Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 26697-26722 [2016-09729]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
River within a shape bounded by the
following coordinates: 33°55′05″ N.,
078°00′04″ W.; 33°54′57″ N., 078°00′04″
W.; 33°54′56″ N., 078°00′54″ W.;
33°55′04″ N., 078°00′54″ W.; thence
back to the point of origin (NAD 83) in
Southport, North Carolina.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in 165.23 of this
part, entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, North Carolina or her designated
representatives.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
immediate vicinity of this safety zone
shall:
(i) If on scene proceed as directed by
any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that
is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3) The Captain of the Port, North
Carolina can be reached through the
Sector North Carolina Command Duty
Officer at Sector North Carolina in
Wilmington, North Carolina at
telephone number (910) 343–3882.
(4) The Coast Guard Representatives
enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF–FM marine band
radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced on May 07, 2016, from
9:30 a.m. through 11:30 a.m., unless
otherwise cancelled by the COTP.
Dated: April 19, 2016.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2016–10310 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0468; FRL–9945–17–
OAR]
Determinations of Attainment by the
Attainment Date, Extensions of the
Attainment Date, and Reclassification
of Several Areas for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action on
three separate and independent types of
determinations for each of the 36 areas
that are currently classified as
‘‘Marginal’’ for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
(NAAQS). First, the EPA is determining
that 17 areas attained the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015, based on
complete, quality-assured and certified
ozone monitoring data for 2012–2014.
Second, the EPA is granting 1-year
attainment date extensions for eight
areas on the basis that the requirements
for such extensions under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and the EPA’s implementing
regulations have been met. Third, the
EPA is determining that 11 areas failed
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of July 20,
2015, and thus are reclassified by
operation of law as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. States containing
any or any portion of these new
Moderate areas must submit State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that
meet the statutory and regulatory
requirements that apply to 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate by January 1, 2017.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 3,
2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established
docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–
0468 for this action. All documents in
the docket are listed on https://
www.regulation.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Cecil (Butch) Stackhouse or Mr. H. Lynn
Dail, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division,
Mail Code C539–01, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. Telephone Mr.
Stackhouse at (919) 541–5208 or Mr.
Dail at (919) 541–2363; or both at fax
number: (919) 541–5315; email
addresses: stackhouse.butch@epa.gov,
or dail.lynn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Actions
A. Determinations of Attainment
B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment
Dates
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and
Reclassification
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission
Deadline
E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination
and Proposed SIP Call for the 1997 8Hour Ozone NAAQS for the New York-
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26697
N. New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT)
Nonattainment Area
II. Final Actions
A. Determinations of Attainment
B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment
Dates
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and
Reclassification
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission
Deadline
E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination
and Final SIP Call for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS for the New York-N. New
Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT)
Nonattainment Area
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
L. Judicial Review
I. Proposed Actions
On August 27, 2015, the EPA
proposed to find that 17 Marginal areas
attained the 2008 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of July 20,
2015, based on complete, qualityassured and certified ozone monitoring
data for 2012–2014. See 80 FR 51992.
The EPA also proposed to find that eight
areas met the criteria, as provided in
CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.1107, to
qualify for a 1-year attainment date
extension for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
even though they did not attain the
NAAQS by the applicable deadline.
Finally, the EPA proposed to find that
11 areas failed to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable Marginal
attainment date and that they did not
qualify for a 1-year attainment date
extension. Under CAA section
181(b)(2)(A), if the EPA determines that
an area failed to attain a given NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date, the
area shall be reclassified to a higher
classification. In the EPA’s August 2015
proposal, the EPA specified those 11
areas would be reclassified to Moderate.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26698
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The reclassified areas must attain the
standard as expeditiously as practicable,
but in any event no later than July 20,
2018.
The EPA proposed two options for
establishing a deadline for states to
submit the SIP revisions required for
Moderate areas once their areas are
reclassified from Marginal. The first
option would have required state air
agencies to submit the required SIP
revisions as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the
beginning of the ozone season in 2017
for each respective area. The second
option would have required state air
agencies to submit the required SIP
revisions as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than January 1,
2017. After consideration of the
comments received on these proposed
options, the EPA is finalizing a due date
of no later than January 1, 2017, for all
Moderate area SIP requirements that
apply to newly reclassified areas.
A. Determinations of Attainment
In the proposal, the EPA evaluated
data from air quality monitors in the 36
areas classified as Marginal for the 2008
ozone NAAQS in order to determine
each area’s attainment status as of the
applicable attainment date of July 20,
2015. Seventeen of the 36
nonattainment areas’ monitoring sites
with valid data had a design value 1
equal to or less than 0.075 parts per
million (ppm) based on 2012–2014
monitoring period.2 Thus, the EPA
proposed to determine, in accordance
with section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA
and the EPA’s implementing regulations
at 40 CFR 51.1103, that the 17 areas
listed in the following Table 1 attained
the standard by the applicable
attainment date for Marginal areas for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
181(a)(5), including compliance with all
commitments and requirements in the
applicable implementation plan and
‘‘clean’’ data in the year preceding the
attainment year. In addition, for each of
these areas, at least one state with
TABLE 1—MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT jurisdiction over all or part of the area
AREAS THAT ATTAINED THE 2008 requested such an extension.
OZONE NAAQS BY THE JULY 20,
The EPA proposed that eight Marginal
2015, ATTAINMENT DATE
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS failed to attain the NAAQS by
2012–2014
2008 ozone NAAQS
July 20, 2015, but met the attainment
design value
nonattainment area
(ppm)
date extension criteria of CAA section
181(a)(5), as interpreted in 40 CFR
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,
51.1107. The EPA proposed to find that
PA .....................................
0.070
Baton Rouge, LA ..................
0.072 all implicated states were meeting the
Calaveras County, CA ..........
0.071 obligations and commitments of their
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC ..
0.073 applicable implementation plans, in
Chico (Butte County), CA .....
