Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Determinations of Failure To Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard, 56694-56701 [2011-23544]

Download as PDF 56694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules person’s judgment for mitigating and abating the conditions or practices causing the emergency. 12. Add new § 250.1932 to read as follows: § 250.1932 What are my employee participation program requirements? (a) Management must consult with their employees on the development and implementation of the company’s SEMS program. (b) Management must develop a written plan of action regarding how appropriate employees, in both the operator’s offices and working on offshore facilities, will participate in their SEMS program development and implementation. (c) You must provide each employee of the operator and each contractor access to your SEMS program. (d) Management must provide BOEMRE a copy of their employee participation program upon request. (e) Management must assure that their employee participation program is made available during an audit. 13. Add new § 250.1933 to read as follows: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS § 250.1933 What criteria must be included for reporting unsafe work conditions? (a) Your SEMS program must include procedures that address the reporting of unsafe work conditions. These procedures must include the existing Coast Guard unsafe working conditions reporting requirements found in 33 CFR 142.7 and 46 CFR 109.419. (b) The unsafe work conditions section of your SEMS program must ensure all personnel including the operator’s employees contractor employees, as well as, contractors providing domestic services to the lessee or other contractors, including domestic services include janitorial work, food and beverage service, laundry service, housekeeping, and similar activities, who perform activities on the OCS that are under BOEMRE jurisdiction are covered by the program. An employee or contractor is not required to know whether a specific BOEMRE order or regulation has been violated in order to report unsafe conditions. (c) Any person may report to BOEMRE a possible violation of any BOEMRE order, standard, or regulation in this subchapter, or other Federal law relating to offshore safety, or any other hazardous or unsafe working condition on any facility engaged in OCS activities under BOEMRE jurisdiction. The report should contain sufficient credible information to establish a reasonable basis for BOEMRE to investigate VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 whether a violation or other hazardous or unsafe working condition exists. (1) To report hazardous or unsafe working conditions or a violation, you can contact BOEMRE by: (2) [By Phone]: 1–877–440–0173 or 202–208–5646 (BOEMRE Safety Hotline). (3) [Write To]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Investigations and Review Unit, 1849 C Street, NW., MS–5560, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: IRU Hotline Operations. You should include the following items in your report: (i) Your name, address, and telephone number (Anonymous reports can be processed in regards to unsafe working activities. If you would like to make an anonymous safety-only report, please use the BOEMRE Safety Hotline listed above.); (ii) The specific order or regulation of BOEMRE, or the specific provision of Federal law in question (if known); (iii) Any other facts, data, and applicable information. (d) After reviewing the report and conducting any necessary investigation, BOEMRE will notify the operator of any deficiency or hazard and initiate enforcement measures as the circumstances warrant. (e) The identity of any person making a report under paragraph (c) of this section shall not be made available, without the permission of the reporting person, to anyone other than the employees of BOEMRE who have a need for the record in the performance of their official duties. (f) All operators must post a notice explaining personnel rights and remedies under this section. The notice must be posted at the place of employment in a visible location frequently visited by personnel. (g) Each operator must provide training to employees on unsafe work conditions policy within 30 days of employment, and not less than once every 12 months thereafter. (h) Each employee must be provided a card that contains the BOEMRE telephone number (1–877–440–0173) which employees can call to get information or report unsafe activities under this section. [FR Doc. 2011–23537 Filed 9–13–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0638; FRL–9463–9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Determinations of Failure To Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The EPA is proposing to determine that three areas in California, previously designated nonattainment for the one-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), did not attain that standard by their applicable attainment dates: the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area (‘‘South Coast’’), the San Joaquin Valley Area (‘‘San Joaquin Valley’’), and the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area (‘‘Southeast Desert’’). These proposed determinations are based on three years of quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the period preceding the applicable attainment deadline. SUMMARY: Written comments must be received on or before October 14, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– OAR–2011–0638, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: Doris Lo at lo.doris@epa.gov. 3. Fax: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), at fax number 415–947–3579. 4. Mail: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. 5. Hand or Courier Delivery: Doris Lo, 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– 0638. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless DATES: E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The https://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 https://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 https:// 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 https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Office (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 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: Doris Lo, (415) 972–3959, or by e-mail at lo.doris@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 EPA’s analysis? A. South Coast One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:40 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 B. San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area C. Southeast Desert One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area IV. What is the effect of the proposed determinations? V. Proposed Actions VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What actions is EPA taking? EPA is proposing to determine, under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), that three areas previously designated nonattainment for the one-hour ozone NAAQS—the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert—failed to attain the NAAQS for one-hour ozone by their applicable onehour NAAQS attainment dates. II. Background Regulatory Context 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 onehour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979).1 An area is considered to have attained the one-hour ozone standard if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance with the regulation codified at 40 CFR 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 exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more information, please see ‘‘National 1hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone’’ (40 CFR 50.9) and ‘‘Interpretation of the 1–Hour Primary and Secondary National 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. Because, in this context, the term ‘‘exceedances’’ refers to days (during which the daily maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap year). PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 56695 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 one-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 one-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. Two measures that are triggered if a Severe or Extreme area fails to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date are contingency measures [section 172(c)(9)] and a major stationary source fee provision [sections 182(d)(3) and 185)] (‘‘major source fee program’’ or ‘‘section 185 fee program’’). Designations and Classifications On November 6, 1991, EPA designated the South Coast 3 as ‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment for the onehour ozone standard, with an attainment date no later than November 15, 2010 (56 FR 56694). In its November 6, 1991 final rule, EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley 4 as ‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, but later reclassified the valley as ‘‘Severe’’ (66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001), and then as ‘‘Extreme’’ (69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004) for the one-hour ozone standard, with the same attainment date (November 15, 2010) as the South Coast. In its 1991 final rule, EPA designated the Southeast Desert 5 as ‘‘Severe-17’’ nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, with an attainment date no later than November 15, 2007. 3 The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305). 4 San Joaquin Valley includes all of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, as well as the western half of Kern County (see 40 CFR 81.305). 5 The Southeast Desert covers the Victor Valley/ Barstow region in San Bernardino County, the Coachella Valley region in Riverside County, and the Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County (see 40 CFR 81.305). E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 56696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules Outside of Indian country,6 the South Coast lies within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Similarly, with the exception of Indian country, San Joaquin Valley lies within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). Likewise, excluding Indian country, the Los Angeles portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), the San Bernardino County portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), and the Riverside County portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the SCAQMD. Under California law, each air district is responsible for adopting and implementing stationary source rules, such as the fee program 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. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Transition From One-Hour Ozone Standard to Eight-Hour Ozone Standard In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective standard for ozone based on an eight-hour average concentration (the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard). In 2004, EPA published the 1997 eight-hour ozone designations and classifications and a rule governing certain facets of implementation of the eight-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April 30, 2004). Although EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard (effective June 15, 2005), to comply with anti-backsliding requirements of the Act, eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas remain subject to certain requirements based on their one-hour ozone classification. Initially, in our rules to address the transition from the one-hour to the eight-hour ozone standard, EPA did not include contingency measures or the section 185 fee program among the measures retained as one-hour ozone 6 ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to: ‘‘(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 anti-backsliding requirements.7 However, on December 23, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that EPA should not have excluded these requirements from its antibacksliding requirements. