.0          2.0          0.0             0.7
North Highlands (06-067-0002)............................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06-067-0006)..................          1.0          0.0          0.0             0.3
Sacramento-T Street (06-067-0010)........................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Elk Grove (06-067-0011)..................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Folsom (06-067-0012).....................................          1.0      \b\ 2.0          0.0             1.0
Sacramento-Airport Road (06-067-0013)....................          0.0      \c\ 0.0           NA              NA
Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06-067-0014)................           NA      \c\ 0.0          0.0             0.0
Sloughhouse Rd. (06-067-5003)............................          0.0          3.0          0.0             1.0
Vacaville (06-095-3003)..................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Davis (06-113-0004)......................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Woodland (06-113-1003)...................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action).
\a\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H--Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality
  Standards for Ozone.
\b\ Data shown exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events.
\c\ The Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008.
NA--Data is not available.

    The data in Table 2 indicate a long-term trend observed in the 
Sacramento Metro Area. As described in CARB's July 7, 2010 letter 
requesting a Termination Determination, the monitoring sites that 
historically experienced exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard are 
the Cool, Sloughhouse, Folsom and Del Paso Manor sites. For example, in 
1998 five exceedances were monitored at Cool and ten at Folsom. In 
2009, by contrast, there were no exceedances at any monitor in the 
entire Sacramento Metro Area.
    In sum, EPA believes that, if the exceedances resulting from 
wildfire exceptional events on three days in 2008 are excluded from 
consideration, the 2007-2009 ambient air monitoring data for the 
Sacramento Metro Area show attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 
addition, if EPA's proposal to exclude exceedances on three days due to 
wildfire exceptional events is finalized, the data for 2010 (complete 
and quality-assured but not yet certified), shown in Table 3 for the 
2008-2010 monitoring period, show continued attainment. Preliminary 
data available for 2011 are also consistent with continued attainment.

[[Page 28703]]



   Table 3--2010 1-Hour Ozone Data for the Sacramento Metro 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Showing Continued
                                                  Attainment a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Expected exceedances by year         Expected
                                                          --------------------------------------- exceedances 3-
                    Site (monitor ID)                                                               yr average
                                                               2008         2009       2010 \b\  ---------------
                                                                                                   2008-2010 \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placerville (06-017-0010)................................          2.0          0.0          0.0             0.7
Echo Summit (06-017-0012)................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Cool (06-017-0020).......................................          2.0          0.0          0.0             0.7
Auburn (06-061-0002).....................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Colfax (06-061-0004).....................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Roseville (06-061-0006)..................................          2.0          0.0          0.0             0.7
North Highlands (06-067-0002)............................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06-067-0006)..................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Sacramento-T Street (06-067-0010)........................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Elk Grove (06-067-0011)..................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Folsom (06-067-0012).....................................      \c\ 2.0          0.0          0.0             0.7
Sacramento-Airport Road (06-067-0013)....................      \d\ 0.0           NA           NA              NA
Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06-067-0014)................      \d\ 0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Sloughhouse Rd. (06-067-5003)............................          3.0          0.0          0.0             1.0
Vacaville (06-095-3003)..................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Davis (06-113-0004)......................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
Woodland (06-113-1003)...................................          0.0          0.0          0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action).
\a\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H--Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality
  Standards for Ozone.
\b\ Data from 2010 are complete but have not yet been certified.
\c\ Data exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events.
\d\ The Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008.
NA--Data are not available.