0.074 accordance with CAA section
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN ............
0.075 181(a)(5)(A), and that, per CAA section
Columbus, OH ......................
0.075
181(a)(5)(B) and the implementing
Dukes County, MA ...............
0.068
Jamestown, NY ....................
0.071 regulations, the 4th highest daily
Knoxville, TN ........................
0.067 maximum 8-hour average
Lancaster, PA .......................
0.071 concentrations for all monitors in each
Memphis, TN-MS-AR ...........
0.073 area were not greater than 0.075 ppm for
Reading, PA .........................
0.071 2014, the year preceding the attainment
San Francisco Bay Area, CA
0.072
year (see 40 CFR 51.1107). The EPA,
Seaford, DE ..........................
0.074
Tuscan Buttes, CA ...............
0.075 therefore, proposed to grant a 1-year
extension of the applicable Marginal
Upper Green River Basin
Area, WY ...........................
0.064 area attainment date from July 20, 2015,
to July 20, 2016, for the nonattainment
B. Extensions of Marginal Area
areas listed in Table 2.
Attainment Dates
Of the 36 Marginal nonattainment
areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, there
are eight areas for which the EPA
proposed to grant a 1-year attainment
date extension based on determinations
that these areas met the requirements for
an extension under CAA section
TABLE 2—MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS THAT QUALIFY FOR A 1-YEAR ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION FOR THE 2008
OZONE NAAQS
2012–2014
design value
(ppm)
2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH ....................................................................................................................................
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX .............................................................................................................................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE ............................................................................................
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA ..................................................................................................................................
San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA ...................................................................................................
Sheboygan County, WI ............................................................................................................................................
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL ................................................................................................................
Washington, DC-MD-VA ..........................................................................................................................................
1 Design value is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level
of the NAAQS. Design values for a site are the 3year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentrations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
2 These determinations were based upon 3 years
of complete, quality-assured and certified 2012–
2014 data, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
recorded in EPA’s Air Quality Statistics (AQS)
database. Some areas attained the standard earlier
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0.078
0.080
0.077
0.077
0.076
0.081
0.078
0.076
2014
4th highest
daily
maximum 8-hr
average (ppm)
0.075
0.072
0.074
0.071
0.073
0.072
0.072
0.069
with 2011, 2012 and 2013 data and maintained the
standard in 2014, i.e., Knoxville, TX attained the
standard with 2011–2013 ozone data and continued
to attain with 2012–2014 data.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain
and Reclassification
Lastly, the EPA proposed to
determine that 11 areas (listed in Table
3) failed to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015 and were not
eligible for a 1-year attainment date
extension. For each of these areas, the
4th highest daily maximum 8-hour
average for at least one monitor in each
area was greater than 0.075 ppm for
2014. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) provides
that a Marginal nonattainment area shall
be reclassified by operation of law upon
26699
a determination by the EPA that such
area failed to attain the relevant NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date. The
new classification proposed for each of
these 11 areas would be the next higher
classification of ‘‘Moderate’’ under the
CAA statutory scheme.3
TABLE 3—MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS TO BE RECLASSIFIED AS MODERATE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ATTAIN THE
2008 OZONE NAAQS BY THE JULY 20, 2015, ATTAINMENT DATE
2012–2014
design value
(ppm)
2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area
Atlanta, GA ..............................................................................................................................................................
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ...................................................................................................................................
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO .................................................................................................
Greater Connecticut, CT ..........................................................................................................................................
Imperial County, CA ................................................................................................................................................
Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA .............................................................................................................................
Mariposa County, CA ..............................................................................................................................................
Nevada County (Western part), CA ........................................................................................................................
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT .................................................................................................
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ ...................................................................................................................................................
San Diego County, CA ............................................................................................................................................
The EPA also proposed to apply the
Administrator’s discretion, per CAA
section 182(i), to adjust the statutory
deadlines for submitting required SIP
revisions for reclassified Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas. CAA section
182(i) requires that reclassified areas
meet the applicable plan submission
requirements ‘‘according to the
schedules prescribed in connection with
such requirements, except that the
Administrator may adjust any
applicable deadlines (other than
attainment dates) to the extent such
adjustment is necessary or appropriate
to assure consistency among the
required submissions.’’ Under the
Moderate area plan requirements of
CAA section 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1108, states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate are provided 3 years (or 36
months) from the date of designation to
submit a SIP revision complying with
the Moderate ozone nonattainment plan
requirements. For areas designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and originally classified as
Moderate, that deadline was July 20,
2015, a date that has already passed.
The EPA, therefore, interpreted CAA
section 182(i) as providing the authority
to adjust the applicable deadlines ‘‘as
necessary or appropriate to assure
consistency among the required
submissions’’ for the 11 reclassified
2008 Marginal ozone nonattainment
areas. The CAA neither provides
authority for the EPA to adjust the
deadline to provide the full 3 years from
the date of reclassification nor provides
that the EPA may adjust the attainment
date. In determining an appropriate
deadline for the states with jurisdiction
for these 11 reclassified nonattainment
areas to submit their Moderate area SIP
revisions, the EPA proposed two
options for deadlines. The first
proposed option would require that
states submit the required SIP revisions
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the beginning of the ozone
season in 2017 for each state. We
believed that this option would provide
states additional time that may be
needed to accomplish planning,
administrative and SIP revision
processes. Of the 11 areas proposed for
reclassification to Moderate, four areas
have ozone seasons that begin later than
January 1 (based on ozone monitoring
season changes finalized with the 2015
ozone NAAQS) 4 and this option would
provide 2 additional months past
January 2017 for those four areas. The
second proposed option would require
states submit the SIP revisions as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than January 1, 2017. We believed that
3 The 2012–2014 design values for the 11 areas
did not exceed 0.100 ppm, which is the threshold
for reclassifying an area to Serious per CAA section
181(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.1103.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision
Submission Deadline
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0.077
0.081
0.082
0.080
0.080
0.084
0.078
0.079
0.085
0.080
0.079
2014
4th highest
daily
maximum 8-hr
average
(ppm)
0.079
0.076
0.077
0.077
0.078
0.089
0.077
0.082
0.081
0.080
0.079
setting a single specific submittal date
would establish a consistent deadline
for all 11 nonattainment areas, similar to
the single uniform SIP submission
deadline that would have applied to all
areas if they had been initially classified
as Moderate. This option would provide
states with approximately 9 months
after these reclassifications are finalized
to develop complete SIP submissions
and it is the latest SIP submittal date
that would be compatible with the date
by when Moderate area reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) must be in place (i.e., begin no
later than January 1 of the 5th year after
the effective date of designation for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, which is, in this
case, January 1, 2017).