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) reh’g denied 489 F.3d 1245 (clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the court granted the petitions for review). Thus, the Court vacated the provisions that excluded these requirements. As a result, States must continue to meet the obligations for onehour ozone NAAQS contingency measures and, for Severe and Extreme areas, major source fee programs. EPA has issued a proposed rule that would remove the vacated provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(e), and that addresses contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable further progress toward attainment of the onehour standard. See 74 FR 2936, January 16, 2009 (proposed rule); 74 FR 7027, February 12, 2009 (notice of public hearing and extension of comment period). Rationale for Today’s Proposed Action After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding requirements. See SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. In keeping with this responsibility with respect to one-hour anti-backsliding contingency measures and section 185 fee programs for these three California areas, EPA proposes to determine that each area failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date. III. What is EPA’s analysis? A determination of whether an area’s air quality meets the one-hour ozone standard is generally based upon three years of complete,8 quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at established 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 7 Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 8 Generally, a ‘‘complete’’ data set for determining attainment of the ozone is one that includes three years of data with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data greater than 90% with no single year less than 75%. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. There are less stringent data requirements for showing that a monitor has failed an attainment test and thus has recorded a violation of the standard. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 one-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.9 EPA proposes to determine that the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard by their applicable attainment dates; that is, the number of expected exceedances at sites in each of the three nonattainment areas was greater than one per year in the period prior to the applicable attainment date. These proposed determinations are based on three years of quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data in AQS for the 2008–2010 monitoring period for the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley, and quality-assured and certified data in AQS for 2005–2007 for the Southeast Desert. A. South Coast One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area In the South Coast, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. SCAQMD Annual Network Plans describe the air monitoring network and discuss its status, as required under 40 CFR 58.10. Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed 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 58.10 Furthermore, we 9 The average number of expected exceedances is determined by averaging the expected exceedances of the one-hour ozone standard over a consecutive three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 appendix H. 10 See, e.g., letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 56697 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules concluded in our Technical System Audit of the SCAQMD network conducted during April 2010, that the ambient air monitoring network operated by SCAQMD network currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS monitoring sites for all criteria pollutants, and that all of the required ozone monitoring sites are properly located with respect to monitoring objectives, spatial scales and other site criteria, as required by 40 CFR part 58, appendix D.11 Also, SCAQMD annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are quality-assured.12 There were 29 ozone monitoring sites located throughout the South Coast in calendar years 2008 through 2010: 13 within Los Angeles County, four within Orange County, seven within Riverside County, and five within San Bernardino County.13 All SCAQMD sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption monitors.14 SCAQMD administered 28 of the 29 sites, and one was administered by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Table 1 summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various monitoring sites in the South Coast Air Basin by showing the expected exceedances per year and as an average over the 2008–2010 period. The data summarized in Table 1 are considered complete for the purposes of determining if the standard is met.15 TABLE 1—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SOUTH COAST ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA General location Expected exceedances by year Site (AQS ID) 2008 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: East San Gabriel Valley .................... East San Fernando Valley ................. South Central Los Angeles County a East San Gabriel Valley .................... Southwest Coastal LA County ........... South Coastal LA County .................. Central Los Angeles .......................... West San Gabriel Valley ................... South San Gabriel Valley .................. Pomona/Walnut Valley ...................... West San Fernando Valley ................ Santa Clarita Valley ........................... Northwest Coastal LA County ........... ORANGE COUNTY: Central Orange County ...................... North Coastal Orange County ........... North Orange County ........................ Saddleback Valley ............................. RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Banning Airport .................................. Banning Airport b ................................ Lake Elsinore ..................................... Mira Loma .......................................... Mira Loma .......................................... Perris Valley ....................................... Metropolitan Riverside County .......... SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Central San Bernardino Mountains ... Central San Bernardino Valley .......... East San Bernardino Valley .............. Central San Bernardino Valley .......... Northwest San Bernardino Valley ..... 2009 Expected exceedances 3-yr average 2010 2008–2010 Azusa (06–037–0002) ............................................ Burbank (06–037–1002) ........................................ Lynwood/Compton (06–037–1301/06–037–1302) Glendora (06–037–0016) ....................................... Los Angeles—LAX (06–037–5005) ....................... North Long Beach (06–037–4002) ........................ Los Angeles-N. Main Street (06–037–1103) ......... Pasadena (06–037–2005) ...................................... Pico Rivera (06–037–1602) ................................... Pomona (06–037–1701) ........................................ Reseda (06–037–1201) ......................................... Santa Clarita (06–037–6012) ................................. West Los Angeles (06–037–0113) ........................ 7.0 1.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.6 0.7 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 4.8 0.3 Anaheim (06–059–0007) ........................................ Costa Mesa (06–059–1003) .................................. La Habra (06–059–5001) ....................................... Mission Viejo (06–059–2022) ................................ 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 Banning (06–065–0012) ......................................... Morongo Reservation (06–065–1016) ................... Lake Elsinore (06–065–9001) ................................ Mira Loma—Jurupa High School (06–065–0004) Mira Loma—Van Buren (06–065–8005) ................ Perris (06–065–6001) ............................................ Rubidoux (06–065–8001) ....................................... 10.0 12.1 6.1 6.9 4.0 4.0 8.0 1.0 2.7 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.7 6.3 2.4 2.7 1.3 1.7 3.0 Crestline (06–071–0005) ........................................ Fontana (06–071–2002) ......................................... Redlands (06–071–4003) ....................................... San Bernardino (06–071–9004) ............................. Upland (06–071–1004) .......................................... 16.2 8.1 12.0 11.1 9.1 7.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.4 a Data for year 2008 is from the Lynwood monitor, which was relocated to Compton in late 2008. site is run by the Morongo Tribe of Mission Indians on the Morongo Reservation. It is not part of the SCAQMD monitoring network. Source: Quicklook Report, June 16, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS b This Region IX, to Dr. Chung S. Liu, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, dated November 1, 2010, approving SCAQMD’s 2009 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. 11 See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, dated March 14, 2011, and enclosure titled, ‘‘Technical System Audit Report, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 13–April 16, 2010.’’ 12 See, e.g., letter from Chung S. Liu, Deputy Executive Office, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying 2009 ozone data. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 13 See figure 1 in appendix A to SCAQMD’s Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 2010) for a map of SCAQMD’s ozone monitors in the South Coast. 14 SCAQMD operates federal equivalent method (FEM) monitors for ozone, specifically, Thermo Electron model 49i and Teledyne/API 400 series ultraviolet absorption monitors. See SCAQMD’s Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 2010). These monitoring devices have an EPA designation number EQOA–0880–047 and EQOA– 0992–087, respectively. See EPA ‘‘List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods, page 27 (February 1, 2011), available on the Internet at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 15 The criteria for data completeness are met at most of the ozone monitors over the 2008–2010 period, but are not met for the ozone monitors at certain stations over the 2008–2010 period: Pomona, Morongo Reservation, Mira Loma (Jurupa High School), and Fontana. However, with respect to these four monitors, the failure to meet the completeness criteria does not bear on the question of whether the data is complete for the purposes of this determination because there are sufficient observed exceedances during the relevant threeyear period to establish that the standard was not met by the applicable attainment date at those sites. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix H, section 3, first paragraph. E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 56698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the South Coast occur in the northern and eastern portions of the area. As shown in Table 1, the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in the South Coast Air Basin for 2008–2010 is 10.4 (at Crestline, a site located at 4,500 feet elevation in the San Bernardino Mountains). The calculated exceedance rate of 10.4 represents a violation of the one-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1). For more information, please see ‘‘National 1hour 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). Table 1 also shows that, while the most frequent violations occur in the San Bernardino Mountains, violations are widespread in eastern Riverside County and southwestern San Bernardino County as well as the Santa Clarita and east San Gabriel valleys in Los Angeles County. Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and summarized in Table 1, we propose to determine that the South Coast Air Basin failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment date (i.e., November 15, 2010). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS B. San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area In the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) are the agencies responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. The SLAMS network of ozone monitors in the valley includes monitors operated by SJVUAPCD and monitors operated by CARB. SJVUAPCD submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA. SJVUAPCD Network Plans describe the various monitoring sites operated by SJVUAPCD as well as those operated by CARB. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10. See SJVUAPCD’s Air Monitoring Network Plan, dated June 30, 2010. As noted above for the South Coast, 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 40 CFR part 58.16 Furthermore, we concluded in our Technical System Audit of the CARB Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO),17 conducted during summer 2007, that, with one exception, the combined ambient air monitoring network operated by CARB and SJVUAPCD in the San Joaquin Valley currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone. In our audit, we found that our regulations required an additional ozone monitor in the Visalia-Porterville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) to meet the minimum SLAMS monitoring requirements. In response, SJVUAPCD opened an ozone monitoring station in Porterville. The new station began reporting ozone data in March 2010. CARB annually certifies that the data the agency submits to AQS are qualityassured, including data collected by CARB at monitoring sites in San Joaquin Valley.18 SJVUAPCD does the same for monitors operated by the District.19 There were 22 ozone monitoring sites located throughout the San Joaquin Valley in calendar years 2008 through 2010: six within Kern County, five within Fresno County, three within Tulare County, two within Kings, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, and one each in Madera and Merced counties.20 All of the sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption monitors. CARB or SJVUAPCD operate 19 of the 22 ozone monitoring sites; the National Park Service operates two ozone monitoring sites in Sequoia National Park in Tulare County; and the Tachi-Yokut Tribe operates an ozone 16 See, e.g., letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Scott Nester, Planning Director, SJVUAPCD, dated November 1, 2010, approving SJVUAPCD’s 2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan. 17 A primary quality assurance organization is responsible for a group of monitoring stations for which data quality assessments can be pooled. See 40 CFR 58.1. CARB is the lead PQAO for all the air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area. 18 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 2010 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, dated April 28, 2011. 19 See, e.g., letter from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, letter to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying in part calendar year 2010 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, dated June 13, 2011. The District’s 2010 partial certification dated June 13, 2011 covered ozone data. 20 See figure 1 in SJVUAPCD’s Air Monitoring Network Plan (June 30, 2010) for a map of the ozone monitors in the San Joaquin Valley. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 monitor at the Santa Rosa Rancheria in Kings County. Table 2 summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley by showing the expected exceedances per year and as an average over the 2008–2010 period. The data summarized in Table 2 are considered complete for the purposes of determining if the standard is met.21 21 The criteria for data completeness are met at most of the ozone monitors over the 2008–2010 period, but are not met for the ozone monitors at certain stations over the 2008–2010 period: Fresno (Drummond Street), Clovis, Hanford/Corcoran, and Sequoia National Park (06–017–0009). However, with respect to all of these monitors except for Fresno (Drummond Street), the failure to meet the completeness criteria does not bear on the question of whether the data is complete for the purposes of this determination because there are sufficient observed exceedances during the relevant threeyear period to establish that the standard was not met by the applicable attainment date at those sites. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix H, section 3, first paragraph. Moreover, despite the lack of complete data from Fresno (Drummond Street), sufficient data from the network as a whole exist to support the proposed determination of failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date within the San Joaquin Valley. E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56699 TABLE 2—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA Expected exceedances by year Site (AQS ID) 2008 FRESNO COUNTY: Clovis (06–019–5001) ............................................................................................................ Fresno—Drummond Street (06–019–0007) ........................................................................... Fresno—North First Street (06–019–0008) ............................................................................ Fresno—Sierra Skypark #2 (06–019–0242) ........................................................................... Parlier (06–019–4001) ............................................................................................................ KERN COUNTY: Arvin (06–029–5001) .............................................................................................................. Bakersfield (06–029–0014) .................................................................................................... Edison (06–029–0007) ........................................................................................................... Maricopa (06–029–0008) ....................................................................................................... Oildale (06–029–0232) ........................................................................................................... Shafter (06–029–6001) ........................................................................................................... KINGS COUNTY: Hanford/Corcoran a (06–031–1004/06–031–0004) ................................................................. Santa Rosa Rancheria (06–031–0500) .................................................................................. MADERA COUNTY: Madera (06–039–0004) .......................................................................................................... MERCED COUNTY: Merced (06–047–0003) .......................................................................................................... SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: Stockton (06–077–1002) ........................................................................................................ Tracy (06–077–3005) ............................................................................................................. STANISLAUS COUNTY: Modesto (06–099–0005) ........................................................................................................ Turlock (06–099–0006) .......................................................................................................... TULARE COUNTY: Sequoia National Park—Lower Kaweah (06–107–0006) ....................................................... Sequoia National Park—Sequoia and Kings Canyon Nat’l Park (06–107–0009) ................. Visalia (06–107–2002) ............................................................................................................ 2009 Expected exceedances 3-yr average 2010 2008–2010 8.3 0.0 7.1 2.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.4 1.1 3.8 0.0 3.0 1.5 1.0 14.3 1.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 1.0 6.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 1.0 a The data reflect the combined data from the Corcoran site (2008 and 2009) and the Hanford site (2010). The Hanford site was closed due to renovation during 2008 and 2009, and an ozone monitor was added to the Corcoran site to serve as a temporary replacement during the renovation. Source: Quicklook Report, May 19, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS It should be noted that CARB and SJVUAPCD have flagged certain ozone exceedances in years 2008 and 2010 as exceptional events,22 but because EPA has not yet concurred on, or determined to exclude, any of the flagged events, Table 2 includes the flagged data. Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in San Joaquin Valley occur in the central (i.e., in and around the city of Fresno) and the southern portions (i.e., southeast of Bakersfield) of the area. As shown in Table 2, the highest three-year average of expected 22 Under CAA section 319(b)(1)(A), the term ‘‘exceptional event’’ means an event that—(i) Affects air quality; (ii) is not reasonably controllable or preventable; (iii) is an event caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a natural event; and (iv) is determined by the Administrator through the process established in the regulations promulgated under paragraph (2) to be an exceptional event. Under CAA section 319(b)(1)(B), the term ‘‘exceptional event’’ does not include—(i) Stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions; (ii) a meteorological event involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation; or (iii) air pollution relating to source noncompliance. EPA’s regulations referred to in CAA section 309(b)(1)(A) were promulgated at 40 CFR 50.14. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 exceedances at any site in the San Joaquin Valley for 2008–2010 is 6.6 at Arvin, a site located with mountains to the east, west, and south. The calculated exceedance rate of 6.6 represents a violation of the one-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1). Even if EPA were to concur on all of the flagged exceedances and determine that they qualify for exclusion for the purpose of determining attainment, the calculated exceedance rate at Arvin would be 3.9, which still constitutes a violation of the standard. Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and summarized in Table 2, we propose to determine that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment date (i.e., November 15, 2010). PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 C. Southeast Desert One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area In the Southeast Desert, CARB is the agency responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) operates monitors in the Los Angeles County portion of the Southeast Desert; the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) operates monitors in the San Bernardino County portion of the Southeast Desert; and SCAQMD operate monitors in the Riverside County portion of the Southeast Desert. All three agencies submit annual monitoring network plans to EPA. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10. SCAQMD’s annual network plans and data certifications, as well as EPA’s TSA of SCAQMD’s ambient air monitoring program, are discussed above in connection with the South Coast Air Basin. With respect to the annual network plans submitted by AVAQMD E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 56700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules data submitted to AQS are qualityassured.24 There were nine ozone monitoring sites located throughout the Southeast Desert in calendar years 2005 through 2007: one in Los Angeles County, three in Riverside County, and five in San Bernardino County.25 All of the sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption monitors.26 AVAQMD operates the one monitor in Los Angeles County. SCAQMD operates two of the three monitors in Riverside County; the third monitor is operated by the and MDAQMD, we have reviewed these plans and found that they meet the applicable requirements for such plans.23 The TSA we conducted in 2007 of the CARB PQAO included a review of the network requirements in AVAQMD and MDAQMD. In the TSA, we concluded that the combined ambient air monitoring networks operated by CARB and the air districts currently meet or exceed the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone in the Southeast Desert. Also, AVAQMD and MDAQMD annually certify that the National Park Service at Joshua Tree National Park. MDAQMD operates four of the five sites in San Bernardino County; the fifth monitor is operated by the National Park Service at Joshua Tree National Park. Table 3 summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various monitoring sites in the Southeast Desert, showing the expected exceedances per year and as an average over the 2005– 2007 period. The data summarized in Table 3 are considered complete for the purposes of determining if the standard is met.27 TABLE 3—ONE-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SOUTHEAST DESERT ONE-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA Expected exceedances by year General location Site (AWS ID) 2005 Antelope Valley ............................................. Coachella Valley ........................................... Joshua Tree National Park ........................... Coachella Valley ........................................... Northern portion of SE Desert AQMA .......... SW portion of SE Desert AQMA .................. SW portion of SE Desert AQMA .................. SW portion of SE Desert AQMA .................. Joshua Tree National Park ........................... Lancaster (06–037–9033) .................................. Indio (06–065–2002) .......................................... Cottonwood Visitor Center (06–065–0008) ........ Palm Springs (06–065–5001) ............................. Barstow (06–071–0001) ..................................... Hesperia (06–071–4001) .................................... Phelan (06–071–0012) ....................................... Victorville (06–071–0306) ................................... Yucca Valley (06–071–9002) ............................. 2006 1.0 0.0 NA 4.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2007 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Expected exceedances 3-yr average 2005–2007 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 NA = No data is available. Source: Quicklook Report, May 11, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the Southeast Desert occur in the far southwestern portion of the area, near mountain passes through which pollutants are transported to the Southeast Desert from the South Coast Air Basin. As shown in Table 3, the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in the Southeast Desert for 2005–2007 is 2.3 at Palm Springs in Riverside County and Hesperia in San Bernardino County. The calculated exceedance rate of 2.3 represents a violation of the one-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1).28 Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and summarized in Table 3, we propose to determine that the Southeast Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment date (i.e., November 15, 2007). IV. What is the effect of the proposed determinations? A final determination of a Severe or Extreme area’s failure to attain by its one-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date would trigger the obligation to implement one-hour contingency measures for failure to attain under section 172(c)(9) and fee programs under sections 182(d)(3), 182(f), and 185. Section 172(c)(9) requires one-hour ozone SIPs, other than for ‘‘Marginal’’ areas, to provide for implementation of specific measures (referred to herein as ‘‘contingency measures’’) to be undertaken if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. The effect of the proposed determinations would be to give effect to any one-hour ozone contingency measures that are not already in effect within the three subject California nonattainment areas. Section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to include the provisions required under section 185, and section 185 requires one-hour ozone SIPs in areas classified as ‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ to provide that, if the area has failed to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date, each major stationary source of ozone precursors located in the area must begin paying a fee [computed in accordance with section 185(b)] to the State. Section 182(f) extends the section 185 requirements, among others, that apply to major stationary sources of VOCs to major stationary sources of NOX unless EPA has waived such 23 See, e.g., letter dated April 30, 2008 from Sean P. Hogan, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, MDAQMD. 24 See, e.g., letter dated June 27, 2007 from Chris Collins, A/Q Supervisor, MDAQMD, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2006 ambient air quality data in both MDAQMD and AVAQMD. 25 See figures 5 and 11 from CARB’s State and Local Air Monitoring Network Plan (June 2009) for illustrations of the locations of the ozone monitors within the Southeast Desert. 26 AVAQMD and MDAQMD operate Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors for ozone, specifically, Teledyne/API 400 series ultraviolet absorption monitors. 27 The criteria for data completeness are met at all of the ozone monitors in the Southeast Desert over the 2005–2007 period except for the ozone monitor at the Joshua Tree National Park (06–065–0008). Despite the lack of complete data from that one monitor, sufficient data from the network as a whole exist to support the proposed determination of failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date within the Southeast Desert. 28 A preliminary review of more recent data (2008–2010) for the Southeast Desert suggests that only one monitoring site (the site in Phelan, San Bernardino County) remains in violation of the onehour ozone standard with a calculated expected annual exceedance rate of 1.7. However, due to the four exceedances recorded in 2010, the soonest that the Phelan site could be determined to be attaining the one-hour ozone standard will be in 2014 (assuming such a determination is supported by 2011–2013 data). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules requirements for NOX sources in the particular nonattainment area. The three subject ozone nonattainment areas, the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert, lie within the jurisdictions of four California air districts: The SCAQMD, the SJVUAPCD, the AVAQMD, and the MDAQMD. Each of the four air districts has adopted rules intended to comply with sections 182(d)(3) and 185 of the Act and CARB has submitted them to EPA for approval into the SIP. EPA has taken action on one of the rules, SJVUAPCD Rule 3170. See 75 FR 1716 (January 13, 2010). Since then, SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 has been revised, and EPA has recently proposed approval of the amended rule. See 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011). EPA has not yet taken action on the rules developed by the other three districts (SCAQMD Rule 317, AVAQMD Rule 315, and MDAQMD Rule 315, all of which were submitted on April 22, 2011). Another effect of the proposed determinations of failure to attain the 1hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment dates would be to give effect to the section 185 requirements to the extent they are not already in effect within the three subject California nonattainment areas. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS V. Proposed Actions Under EPA’s authority under CAA section 301(a) to ensure implementation of one-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements, EPA is proposing to determine that the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment dates. For South Coast and San Joaquin Valley, quality-assured and certified data collected during 2008–2010 show that these two ‘‘Extreme’’ one-hour ozone nonattainment areas failed to attain the standard by November 15, 2010. For Southeast Desert, a ‘‘Severe17’’ one-hour ozone nonattainment area, quality-assured and certified data for 2005–2007 show that the area failed to attain the standard by November 15, 2007. These proposed determinations, if finalized, would bear on the areas’ obligations with respect to certain onehour standard anti-backsliding requirements whose implementation is triggered by a failure to attain by the applicable attainment date: section 172(c)(9) contingency measures for failure to attain and sections 182(d)(3) and 185 major stationary source fee programs. Through this proposed rule, EPA is soliciting comments on the above determinations. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews requirements, Volatile organic compounds. These actions propose to make determinations that certain areas did not attain the applicable standard based on air quality, and do not impose any requirements beyond those required by statute. For that reason, these proposed actions: • Are 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); • Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Are 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.); • Do 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); • Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Are 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 • Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed 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. 56701 Dated: September 1, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 [FR Doc. 2011–23544 Filed 9–13–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0604–201140; FRL– 9464–1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia: Atlanta; Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standards Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to make two determinations regarding the Atlanta, Georgia, fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Atlanta Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Area has attained the 1997 annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This proposed determination of attaining data is based upon complete, qualityassured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008–2010 period showing that the Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA finalizes this proposed determination of attaining data, the requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard shall be suspended so long as the Area continues to attain the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, EPA is also proposing to determine, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2007–2009 monitoring period, that the area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 14, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2010–0604, by one of the following methods: SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56694-56701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23544]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0638; FRL-9463-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
California; Determinations of Failure To Attain the One-Hour Ozone
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that three areas in
California, previously designated nonattainment for the one-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), did not attain that
standard by their applicable attainment dates: the Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin Area (``South Coast''), the San Joaquin Valley Area
(``San Joaquin Valley''), and the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality
Maintenance Area (``Southeast Desert''). These proposed determinations
are based on three years of quality-assured and certified ambient air
quality monitoring data for the period preceding the applicable
attainment deadline.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0638, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: Doris Lo at lo.doris@epa.gov.
3. Fax: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), at fax number 415-
947-3579.
4. Mail: Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California
94105.
5. Hand or Courier Delivery: Doris Lo, 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-
2011-0638. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless

[[Page 56695]]

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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The https://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 https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Office (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, 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: Doris Lo, (415) 972-3959, or by e-mail
at lo.doris@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 EPA's analysis?
A. South Coast One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
B. San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
C. Southeast Desert One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
IV. What is the effect of the proposed determinations?
V. Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

EPA is proposing to determine, under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act''), that three areas previously designated nonattainment for the
one-hour ozone NAAQS--the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the
Southeast Desert--failed to attain the NAAQS for one-hour ozone by
their applicable one-hour NAAQS attainment dates.

II. Background

Regulatory Context

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 one-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 one-hour ozone standard
if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR 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 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. Because, in this context, the term
``exceedances'' refers to days (during which the daily maximum
hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible
number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that was violating the one-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 one-
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. Two measures that are triggered if a Severe or Extreme area
fails to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date are
contingency measures [section 172(c)(9)] and a major stationary source
fee provision [sections 182(d)(3) and 185)] (``major source fee
program'' or ``section 185 fee program'').

Designations and Classifications

On November 6, 1991, EPA designated the South Coast \3\ as
``Extreme'' nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, with an
attainment date no later than November 15, 2010 (56 FR 56694). In its
November 6, 1991 final rule, EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley \4\
as ``Serious'' nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, but later
reclassified the valley as ``Severe'' (66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001),
and then as ``Extreme'' (69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004) for the one-hour
ozone standard, with the same attainment date (November 15, 2010) as
the South Coast. In its 1991 final rule, EPA designated the Southeast
Desert \5\ as ``Severe-17'' nonattainment for the one-hour ozone
standard, with an attainment date no later than November 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305).
\4\ San Joaquin Valley includes all of Fresno, Kings, Madera,
Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, as well as the
western half of Kern County (see 40 CFR 81.305).
\5\ The Southeast Desert covers the Victor Valley/Barstow region
in San Bernardino County, the Coachella Valley region in Riverside
County, and the Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County (see
40 CFR 81.305).

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

[[Page 56696]]

Outside of Indian country,\6\ the South Coast lies within the
jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). Similarly, with the exception of Indian country, San Joaquin
Valley lies within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD). Likewise, excluding Indian country, the Los
Angeles portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the Antelope Valley
Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), the San Bernardino County
portion of the Southeast Desert lies within the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District (MDAQMD), and the Riverside County portion
of the Southeast Desert lies within the SCAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under California law, each air district is responsible for adopting
and implementing stationary source rules, such as the fee program 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.

Transition From One-Hour Ozone Standard to Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective standard for ozone
based on an eight-hour average concentration (the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard). In 2004, EPA published the 1997 eight-hour ozone
designations and classifications and a rule governing certain facets of
implementation of the eight-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR
23858 and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April 30, 2004).
Although EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard (effective June
15, 2005), to comply with anti-backsliding requirements of the Act,
eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas remain subject to certain
requirements based on their one-hour ozone classification. Initially,
in our rules to address the transition from the one-hour to the eight-
hour ozone standard, EPA did not include contingency measures or the
section 185 fee program among the measures retained as one-hour ozone
anti-backsliding requirements.\7\ However, on December 23, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
determined that EPA should not have excluded these requirements from
its anti-backsliding requirements. South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) reh'g denied 489 F.3d
1245 (clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which
the court granted the petitions for review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, the Court vacated the provisions that excluded these
requirements. As a result, States must continue to meet the obligations
for one-hour ozone NAAQS contingency measures and, for Severe and
Extreme areas, major source fee programs. EPA has issued a proposed
rule that would remove the vacated provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(e), and
that addresses contingency measures for failure to attain or make
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the one-hour standard.
See 74 FR 2936, January 16, 2009 (proposed rule); 74 FR 7027, February
12, 2009 (notice of public hearing and extension of comment period).

Rationale for Today's Proposed Action

After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue
to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding
requirements. See SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. In keeping with
this responsibility with respect to one-hour anti-backsliding
contingency measures and section 185 fee programs for these three
California areas, EPA proposes to determine that each area failed to
attain the one-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date.

III. What is EPA's analysis?

A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the one-hour
ozone standard is generally based upon three years of complete,\8\
quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at
established 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Generally, a ``complete'' data set for determining
attainment of the ozone is one that includes three years of data
with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data greater
than 90% with no single year less than 75%. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I. There are less stringent data requirements for showing
that a monitor has failed an attainment test and thus has recorded a
violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.9, the one-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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The average number of expected exceedances is determined by
averaging the expected exceedances of the one-hour ozone standard
over a consecutive three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50
appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA proposes to determine that the South Coast, the San Joaquin
Valley, and the Southeast Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone
standard by their applicable attainment dates; that is, the number of
expected exceedances at sites in each of the three nonattainment areas
was greater than one per year in the period prior to the applicable
attainment date. These proposed determinations are based on three years
of quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data in
AQS for the 2008-2010 monitoring period for the South Coast and the San
Joaquin Valley, and quality-assured and certified data in AQS for 2005-
2007 for the Southeast Desert.