b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

    EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the observed air 
quality improvements in the Sacramento Metro Area with respect to the 
1-hour ozone standard are due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions through the implementation of state and district emission 
controls contained in the SIP and not due to favorable meteorology or 
temporary reductions in emission rates, such as temporary adverse 
economic conditions. See letter and accompanying documentation 
(Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 
1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Request for the Sacramento 
Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area) from James Goldstene, CARB Executive 
Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 
IX, dated July 7, 2010, requesting termination of CAA section 185 
requirements as they pertain to the Sacramento Metro Area (July 7, 2010 
request).
    In 1994, California submitted a comprehensive ozone plan for all 
ozone nonattainment areas in California including the Sacramento Metro 
Area (1994 SIP), which EPA approved on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150). 
The plan provided a blueprint for attaining the 1-hour ozone standard 
that relied on a combination of stationary and mobile source measures 
by the districts, and state and Federal governments. In addition, 
California air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area adopted and 
implemented emission control rules requiring many existing sources of 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) \14\ to meet, at minimum, Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT). These requirements apply to sources in categories 
covered by Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs) and major non-CTG 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NOX and VOCs are chemical precursors to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meteorology
    In its July 7, 2010 request (Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan 
Air Quality Management District 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration 
Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area), CARB 
provided documentation that the improvement in air quality in the 
Sacramento Metro Area is not due to favorable meteorology. CARB showed 
that the weather patterns in the last decade have not been unusually 
favorable. For example, looking at days equal to or over 95 degrees 
Fahrenheit in each of the last thirteen years (1997 to 2009) as an 
indicator of conditions conducive to ozone formation, the area had an 
annual average of 37 such ``high temperature'' days, while in the last 
four years (2006-2009), the area also had an annual average of 37 high 
temperature days.
Economic Activity
    The State provided documentation showing that the improvement in 
air quality leading to 1-hour ozone attainment in the Sacramento Metro 
Area is not due to a temporary economic downturn. See July 7, 2010 
request (Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 
District 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Request for the 
Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area). As an indicator of 
economic activity, this analysis presented information on gasoline and 
diesel sales in California from 2000 to 2009. Fuel sales are an 
indicator of economic activity, and represent an indicator of emissions 
trends of both VOCs and NOX as well. The Sacramento Metro 
Area's emissions inventory is dominated by mobile sources. See Table 7 
below and Table 4.1 of Enclosure 2 of July 7, 2010 request. Although 
fuel sales have decreased in the last several years, perhaps coinciding 
with an overall economic downturn in California and nationally, we note 
that the decrease has been slight and that the last year presented, 
2009, still had a higher level (14.8 billion gallons of fuel sold) than 
the first year presented (2001, at 14.5 billion gallons). Between those 
years, fuel sales increased gradually to a peak

[[Page 28704]]

between 2005 and 2006 (both at 15.9 billion gallons sold per year), 
before gradually declining.
    Given that the earliest years in that ten-year period were years 
when the area was not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard, EPA believes 
that any temporary emission reductions due to the more recent economic 
downturn in 2008 and later are relatively small and not a significant 
factor in the attainment of the 1-hour standard. Therefore, we conclude 
that economic conditions are not a source of temporary reductions in 
emission rates. On the contrary, EPA believes that the steady decline 
of emissions of NOX and VOCs during the same ten-year period 
is attributable to fleet turnover with newer vehicles having lower 
evaporative and tailpipe emissions, as well as greater fuel economy. 
Additionally, EPA notes that CARB's emissions database (http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm) shows that during 2006 through 
2009, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have increased from 
approximately 68 million miles per day to 72 million miles per day in 
the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. See CEPAM: 2009 Almanac--Population 
and Vehicle Trends Tool, Sacramento Valley Air Basin, Daily Vehicle 
Miles Traveled, All Vehicles.
Local Districts' Measures Since 1990
    Since 1990, the Districts have adopted, implemented and submitted 
for EPA approval dozens of stationary source rules which achieve 
NOX and VOC emission reductions and have thus helped reduce 
ozone levels. Tables 4 through 7 below summarize the local air district 
rules adopted since 1990 and approved into the California 
SIP.15 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) does 
not have any rules listed in the table because, since 1990, no 
additional FRAQMD VOC or NOX rules have been added to the 
SIP. FRAQMD consists of the entirety of both Sutter and Yuba 
counties. Only the very southern portion of Sutter County falls 
within the Sacramento Metro Area, and that portion includes no major 
NOX or VOC stationary sources.
    \16\ EPA is currently evaluating approximately 30 additional 
rules that have been adopted by Sacramento Metro Area air districts 
to control VOC and/or NOX and that were submitted to EPA 
as SIP revisions. Although EPA has not yet taken action on these 
submitted rules, they are currently being implemented by the air 
districts.