E. Rescission of Clean Data
Determination and Proposed SIP Call
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island
(NY-NJ-CT) Nonattainment Area
On June 18, 2012, the EPA issued a
clean data determination (CDD) for the
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area,
suspending the three states’ obligations
to submit attainment-related planning
requirements, including the obligation
to submit attainment demonstrations,
RACM and reasonable further progress
(RFP) plans, and contingency measures,
with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
4 See
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
Table D–3 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.
04MYR1
26700
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
standard. On May 15, 2014 (79 FR
27830), the EPA proposed to rescind the
CDD for the area based on the fact that
the area was no longer attaining the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the
EPA proposed a SIP Call for submittal
of a new ozone attainment
demonstration for the NY-NJ-CT area for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As an
alternative to submitting a new
attainment demonstration for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed to
permit the relevant states to respond to
the SIP Call by voluntarily requesting to
be reclassified to Moderate for the 2008
ozone standard (see CAA section
181(b)(3)) and to prepare SIP revisions
demonstrating how they would attain
the more stringent 2008 standard as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the Moderate area attainment date
in 2018. The EPA explained in the May
2014 proposal that, because the 2008
standard is more stringent than the 1997
standard, the area would necessarily
attain the 1997 standard once the area
adopted a control strategy designed to
achieve the tighter standard. Moreover,
where state planning resources were
constrained, those resources were better
used focused on attaining the more
stringent standard.
In the agency’s August 27, 2015,
proposal regarding determinations of
attainment of the 2008 Marginal ozone
areas, the EPA discussed how its
proposed actions affected the May 2014
proposed options for responding to a
SIP Call for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, the proposed
option to permit the relevant states to
respond to the final SIP Call by
requesting reclassification to Moderate
for the 2008 ozone standard [see CAA
section 181(b)(3)] would consequently
require that the states submit SIPs
demonstrating how they would attain
the more stringent 2008 standard as
expeditiously as practicable. We
explicitly noted in the August 2015
proposal that, if we were to finalize the
determination that the NY-NJ-CT area
failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the Marginal area attainment date,
the area would be reclassified by
operation of law, and thus effectively
eliminating the need for the three states
to voluntarily request reclassification.
The area would then be subject to
Moderate nonattainment area planning
requirements, and the subsequent
submission of Moderate area attainment
plans for the 2008 ozone standard
would necessarily satisfy a final SIP Call
for the NY-NJ-CT area on the 1997
ozone standard, because an approvable
plan would demonstrate attainment of a
more stringent NAAQS. We also noted
that either of the proposed 2008 ozone
attainment plan due dates would meet
the statutory timeframe for the SIP
revision due subsequent to a SIP Call for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the area.
II. Final Actions
The publication of the EPA’s
proposed rule on August 27, 2015, (80
FR 51992) started a public comment
period that ended on September 28,
2015.5 The comments received during
this period may be found in the
electronic docket for this action. A
majority of commenters supported the
EPA’s actions as proposed to determine
that certain areas attained the 2008
ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, to provide 1-year
attainment date extensions to the
identified areas, and to reclassify to
Moderate the non-attaining areas that do
not qualify for an attainment date
extension. Additional significant
comments pertinent to each proposed
action are addressed in the following
appropriate sections. Included in the
docket for this action is a full summary
of significant comments received on the
EPA’s proposal and our responses to
those comments. To access comments
and the Response to Comment
document, please go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0468,
or contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
TABLE 4—2008 OZONE MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREA FINAL ACTION SUMMARY
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Nonattainment area
Determination
of attainment
by the
attainment
date
Determination
of failure to
attain by the
attainment
date
Extension of
the marginal
area attainment date to
July 20, 2016
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA ................................................................................................
Atlanta, GA ..................................................................................................................................
Baton Rouge, LA .........................................................................................................................
Calaveras County, CA .................................................................................................................
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC a .......................................................................................................
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI .......................................................................................................
Chico (Butte County), CA ............................................................................................................
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN ...................................................................................................................
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH ........................................................................................................
Columbus, OH .............................................................................................................................
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO .....................................................................
Dukes County, MA .......................................................................................................................
Greater Connecticut, CT ..............................................................................................................
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX .................................................................................................
Imperial County, CA ....................................................................................................................
Jamestown, NY ............................................................................................................................
Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA .................................................................................................
Knoxville, TN b .............................................................................................................................
Lancaster, PA ..............................................................................................................................
Mariposa County, CA ..................................................................................................................
Memphis, TN-MS-AR c .................................................................................................................
Nevada County (Western part), CA ............................................................................................
New York, N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ....................................................................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE ................................................................
X
........................
X
X
X
........................
X
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
X
X
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
........................
X
........................
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
5 The EPA offered to hold a public hearing on the
proposed actions, but no one requested such a
hearing.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
26701
TABLE 4—2008 OZONE MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AREA FINAL ACTION SUMMARY—Continued
Nonattainment area
Determination
of attainment
by the
attainment
date
Determination
of failure to
attain by the
attainment
date
Extension of
the marginal
area attainment date to
July 20, 2016
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ .......................................................................................................................
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA ......................................................................................................
Reading, PA .................................................................................................................................