A. South Coast One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

In the South Coast, the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) is responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality
monitoring requirements. SCAQMD Annual Network Plans describe the air
monitoring network and discuss its status, as required under 40 CFR
58.10.
Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed 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.\10\ Furthermore,
we

[[Page 56697]]

concluded in our Technical System Audit of the SCAQMD network conducted
during April 2010, that the ambient air monitoring network operated by
SCAQMD network currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the
minimum number of SLAMS monitoring sites for all criteria pollutants,
and that all of the required ozone monitoring sites are properly
located with respect to monitoring objectives, spatial scales and other
site criteria, as required by 40 CFR part 58, appendix D.\11\ Also,
SCAQMD annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are quality-
assured.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See, e.g., letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Dr. Chung S. Liu,
Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement,
SCAQMD, dated November 1, 2010, approving SCAQMD's 2009 Annual Air
Quality Monitoring Network Plan.
\11\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division,
U.S. EPA Region IX, to Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, SCAQMD,
dated March 14, 2011, and enclosure titled, ``Technical System Audit
Report, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 13-April
16, 2010.''
\12\ See, e.g., letter from Chung S. Liu, Deputy Executive
Office, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying
2009 ozone data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were 29 ozone monitoring sites located throughout the South
Coast in calendar years 2008 through 2010: 13 within Los Angeles
County, four within Orange County, seven within Riverside County, and
five within San Bernardino County.\13\ All SCAQMD sites monitor ozone
concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption
monitors.\14\ SCAQMD administered 28 of the 29 sites, and one was
administered by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Table 1 summarizes
the ozone monitoring data from the various monitoring sites in the
South Coast Air Basin by showing the expected exceedances per year and
as an average over the 2008-2010 period. The data summarized in Table 1
are considered complete for the purposes of determining if the standard
is met.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See figure 1 in appendix A to SCAQMD's Annual Air Quality
Monitoring Network Plan (July 2010) for a map of SCAQMD's ozone
monitors in the South Coast.
\14\ SCAQMD operates federal equivalent method (FEM) monitors
for ozone, specifically, Thermo Electron model 49i and Teledyne/API
400 series ultraviolet absorption monitors. See SCAQMD's Annual Air
Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 2010). These monitoring
devices have an EPA designation number EQOA-0880-047 and EQOA-0992-
087, respectively. See EPA ``List of Designated Reference and
Equivalent Methods, page 27 (February 1, 2011), available on the
Internet at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
\15\ The criteria for data completeness are met at most of the
ozone monitors over the 2008-2010 period, but are not met for the
ozone monitors at certain stations over the 2008-2010 period:
Pomona, Morongo Reservation, Mira Loma (Jurupa High School), and
Fontana. However, with respect to these four monitors, the failure
to meet the completeness criteria does not bear on the question of
whether the data is complete for the purposes of this determination
because there are sufficient observed exceedances during the
relevant three-year period to establish that the standard was not
met by the applicable attainment date at those sites. See 40 CFR
part 50, appendix H, section 3, first paragraph.

Table 1--One-Hour Ozone Data for the South Coast One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected exceedances by Expected
year exceedances 3-
General location Site (AQS ID) ------------------------------ yr average
---------------
2008 2009 2010 2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES COUNTY:
East San Gabriel Valley....... Azusa (06-037-0002)........... 7.0 4.0 0.0 3.6
East San Fernando Valley...... Burbank (06-037-1002)......... 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7
South Central Los Angeles Lynwood/Compton (06-037-1301/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
County \a\. 06-037-1302).
East San Gabriel Valley....... Glendora (06-037-0016)........ 12.0 7.4 0.0 6.5
Southwest Coastal LA County... Los Angeles--LAX (06-037-5005) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Coastal LA County....... North Long Beach (06-037-4002) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Central Los Angeles........... Los Angeles-N. Main Street (06- 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3
037-1103).
West San Gabriel Valley....... Pasadena (06-037-2005)........ 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0
South San Gabriel Valley...... Pico Rivera (06-037-1602)..... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3
Pomona/Walnut Valley.......... Pomona (06-037-1701).......... 5.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
West San Fernando Valley...... Reseda (06-037-1201).......... 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3
Santa Clarita Valley.......... Santa Clarita (06-037-6012)... 8.1 5.1 1.1 4.8
Northwest Coastal LA County... West Los Angeles (06-037-0113) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3
ORANGE COUNTY:
Central Orange County......... Anaheim (06-059-0007)......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
North Coastal Orange County... Costa Mesa (06-059-1003)...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
North Orange County........... La Habra (06-059-5001)........ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saddleback Valley............. Mission Viejo (06-059-2022)... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Banning Airport............... Banning (06-065-0012)......... 10.0 1.0 0.0 3.7
Banning Airport \b\........... Morongo Reservation (06-065- 12.1 2.7 4.0 6.3
1016).
Lake Elsinore................. Lake Elsinore (06-065-9001)... 6.1 1.0 0.0 2.4
Mira Loma..................... Mira Loma--Jurupa High School 6.9 1.1 0.0 2.7
(06-065-0004).
Mira Loma..................... Mira Loma--Van Buren (06-065- 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.3
8005).
Perris Valley................. Perris (06-065-6001).......... 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.7
Metropolitan Riverside County. Rubidoux (06-065-8001)........ 8.0 0.0 1.0 3.0
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY:
Central San Bernardino Crestline (06-071-0005)....... 16.2 7.0 8.0 10.4
Mountains.
Central San Bernardino Valley. Fontana (06-071-2002)......... 8.1 3.0 2.8 4.6
East San Bernardino Valley.... Redlands (06-071-4003)........ 12.0 1.0 1.0 4.7
Central San Bernardino Valley. San Bernardino (06-071-9004).. 11.1 2.0 1.0 4.7
Northwest San Bernardino Upland (06-071-1004).......... 9.1 3.0 1.0 4.4
Valley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Data for year 2008 is from the Lynwood monitor, which was relocated to Compton in late 2008.
\b\ This site is run by the Morongo Tribe of Mission Indians on the Morongo Reservation. It is not part of the
SCAQMD monitoring network.
Source: Quicklook Report, June 16, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action).

[[Page 56698]]

Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the South Coast
occur in the northern and eastern portions of the area. As shown in
Table 1, the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any
site in the South Coast Air Basin for 2008-2010 is 10.4 (at Crestline,
a site located at 4,500 feet elevation in the San Bernardino
Mountains). The calculated exceedance rate of 10.4 represents a
violation of the one-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 50.9) and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour
Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, appendix H). Table 1 also shows that, while
the most frequent violations occur in the San Bernardino Mountains,
violations are widespread in eastern Riverside County and southwestern
San Bernardino County as well as the Santa Clarita and east San Gabriel
valleys in Los Angeles County.
Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable
ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and
summarized in Table 1, we propose to determine that the South Coast Air
Basin failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40
CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment date (i.e.,
November 15, 2010).