  Table 4--Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Rules Adopted Since 1990 and Approved Into the California State Implementation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Date rule       Date rule
                Rule No.                                Rule                 adopted by     approved into  Federal  Register  citation    NOX      VOC
                                                                              district           SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
411.....................................  NOX from Boilers, Process            08/23/2007        5/6/2009  74 FR 20880                       X   .......
                                           Heaters and Steam Generators.
412.....................................  Stationary Internal Combustion       06/01/1995       4/30/1996  61 FR 18959                       X   .......
                                           Engine.
413.....................................  Stationary Gas Turbines........      03/24/2005       1/10/2008  73 FR 1819                        X   .......
414.....................................  Natural Gas-fired Water Heater.      08/01/1996       4/20/1999  64 FR 19277                       X   .......
442.....................................  Architectural Coatings.........      09/05/1996       11/9/1998  63 FR 60214                  .......       X
443.....................................  Leaks from Synthetic Organic         09/05/1996       11/9/1998  63 FR 60214                  .......       X
                                           Chemical & Polymer
                                           Manufacturing.
446.....................................  Storage of Petroleum Products..      11/16/1993       9/16/1994  59 FR 47544                  .......       X
447.....................................  Organic Liquid Loading.........      04/02/1998      11/26/1999  64 FR 66393                  .......       X
448.....................................  Gasoline Transfer into               02/02/1995       1/23/1996  61 FR 1716                   .......       X
                                           Stationary Storage Containers.
449.....................................  Transfer of Gasoline into            09/26/2002       3/24/2003  68 FR 14156                  .......       X
                                           Vehicle Fuel Tanks.
450.....................................  Graphic Arts...................      10/23/2008        4/9/2010  75 FR 18068                  .......       X
452.....................................  Can Coating....................      09/25/2008        4/9/2010  75 FR 18068                  .......       X
454.....................................  Degreasing Operations..........      09/25/2008        4/9/2010  75 FR 18068                  .......       X
456.....................................  Aerospace Assembly and               10/23/2008       7/14/2010  75 FR 40726                  .......       X
                                           Component Coating Operations.
458.....................................  Large Commercial Bread Bakeries      09/05/1996       11/9/1998  63 FR 60214                  .......       X
459.....................................  Automotive, Truck and Heavy          10/02/1997      11/13/1998  63 FR 63410                  .......       X
                                           Equipment Refinishing
                                           Operations.
463.....................................  Wood Products Coatings.........      09/25/2008        4/9/2010  75 FR 18068                  .......       X
464.....................................  Organic Chemical Manufacturing       07/23/1998       4/19/2000  65 FR 20912                  .......       X
                                           Operations.
466.....................................  Solvent Cleaning...............      05/23/2002        5/5/2010  75 FR 24406                  .......       X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 5--El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Rules Adopted Since 1990 and Approved Into the California State Implementation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Date rule       Date rule
                Rule No.                                Rule                 adopted by     approved into  Federal  Register  citation    NOX      VOC
                                                                              district           SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
215.....................................  Architectural Coatings.........       9/27/1994       7/18/1996  61 FR 37390                  .......       X
224.....................................  Cutback Asphalt Paving Material       9/27/1994       8/21/1995  60 FR 43383                  .......       X
225.....................................  Solvent Cleaning (Degreasing)..       9/27/1994       8/21/1995  60 FR 43383                  .......       X
229.....................................  Industrial, Institutional, and        1/23/2001      10/10/2001  66 FR 51578                       X   .......
                                           Commercial Boilers, Steam
                                           Generators, and Process
                                           Heaters.
230.....................................  Motor Vehicle & Mobile                9/27/1994       4/30/1996  61 FR 18962                  .......       X
                                           Equipment Coating.
231.....................................  Graphic Arts...................       9/27/1994       7/11/1997  62 FR 37136                  .......       X
232.....................................  Biomass Boilers................       9/25/2001      10/14/2003  68 FR 59121                       X   .......
233.....................................  Stationary Internal Combustion        6/11/2002       9/13/2002  67 FR 57960                       X   .......
                                           Engines.
234.....................................  VOC RACT Rule--Sierra Pacific         4/25/1995       9/12/1995  60 FR 47273                  .......       X
                                           Industries.
235.....................................  Surface Preparation and Cleanup       6/27/1995       4/30/1996  61 FR 18962                  .......       X
236.....................................  Adhesives......................       7/25/1995       7/18/1996  61 FR 37390                  .......       X
237.....................................  Wood Products Coatings.........       6/27/1995       7/18/1996  61 FR 37390                  .......       X
238.....................................  Gasoline Transfer and                 3/27/2001       8/27/2001  66 FR 44974                  .......       X
                                           Dispensing.
239.....................................  Natural Gas-fired Residential         3/24/1998       3/30/1999  64 FR 15129                       X   .......
                                           Water Heaters.

[[Page 28705]]

 
240.....................................  Polyester Resin Operations.....       2/15/2000       7/17/2001  66 FR 37154                  .......       X
244...................................