San Diego County, CA ................................................................................................................
San Francisco Bay Area, CA ......................................................................................................
San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA .......................................................................
Seaford, DE .................................................................................................................................
Sheboygan County, WI ................................................................................................................
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL ....................................................................................
Tuscan Buttes, CA .......................................................................................................................
Upper Green River Basin Area, WY ...........................................................................................
Washington, DC-MD-VA ..............................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
........................
X
........................
X
........................
........................
X
X
........................
X
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
X
X
........................
........................
X
a On July 28, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC, nonattainment area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective August 27, 2015. See 80 FR 44873. On December 11, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the
South Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective January 11, 2016.
See 80 FR 76865. The EPA is herein determining that this area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in order to
satisfy the agency’s obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).
b On July 13, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the Knoxville, TN, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective
August 12, 2015. See 80 FR 39970. Given that this area was still designated nonattainment as of July 20, 2015, the EPA is herein determining
that this area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in order to satisfy the agency’s obligation under CAA section
181(b)(2)(A).
c On February 10, 2016, the EPA proposed to redesignate to attainment the Arkansas portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR, nonattainment area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7046. On February 11, 2016, the EPA proposed to redesignate to attainment the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7269.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Determinations of Attainment
Pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 51.1103, the EPA is
making a final determination that the 17
Marginal nonattainment areas listed in
Table 1 attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date of July
20, 2105. We received no adverse
comments on this proposal.
Once effective, this action satisfies the
EPA’s obligation pursuant to CAA
section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based
on an area’s air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard by that date. The
effect of a final determination of
attainment by the area’s attainment date
is to discharge the EPA’s obligation
under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), and to
establish that, in accordance with CAA
section 181(b)(2)(A), the areas will not
be reclassified for failure to attain by the
applicable attainment date. These
determinations of attainment do not
constitute a redesignation to attainment.
Redesignations require states to meet a
number of additional statutory criteria,
including the EPA approval of a state
plan demonstrating maintenance of the
air quality standard for 10 years after
redesignation. As for all NAAQS, the
EPA is committed to working with
states that choose to submit
redesignation requests for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
B. Extensions of Marginal Area
Attainment Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5), the
EPA is making a final determination to
grant 1-year attainment date extensions
of the applicable attainment date from
July 20, 2015, to July 20, 2016, for the
8 Marginal nonattainment areas listed in
Table 2. The EPA received a number of
comments on its proposal to extend the
Marginal area attainment dates for the
areas listed in Table 2. We summarize
and respond to some of the key
comments. The docket for this action
contains a more detailed Response to
Comment document.
Comment: One commenter claimed
that the EPA’s proposed 1-year
extension of the attainment date for the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-MD-DE area is unlawful and
arbitrary because the state of Delaware
did not request an extension of the
attainment date. The commenter argued
that granting an attainment date
extension to a multi-state area when all
states have not requested the extension
is inconsistent with the EPA’s failure to
grant the state of New York’s most
recent voluntary reclassification request
with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.6 The commenter stated that
there, the EPA refused to grant New
York’s request because the agency’s
6 Letter from Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner,
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, addressed to the EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson. June 20, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
position was that voluntarily
reclassifying the area required all states
with jurisdiction over the multi-state
area to request the reclassification. The
commenter noted that in that case the
EPA interpreted CAA section 182(j)(1)
‘‘to require coordination and unanimity
among the affected states,’’ and the
commenter stated that the provision
‘‘seemingly has equal bearing’’ on a
request to extend the attainment date.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter that a request for voluntary
reclassification under CAA section
181(b)(3) and a request for an extension
of the attainment date under CAA
section 181(a)(5) both require
‘‘unanimity’’ among the affected states.
The EPA also does not agree that
granting an extension of the attainment
date to all states with jurisdiction over
the Philadelphia multi-state
nonattainment area is inconsistent with
its prior reading of CAA section
182(j)(1).
The statutory provisions governing
voluntary reclassifications and requests
for 1-year attainment date extensions
differ in key respects regarding the
question of whether all states in a
nonattainment area need to request the
action before the EPA may grant such
requests. CAA section 181(b)(3), which
governs voluntary reclassifications,
states that ‘‘the Administrator shall
grant the request of any State to
reclassify a nonattainment area in that
State [in accordance with the area’s
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26702
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
design value] to a higher classification’’
(emphasis added). The EPA reads that
provision, and specifically the words
‘‘in that state,’’ to mean that although
any state may request a reclassification,
it can only do so on behalf of its own
state. The same limiting phrase does not
appear in the statutory provision
governing 1-year attainment date
extensions. That provision, CAA section
181(a)(5), states, ‘‘Upon application by
any State, the Administrator may extend
for 1 additional year’’ the attainment
date, provided that the state has
complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in
its applicable implementation plan and
the area meets certain air quality
criteria. Because the statute grants the
EPA the discretion to extend an
attainment date ‘‘upon application by
any State’’ and establishes limiting
conditions that can be demonstrated as
satisfied by either a state or by the EPA,
CAA section 181(a)(5) by its terms does
not require the consent of every state
within a multi-state nonattainment area.
The EPA does, however, interpret that
provision as requiring all states with
jurisdiction over the nonattainment area
to substantively meet the two statutory
conditions, although we note that the
provision does not specify who must
make the demonstration that the
conditions have been met.
Interpreting these two provisions to
permit differing thresholds of state
‘‘unanimity’’ is particularly reasonable
given the consequence of the EPA’s
action in each case. In extending an
attainment date, the EPA imposes no
additional obligation upon any state, but
rather grants areas that are close to
achieving the air quality standard 1
additional year to come into
compliance, provided that the states
governing that area meet certain criteria.
A voluntary reclassification, on the
other hand, can impose significant new
attainment planning and emission
reduction obligations. Had Congress
intended to allow one state to request a
reclassification on behalf of another
state, and, therefore, to impose upon
another state, without that state’s
consent, all of the resource-intensive
consequences potentially associated
with that action, it could have clearly
stated so.