B. San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

In the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) are the agencies responsible for
assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. The
SLAMS network of ozone monitors in the valley includes monitors
operated by SJVUAPCD and monitors operated by CARB. SJVUAPCD submits
annual monitoring network plans to EPA. SJVUAPCD Network Plans describe
the various monitoring sites operated by SJVUAPCD as well as those
operated by CARB. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring
network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10. See SJVUAPCD's Air Monitoring
Network Plan, dated June 30, 2010.
As noted above for the South Coast, 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.\16\ Furthermore, we concluded in our Technical System Audit of the
CARB Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO),\17\ conducted
during summer 2007, that, with one exception, the combined ambient air
monitoring network operated by CARB and SJVUAPCD in the San Joaquin
Valley currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum
number of SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone. In our audit, we found that
our regulations required an additional ozone monitor in the Visalia-
Porterville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) to meet the minimum
SLAMS monitoring requirements. In response, SJVUAPCD opened an ozone
monitoring station in Porterville. The new station began reporting
ozone data in March 2010. CARB annually certifies that the data the
agency submits to AQS are quality-assured, including data collected by
CARB at monitoring sites in San Joaquin Valley.\18\ SJVUAPCD does the
same for monitors operated by the District.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See, e.g., letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Scott Nester,
Planning Director, SJVUAPCD, dated November 1, 2010, approving
SJVUAPCD's 2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan.
\17\ A primary quality assurance organization is responsible for
a group of monitoring stations for which data quality assessments
can be pooled. See 40 CFR 58.1. CARB is the lead PQAO for all the
air districts in the Sacramento Metro Area.
\18\ 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 2010 ambient air quality data and quality assurance
data, dated April 28, 2011.
\19\ See, e.g., letter from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/
Air Pollution Control Officer, letter to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying in part calendar year
2010 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, dated June
13, 2011. The District's 2010 partial certification dated June 13,
2011 covered ozone data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were 22 ozone monitoring sites located throughout the San
Joaquin Valley in calendar years 2008 through 2010: six within Kern
County, five within Fresno County, three within Tulare County, two
within Kings, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, and one each in
Madera and Merced counties.\20\ All of the sites monitor ozone
concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption
monitors. CARB or SJVUAPCD operate 19 of the 22 ozone monitoring sites;
the National Park Service operates two ozone monitoring sites in
Sequoia National Park in Tulare County; and the Tachi-Yokut Tribe
operates an ozone monitor at the Santa Rosa Rancheria in Kings County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See figure 1 in SJVUAPCD's Air Monitoring Network Plan
(June 30, 2010) for a map of the ozone monitors in the San Joaquin
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley by showing the expected
exceedances per year and as an average over the 2008-2010 period. The
data summarized in Table 2 are considered complete for the purposes of
determining if the standard is met.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The criteria for data completeness are met at most of the
ozone monitors over the 2008-2010 period, but are not met for the
ozone monitors at certain stations over the 2008-2010 period: Fresno
(Drummond Street), Clovis, Hanford/Corcoran, and Sequoia National
Park (06-017-0009). However, with respect to all of these monitors
except for Fresno (Drummond Street), the failure to meet the
completeness criteria does not bear on the question of whether the
data is complete for the purposes of this determination because
there are sufficient observed exceedances during the relevant three-
year period to establish that the standard was not met by the
applicable attainment date at those sites. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix H, section 3, first paragraph. Moreover, despite the lack
of complete data from Fresno (Drummond Street), sufficient data from
the network as a whole exist to support the proposed determination
of failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date within the San Joaquin Valley.

[[Page 56699]]

Table 2--One-Hour Ozone Data for the San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected exceedances by Expected
year exceedances 3-
Site (AQS ID) ------------------------------ yr average
---------------
2008 2009 2010 2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRESNO COUNTY:
Clovis (06-019-5001).......................................... 8.3 0.0 3.0 3.8
Fresno--Drummond Street (06-019-0007)......................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fresno--North First Street (06-019-0008)...................... 7.1 0.0 2.0 3.0
Fresno--Sierra Skypark 2 (06-019-0242)............... 2.1 0.0 2.4 1.5
Parlier (06-019-4001)......................................... 2.0 0.0 1.1 1.0
KERN COUNTY:
Arvin (06-029-5001)........................................... 14.3 3.1 2.4 6.6
Bakersfield (06-029-0014)..................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Edison (06-029-0007).......................................... 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.7
Maricopa (06-029-0008)........................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Oildale (06-029-0232)......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Shafter (06-029-6001)......................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
KINGS COUNTY:
Hanford/Corcoran \a\ (06-031-1004/06-031-0004)................ 4.4 0.0 2.7 2.4
Santa Rosa Rancheria (06-031-0500)............................ 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.7
MADERA COUNTY:
Madera (06-039-0004).......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MERCED COUNTY:
Merced (06-047-0003).......................................... 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.0
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY:
Stockton (06-077-1002)........................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tracy (06-077-3005)........................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
STANISLAUS COUNTY:
Modesto (06-099-0005)......................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Turlock (06-099-0006)......................................... 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.3
TULARE COUNTY:
Sequoia National Park--Lower Kaweah (06-107-0006)............. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Sequoia National Park--Sequoia and Kings Canyon Nat'l Park (06- 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.3
107-0009)....................................................
Visalia (06-107-2002)......................................... 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The data reflect the combined data from the Corcoran site (2008 and 2009) and the Hanford site (2010). The
Hanford site was closed due to renovation during 2008 and 2009, and an ozone monitor was added to the Corcoran
site to serve as a temporary replacement during the renovation.
Source: Quicklook Report, May 19, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action).

It should be noted that CARB and SJVUAPCD have flagged certain
ozone exceedances in years 2008 and 2010 as exceptional events,\22\ but
because EPA has not yet concurred on, or determined to exclude, any of
the flagged events, Table 2 includes the flagged data. Generally, the
highest ozone concentrations in San Joaquin Valley occur in the central
(i.e., in and around the city of Fresno) and the southern portions
(i.e., southeast of Bakersfield) of the area. As shown in Table 2, the
highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in the
San Joaquin Valley for 2008-2010 is 6.6 at Arvin, a site located with
mountains to the east, west, and south. The calculated exceedance rate
of 6.6 represents a violation of the one-hour ozone standard (a three-
year average of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1). Even if
EPA were to concur on all of the flagged exceedances and determine that
they qualify for exclusion for the purpose of determining attainment,
the calculated exceedance rate at Arvin would be 3.9, which still
constitutes a violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Under CAA section 319(b)(1)(A), the term ``exceptional
event'' means an event that--(i) Affects air quality; (ii) is not
reasonably controllable or preventable; (iii) is an event caused by
human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or
a natural event; and (iv) is determined by the Administrator through
the process established in the regulations promulgated under
paragraph (2) to be an exceptional event. Under CAA section
319(b)(1)(B), the term ``exceptional event'' does not include--(i)
Stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions; (ii) a
meteorological event involving high temperatures or lack of
precipitation; or (iii) air pollution relating to source
noncompliance. EPA's regulations referred to in CAA section
309(b)(1)(A) were promulgated at 40 CFR 50.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable
ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and
summarized in Table 2, we propose to determine that the San Joaquin
Valley failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40
CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment date (i.e.,
November 15, 2010).