The EPA further disagrees with the
commenter that its prior interpretation
of CAA section 182(j)(1)—requiring all
states in a multi-state ozone
nonattainment area to agree to a
voluntary reclassification—is
inconsistent with not requiring such
consensus in the case of an attainment
date extension. CAA section 182(j)(1)(A)
directs states to ‘‘take all reasonable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
steps to coordinate, substantively and
procedurally, the revisions and
implementation of [SIPs] applicable to
the nonattainment area concerned.’’
This provision on its face does not
apply to an attainment date extension
under CAA section 181(a)(5). Extending
the attainment date by 1 year does not
change an area’s SIP submission
requirements. Therefore, CAA section
182(j)(1)(A)’s directive to states
governing a multi-state area to
coordinate SIP submissions plainly does
not have bearing on a provision that
does not alter or affect SIP submissions.
By contrast, as the EPA has stated, the
coordination required by CAA section
182(j)(1)(A) is relevant to a voluntary
reclassification, which establishes upon
the states with jurisdiction over the
nonattainment area new obligations to
prepare and submit revisions to SIPs.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the states of Delaware and New Jersey
did not make any claim or
demonstration that they have complied
with all requirements and commitments
in the SIP, and, therefore, granting an
extension to the multi-state area is not
warranted. The commenter alleged that
the EPA implied that an analysis of
Delaware’s compliance with the CAA
section 181(a)(5)(A) criteria was
conducted but that the EPA failed to
provide any evidence or showing that
Delaware did in fact comply with all
requirements and commitments in the
applicable implementation plan
pertaining to the Philadelphia
nonattainment area.
Response: Given the state and federal
partnership in implementing the CAA,
it is not unreasonable for the EPA to
interpret CAA section 181(a)(5)(A), in
the absence of a state submitting a
certification of compliance, for the EPA
to exercise discretion and conduct an
independent review of the applicable
SIP in order to, in this case, determine
whether Delaware and New Jersey are in
compliance with the requirements and
commitments of the federally-approved
SIP. CAA section 302(q) defines
‘‘applicable implementation plan’’ as
the portion (or portions) of the
implementation plan, or most recent
revision thereof, which has been
approved under CAA section 110, or
promulgated under CAA section 110(c),
or promulgated or approved pursuant to
regulations promulgated under CAA
section 201(d) and which implements
the relevant requirements of the CAA.
The Act does not specify what type of
review is required in order for the states
or the EPA to demonstrate that the
condition under CAA section
181(a)(5)(A) has been met; therefore, the
EPA reasonably interprets the condition
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to require a review of the relevant,
applicable approved implementation
plan provisions, and an application of
its own knowledge and expertise with
regard to whether the state is meeting
those obligations, including a review of
whether the agency or outside parties
has identified state noncompliance with
the obligations. Therefore, in proposing
to grant a 1-year extension of the
attainment date for the Philadelphia
area, and in conjunction with EPA
Headquarters, the EPA Regional Offices,
which have particular expertise and
knowledge of the contents and
implementation of SIPs, conducted
reviews of whether Delaware and New
Jersey are in compliance with their
applicable implementation plans.
The EPA reviewed New Jersey’s
applicable ozone implementation plan
found at 40 CFR 52.1570 and the most
recent actions related to New Jersey’s
applicable ozone implementation plan,
which include the following EPA
approvals: 74 FR 22837—‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation plans,
New Jersey Reasonable Further Progress
Plans, Reasonable Available Control
Technology, Reasonably Available
Control Measures and Conformity
Budgets’’; 75 FR 45483—‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Implementation Plan Revision; State of
New Jersey’’; and 75 FR 80340—
‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 8hour Ozone Control Measure.’’ Since the
adoption of these measures, New Jersey
has also amended its SIP to adopt and
implement additional emission
reductions as part of its SIPs to reduce
regional haze and to meet the NAAQS
for fine particles. The EPA has reviewed
the contents of New Jersey’s applicable
SIPs and notes that there are no pending
enforcement actions by the EPA or
outside parties alleging that New Jersey
has failed to implement its applicable
plan.
Similarly, the EPA reviewed
Delaware’s applicable ozone
implementation plan found at 40 CFR
52.420. In our August 2015 proposal, we
noted a recent proposal to disapprove a
revision to Delaware’s New Source
Review (NSR) preconstruction
permitting program regulation, see 80
FR 30015 (May 26, 2015). Despite this
proposed disapproval of a SIP revision,
we did not believe this proposal to
disapprove a SIP revision was a bar to
the EPA granting a 1-year attainment
date extension for the Philadelphia area
because there is an underlying approved
nonattainment NSR SIP. The EPA has
examined its own internal database of
the notices required under 40 CFR
51.161(a), (b) and (d) (relating to a
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
notice providing for public and the EPA
comment on permit applications) and
information posted by the state of
Delaware. For the period after
September 11, 2013 (the date on which
Delaware’s newly expanded offset area
provisions under state law were
effective), the EPA has identified no
permits which triggered the requirement
for lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) and offsets under Delaware’s
Regulation 1125 relating to ozone
precursors of volatile organic
compounds and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
The EPA found that Delaware had
undertaken a number of permitting
actions since September 11, 2013, but
none of these were subject to sections
2.5.5 and 2.5.6 of Delaware’s Regulation
1125. The EPA also did not find any
incidences of enforcement actions by
the agency or outside parties alleging
that Delaware is not meeting its SIP
obligations.
Moreover, the commenter has not
presented any evidence or made any
demonstration that suggests either New
Jersey or Delaware is not in compliance
with their applicable SIP and is, thus,
unqualified to receive an attainment
date extension. Based on its review of
the states’ applicable implementation
plans and its knowledge and expertise
of state actions with regard to those
plans, the EPA is making a final
determination that both New Jersey and
Delaware are meeting the conditional
requirement of CAA section
181(a)(5)(A).
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA deny Wisconsin’s request
for a 1-year extension to their
attainment year for the Sheboygan
County Marginal ozone nonattainment
area. The commenter argued that 2015
preliminary air quality monitoring data
for the Sheboygan area indicates that the
area will not attain the standard in 2016,
and, moreover, that the data also will
not support a second 1-year extension of
the attainment date for the Sheboygan
area. The commenter maintained that
even if a state meets the two conditions
provided in CAA section 181(a)(5), the
EPA retains the discretion to deny a
request for a 1-year extension, and the
commenter urged that the EPA should
exercise its discretion in this case. In
support, the commenter provided a
citation to a 1994 EPA memo (Berry
Memorandum) 7 that cautions states to
consider whether an attainment date
extension will ultimately be helpful if
the area is not likely to attain the
7 See memorandum signed by D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division,
‘‘Procedures for Processing Bump Ups and
Extension Requests for Marginal Ozone
Nonattainment Areas.’’ U.S. EPA, February 3, 1994.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
NAAQS by the extended attainment
date. The commenter further pointed
out that Wisconsin has an ‘‘inflexible
and lengthy process for rulemaking,’’
which could further hinder the state’s
ability to meet the attainment date in
the future, if the state delays planning
and implementing additional control
measures now. The commenter also
pointed out that the Sheboygan area has
not made considerable progress towards
attaining the standard, and that the area
backslid into nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2012 and
2013. The commenter suggested that,
rather than granting a 1-year extension
of the attainment date, the EPA should
determine that the Sheboygan area
failed to meet its Marginal area
attainment date of July 20, 2015, and,
therefore, the EPA should reclassify the
area to Moderate, which will allow the
state of Wisconsin adequate time to
achieve emissions reductions to meet
the new attainment date for a Moderate
area.
Response: CAA section 181(a)(5) of
the CAA, as interpreted by the EPA in
40 CFR 51.1107, authorizes the EPA to
grant a 1-year attainment date extension
upon application by a state if: (1) The
state has complied with all
requirements and commitments in the
applicable SIP, and (2) all monitors in
the area have a fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average of 0.075 ppm
or less for the last full year of air quality
data prior to the attainment date (i.e.,
2014 for an attainment date of July 20,
2015). Here, Wisconsin has clearly met
both of the conditions for the Sheboygan
area. Wisconsin submitted a request to
the EPA for a 1-year extension of the
attainment date for the Sheboygan area,
certifying that Wisconsin had complied
with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the applicable
implementation plan and that all
monitors in the area have a fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average
of 0.075 ppm or less for 2014, the most
recent complete year of quality-assured
and certified data preceding the July 20,
2015, attainment date.8 The EPA has
also evaluated the quality-assured and
certified air quality monitoring data for
2014 and determined that Sheboygan
met the air quality requirements of CAA
section 181(a)(5)(B) and 40 CFR
8 See letter signed by Bart Sponseller, Deputy
Division Administrator, Air, Waste and
Remediation & Redevelopment Division, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources addressed to Ms.
Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA
Region 5. RE: Request for 1-year extension to the
attainment date for the Sheboygan, WI
nonattainment area, May 12, 2015. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2015–0468–0022 at https://
www.regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26703
51.1107. Although the EPA agrees with
the commenter that the Administrator
retains the discretion to deny a state’s
request for an attainment date extension
even if the state has met both criteria in
CAA section 181(a)(5), the agency is
declining to exercise that discretion
here. The commenter relies primarily
upon preliminary air quality data for
2015 that has not been quality assured
and certified to contend that the
Administrator should deny Wisconsin’s
request here.9 Given that the state meets
the extension criteria, the Administrator
is disinclined to deny the state’s request
based on preliminary data. Moreover,
the citation from the Berry
Memorandum that the commenter relies
upon is directed at cautioning states, in
deciding whether to request an
extension, to consider whether a 1-year
attainment date extension will be
helpful in achieving the NAAQS and is
not directed at the Administrator’s
decision to grant or deny such request.
The EPA does, however, agree with the
commenter that, given the air quality
trends and data presented by the
commenter, it would be prudent for the
state to begin preparing for the
possibility that the area may not attain
by the July 20, 2016, attainment date,
and also may fail to meet the
requirements to get an additional 1-year
attainment date extension. However, the
agency does not believe that those
possibilities are reason enough to deny
the state’s request for this first 1-year
attainment date extension, given that
Wisconsin has met the two statutory
criteria. Therefore, the EPA declines to
grant the commenter’s request to find
that the area failed to attain by July 20,
2015, and to subsequently reclassify the
area accordingly. The Sheboygan
nonattainment area will remain
classified as Marginal for the 2008
ozone NAAQS until the EPA (1)
determines, based on quality assured
and certified air quality data for 2013–
2015, that the area did not attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2016,
and does not qualify for an additional 1year extension10 and (2) reclassifies the
area based on this determination. We
expect Wisconsin to be taking the
necessary steps to achieve timely
attainment and will continue to work
with the state toward that end.
9 These data are subject to the EPA’s date
certification requirements of 40 CFR 58.15, which
require a state to submit its annual data certification
letter by May 1.
10 The area will qualify for a second 1-year
extension if, and only if, the average of annual
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations for 2014 and 2015 is at or below
0.075 ppm at all monitors in Sheboygan County.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26704
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: One commenter
maintained that, in evaluating whether
a state is in compliance with all
requirements and commitments
pertaining to an area pursuant to CAA
section 181(a)(5)(A), the EPA may not
rely on a letter from the state certifying
that the state is meeting this
requirement. The commenter argued
that there must be a factual and rational
basis for the agency to grant 1-year
extensions and that assertions by the
states that they are in compliance with
all requirements and commitments does
not provide a factual or rational basis
when there is no evidence that the
assertion was based on a systematic
review of compliance or
noncompliance.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion. CAA section
181(a)(5) does not specify who must
make the demonstration as to whether a
state is complying with all requirements
and commitments to the area in the
applicable implementation plan.