C. Southeast Desert One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

In the Southeast Desert, CARB is the agency responsible for
assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. The
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) operates
monitors in the Los Angeles County portion of the Southeast Desert; the
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) operates
monitors in the San Bernardino County portion of the Southeast Desert;
and SCAQMD operate monitors in the Riverside County portion of the
Southeast Desert. All three agencies submit annual monitoring network
plans to EPA. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring
network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10.
SCAQMD's annual network plans and data certifications, as well as
EPA's TSA of SCAQMD's ambient air monitoring program, are discussed
above in connection with the South Coast Air Basin. With respect to the
annual network plans submitted by AVAQMD

[[Page 56700]]

and MDAQMD, we have reviewed these plans and found that they meet the
applicable requirements for such plans.\23\ The TSA we conducted in
2007 of the CARB PQAO included a review of the network requirements in
AVAQMD and MDAQMD. In the TSA, we concluded that the combined ambient
air monitoring networks operated by CARB and the air districts
currently meet or exceed the requirements for the minimum number of
SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone in the Southeast Desert. Also, AVAQMD
and MDAQMD annually certify that the data submitted to AQS are quality-
assured.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ See, e.g., letter dated April 30, 2008 from Sean P. Hogan,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Eldon
Heaston, Executive Director, MDAQMD.
\24\ See, e.g., letter dated June 27, 2007 from Chris Collins,
A/Q Supervisor, MDAQMD, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, certifying calendar year 2006 ambient air quality data in
both MDAQMD and AVAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were nine ozone monitoring sites located throughout the
Southeast Desert in calendar years 2005 through 2007: one in Los
Angeles County, three in Riverside County, and five in San Bernardino
County.\25\ All of the sites monitor ozone concentrations on a
continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption monitors.\26\ AVAQMD
operates the one monitor in Los Angeles County. SCAQMD operates two of
the three monitors in Riverside County; the third monitor is operated
by the National Park Service at Joshua Tree National Park. MDAQMD
operates four of the five sites in San Bernardino County; the fifth
monitor is operated by the National Park Service at Joshua Tree
National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See figures 5 and 11 from CARB's State and Local Air
Monitoring Network Plan (June 2009) for illustrations of the
locations of the ozone monitors within the Southeast Desert.
\26\ AVAQMD and MDAQMD operate Federal Equivalent Method (FEM)
monitors for ozone, specifically, Teledyne/API 400 series
ultraviolet absorption monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various
monitoring sites in the Southeast Desert, showing the expected
exceedances per year and as an average over the 2005-2007 period. The
data summarized in Table 3 are considered complete for the purposes of
determining if the standard is met.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The criteria for data completeness are met at all of the
ozone monitors in the Southeast Desert over the 2005-2007 period
except for the ozone monitor at the Joshua Tree National Park (06-
065-0008). Despite the lack of complete data from that one monitor,
sufficient data from the network as a whole exist to support the
proposed determination of failure to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date within the Southeast Desert.

Table 3--One-Hour Ozone Data for the Southeast Desert One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected exceedances by year Expected
------------------------------ exceedances 3-
General location Site (AWS ID) yr average
2005 2006 2007 ---------------
2005-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Valley..................... Lancaster (06-037-9033)..... 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0
Coachella Valley.................... Indio (06-065-2002)......... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Joshua Tree National Park........... Cottonwood Visitor Center NA 0.0 0.0 0.0
(06-065-0008).
Coachella Valley.................... Palm Springs (06-065-5001).. 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.3
Northern portion of SE Desert AQMA.. Barstow (06-071-0001)....... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SW portion of SE Desert AQMA........ Hesperia (06-071-4001)...... 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.3
SW portion of SE Desert AQMA........ Phelan (06-071-0012)........ 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.3
SW portion of SE Desert AQMA........ Victorville (06-071-0306)... 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Joshua Tree National Park........... Yucca Valley (06-071-9002).. 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = No data is available.
Source: Quicklook Report, May 11, 2011 (in the docket to this proposed action).

Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the Southeast Desert
occur in the far southwestern portion of the area, near mountain passes
through which pollutants are transported to the Southeast Desert from
the South Coast Air Basin. As shown in Table 3, the highest three-year
average of expected exceedances at any site in the Southeast Desert for
2005-2007 is 2.3 at Palm Springs in Riverside County and Hesperia in
San Bernardino County. The calculated exceedance rate of 2.3 represents
a violation of the one-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of
expected exceedances less than or equal to 1).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ A preliminary review of more recent data (2008-2010) for
the Southeast Desert suggests that only one monitoring site (the
site in Phelan, San Bernardino County) remains in violation of the
one-hour ozone standard with a calculated expected annual exceedance
rate of 1.7. However, due to the four exceedances recorded in 2010,
the soonest that the Phelan site could be determined to be attaining
the one-hour ozone standard will be in 2014 (assuming such a
determination is supported by 2011-2013 data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable
ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and
summarized in Table 3, we propose to determine that the Southeast
Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40
CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment date (i.e.,
November 15, 2007).

IV. What is the effect of the proposed determinations?

A final determination of a Severe or Extreme area's failure to
attain by its one-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date would trigger the
obligation to implement one-hour contingency measures for failure to
attain under section 172(c)(9) and fee programs under sections
182(d)(3), 182(f), and 185. Section 172(c)(9) requires one-hour ozone
SIPs, other than for ``Marginal'' areas, to provide for implementation
of specific measures (referred to herein as ``contingency measures'')
to be undertaken if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the
attainment date. The effect of the proposed determinations would be to
give effect to any one-hour ozone contingency measures that are not
already in effect within the three subject California nonattainment
areas.
Section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to include the provisions required
under section 185, and section 185 requires one-hour ozone SIPs in
areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme'' to provide that, if the
area has failed to attain the standard by the applicable attainment
date, each major stationary source of ozone precursors located in the
area must begin paying a fee [computed in accordance with section
185(b)] to the State. Section 182(f) extends the section 185
requirements, among others, that apply to major stationary sources of
VOCs to major stationary sources of NOX unless EPA has
waived such

[[Page 56701]]

requirements for NOX sources in the particular nonattainment
area.
The three subject ozone nonattainment areas, the South Coast, the
San Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert, lie within the
jurisdictions of four California air districts: The SCAQMD, the
SJVUAPCD, the AVAQMD, and the MDAQMD. Each of the four air districts
has adopted rules intended to comply with sections 182(d)(3) and 185 of
the Act and CARB has submitted them to EPA for approval into the SIP.
EPA has taken action on one of the rules, SJVUAPCD Rule 3170. See 75 FR
1716 (January 13, 2010). Since then, SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 has been
revised, and EPA has recently proposed approval of the amended rule.
See 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011). EPA has not yet taken action on the
rules developed by the other three districts (SCAQMD Rule 317, AVAQMD
Rule 315, and MDAQMD Rule 315, all of which were submitted on April 22,
2011). Another effect of the proposed determinations of failure to
attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment dates
would be to give effect to the section 185 requirements to the extent
they are not already in effect within the three subject California
nonattainment areas.

V. Proposed Actions

Under EPA's authority under CAA section 301(a) to ensure
implementation of one-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements, EPA is
proposing to determine that the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley,
and the Southeast Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard
by the applicable attainment dates. For South Coast and San Joaquin
Valley, quality-assured and certified data collected during 2008-2010
show that these two ``Extreme'' one-hour ozone nonattainment areas
failed to attain the standard by November 15, 2010. For Southeast
Desert, a ``Severe-17'' one-hour ozone nonattainment area, quality-
assured and certified data for 2005-2007 show that the area failed to
attain the standard by November 15, 2007.
These proposed determinations, if finalized, would bear on the
areas' obligations with respect to certain one-hour standard anti-
backsliding requirements whose implementation is triggered by a failure
to attain by the applicable attainment date: section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures for failure to attain and sections 182(d)(3) and
185 major stationary source fee programs. Through this proposed rule,
EPA is soliciting comments on the above determinations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

These actions propose to make determinations that certain areas did
not attain the applicable standard based on air quality, and do not
impose any requirements beyond those required by statute. For that
reason, these proposed actions:
Are 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);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are 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.);
Do 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);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are 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
Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: September 1, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-23544 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.