Nothing in the provision explicitly
prohibits the EPA from relying on
certified statements from state officials
that the requirement of CAA section
181(a)(5)(A) has been met, and nothing
in the provision supports the
commenter’s suggestion that the EPA is
independently required to perform a
‘‘systematic review of compliance or
noncompliance’’ of the state’s SIP
regardless of whether a state official has
made a certified statement to that effect
in order to grant an attainment date
extension. Given the state and federal
partnership in implementing the CAA,
it is not unreasonable for the EPA to
interpret CAA section 181(a)(5)(A) as
permitting the agency to rely upon the
certified statements of its state
counterparts, and the EPA has long
interpreted the provision to be satisfied
by such statements.11 In practice, in
conjunction with a request for an
extension, a state air agency’s Executive
Officer, or other senior individual with
equivalent responsibilities, signs and
affirms that their state is complying
with their applicable federally-approved
SIP. The commenter argues that the
certifications lack rational or factual
bases, but has not presented any
evidence or made any demonstration
that suggests any of the states receiving
an attainment date extension are not in
compliance with their SIPs. Absent such
a showing, the EPA is disinclined to
invalidate the certifications made by the
states.
11 See
Berry Memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain
and Reclassification
Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2),
the EPA is finalizing its proposed
determinations that the 11 Marginal
nonattainment areas listed in Table 3
have failed to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, upon
the effective date of this rule, these 11
Marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment
areas will be reclassified by operation of
law to Moderate for the 2008 ozone
standard. The EPA received a number of
adverse comments on its proposal to
find that certain Marginal
nonattainment areas failed to attain and
to reclassify those areas. We summarize
and respond to some of the key
comments later. The docket for this
action contains a more detailed
Response to Comments document.
Comment: A number of commenters,
while conceding that air quality
monitoring data factually required the
EPA to determine that an area failed to
attain by its attainment date, alleged
that certain nonattainment areas’ failure
to attain by the Marginal area attainment
date was due in large part to the
influence of transported emissions from
upwind states. These commenters
alleged that the EPA has not done
enough to enforce CAA section
110(a)(2)(D), which requires states to
eliminate emissions that significantly
contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other
states. One commenter further noted
that the EPA’s current strategy with
regard to ozone transport addresses only
the revoked 85 parts per billion (ppb)
standard, and that the EPA has no
strategy to reduce transport after 2017.
Response: The agency’s mandatory
duty to make determinations of
attainment or failure to attain the
NAAQS exists regardless of the nature
or effect of transported emissions on
monitored air quality data in a given
nonattainment area.12 Nonetheless, the
EPA readily acknowledges the role
interstate transport of precursors to
ozone pollution plays in the efforts of
downwind areas to attain and maintain
the NAAQS. To that end, as commenters
have alluded to, the agency has taken a
number of steps to fulfill its statutory
obligation to enforce CAA section
110(a)(2)(D), or the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provision, including the NOX SIP Call,
the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).
12 See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 160–62
(D.C. Cir. 2002) (holding that the EPA is not
permitted to relax mandatory statutory
requirements for downwind areas on the basis of
interstate transport).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
most recently, the EPA has proposed to
update CSAPR specifically to address
the 2008 ozone NAAQS with tightened
NOX budgets designed to achieve
emission reductions in upwind states
before the Moderate area attainment
date of July 2018.
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision
Submission Deadline
The EPA received a number of
comments on its two proposed options
for establishing the Moderate area SIP
due date that would apply to areas
newly reclassified under this final
action. After full consideration of those
comments and pursuant to CAA section
182(i), the EPA is finalizing that SIP
revisions required for the newly
reclassified Moderate areas must be
submitted as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than January 1,
2017. The EPA acknowledges that for
some states with Moderate
nonattainment areas reclassified from
Marginal, meeting this SIP submittal
deadline may be challenging. The EPA
is committed to working closely with
these states to help them prepare their
SIP revisions in a timely manner.
We summarize and provide responses
to the most significant comments on this
issue later; however, all comments
received on the proposed options and
the EPA’s responses are available in the
Response to Comment document
located in the docket for this final rule.
Comment: One commenter contended
that the EPA failed to provide a legal
basis for extending the SIP submittal
deadlines for Moderate nonattainment
areas. The commenter believed that the
EPA made no claim that the 2017 SIP
submittal deadlines are necessary or
appropriate to assure consistency among
the required submissions. The
commenter also believed that the EPA’s
proposed extension would interfere
with the attainment date and contravene
CAA section 110(l). The commenter
pointed out that if the EPA finalized the
SIP submission deadline to coincide
with the area’s beginning of the ozone
monitoring season, the consequence
would be that the EPA would have less
than 18 months to take action on state
SIP submittals, as late as July 2018,
which is very near the attainment date.
The commenter believed that would be
far too late for the EPA to require timely
corrections of SIPs that fail to satisfy the
requirements and fail to assure timely
attainment.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter on all aspects of these
comments. First, we believe that CAA
section 182(i) clearly provides the
Administrator the discretion to adjust
any applicable deadline for reclassified
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
areas (other than attainment dates) to
the extent such adjustment is necessary
or appropriate to assure consistency
among the required submissions.
The EPA disagrees with the
implication of the comment that the
default assumption upon
reclassification is that the EPA would
not adjust the Moderate area SIP
submission deadlines. The fact that
Congress included CAA section 182(i)
in the statute indicates that it
envisioned that upon reclassification,
deadlines would be adjusted by the
Administrator in a reasonable fashion.
This is a particularly reasonable
interpretation under the facts at issue
here: The attainment date for Marginal
areas under the statute and regulations
was July 20, 2015, and the Moderate
area SIP submission date for areas
initially classified as Moderate for the
2008 ozone NAAQS was also July 20,
2015. Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A),
the EPA must make determinations of
attainment and necessary
reclassifications within 6 months of the
statutory attainment date. Therefore,
under the commenter’s interpretation of
the CAA, upon reclassification 6 months
after July 20, 2015, states would
immediately be found to be in default of
the obligation to submit a Moderate area
plan, a deadline that had passed 6
months prior, even though that
obligation did not apply until the
moment of reclassification. We do not
agree that Congress would have
intended the draconian and absurd
result of providing states initial notice
of an obligation and in the same action
finding them at fault for already failing
to have met that obligation. Therefore,
the EPA believes that it is reasonable to
read CAA section 182(i) in the context
of the 11 reclassified 2008 Marginal
ozone areas to provide the
Administrator the authority to adjust the
applicable deadline for Moderate area
attainment plans ‘‘as necessary or
appropriate to assure consistency among
the required submissions.’’
Moreover, failing to establish new
Moderate area SIP submission deadlines
for the 11 areas that we are reclassifying
in this rulemaking would lead to
potential inconsistency in required
submissions among those areas. Under
the commenter’s interpretation, these
areas would all have missed their
deadline to submit a Moderate area plan
on July 20, 2015. The commenter
would, therefore, have the EPA begin
issuing findings of failure to submit
under CAA section 110(k), which are
required by statute 6 months following
the statutory deadline to submit a SIP,
simultaneously with this action, that is,
the EPA’s determination that the areas
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
failed to attain and reclassification of
those areas. Following the EPA’s
issuance of findings of failure to submit
for the 11 areas, there would be no
defined statutory or regulatory deadline
by which to remedy the states’ failures
to make submittals, except the outside
limit of 2 years, the deadline for EPA’s
obligation to implement a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP).
Additionally, if the EPA had not
affirmatively determined that a state had
made a complete SIP submittal for an
area within 18 months from the
issuance of a finding of failure to
submit, the offset sanction identified in
CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply to
the affected nonattainment area.
The EPA also disagrees with the
commenter that establishing a new SIP
submittal deadline for the reclassified
areas is in contravention of CAA section
110(l). CAA section 110(l) requires that
plan revisions must go through notice
and public hearing at the state level
before submission to the EPA, and that
‘‘the Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of this
chapter.’’ In order for the EPA’s
proposed SIP submittal date to be in
contravention of CAA section 110(l),
one has to assume that the states will
submit deficient SIPs and that the EPA
will not take any kind of corrective
action on those SIPs until after the
maximum possible time period
permitted under the statue to take action
on such submittals (18 months) has
passed. Only then could a SIP submittal
date of more than 18 months prior to the
attainment date be interpreted as
interfering with the attainment of the
NAAQS. The EPA does not believe this
is a reasonable reading of CAA section
110(l) or the circumstances of these
reclassifications and SIP deadline
adjustments. While the EPA
acknowledges that the timeline for
preparation and submittal of SIPs must
be compressed in order for measures to
be in place to ensure areas attain by
their new Moderate area attainment
date, in establishing the new SIP
submittal deadlines for these
reclassified areas, the agency is also
taking into account the time required for
states to identify measures, complete the
public notice and hearing process at the
state level, and prepare SIP
submissions.
Comment: Several commenters
supported the EPA’s proposed option to
align the deadline for SIP revisions with
the start of the respective nonattainment
area’s 2017 ozone season. They cited a
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26705
number of reasons this option was
preferred, including that more time
would be provided to states to
accomplish planning, administrative
and SIP revisions processes in order to
meet the deadline. They also cited that
this option would be consistent among
states in that they would need to submit
their SIP revisions by their respective
ozone seasons. However, another
commenter pointed out that finalizing
this option would result in SIP
submittal dates that would be varied
among the states and, therefore,
inconsistent. The same commenter also
stated that setting the SIP deadline for
the beginning of each area’s ozone
season would not be compatible with
ensuring implementation of RACT by
January 1, 2017, which is the deadline
established in 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3).
Response: As noted earlier, of the 11
areas being reclassified to Moderate,
there are only four areas located in
states with ozone seasons that begin
later than January 1 that could
potentially benefit from an extra 2
months to submit their SIP revisions.
While the EPA recognizes the value of
additional time (beyond January 1,
2017) to these states to develop an
attainment demonstration, an RFP plan,
and contingency measures, the EPA also
recognizes the value in establishing a
single due date for Moderate area SIP
submissions—including RACT—that
does not extend beyond the deadline for
implementing such controls. Thus, the
EPA is finalizing its second proposed
option, which requires that states
submit the required Moderate area SIP
revisions as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than January 1,
2017. This approach aligns the SIP
submittal deadline with the January 1,
2017, deadline for implementing RACT
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3), for
each area, and would also ensure that
SIPs requiring control measures needed
for attainment, including RACM, would
be submitted prior to when those
controls are required to be
implemented. This option also treats
states consistently, in keeping with CAA
section 182(i). The EPA recognizes the
challenges posed by these very short
deadlines and is committed to working
closely with all states to help them
prepare their SIP revisions, including
parallel processing, in a timely manner.
E. Rescission of Clean Data
Determination and Final SIP Call for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for the New
York-N. New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJCT) Nonattainment Area
This action finalizes the EPA’s
determination that the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area failed to attain the
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
26706
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
2008 standard by the Marginal area
attainment date of July 20, 2015, and
must be reclassified to Moderate by
operation of law in accordance with
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). In addition,
the EPA is also finalizing in this
rulemaking the proposed rescission of
its prior CDD for the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area with regard to the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as
the accompanying SIP Call proposed
with that rescission. As noted
previously, in the May 2014 proposal,
the EPA proposed that one way the
affected states could respond to the SIP
Call would be to voluntarily request a
reclassification under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and to submit a SIP that meets
the Moderate area requirements for that
standard.
By reclassifying the area by operation
of law, this final action effectively
eliminates the need for the three
affected states to request reclassification
under this option. However, as
explained in the agency’s August 27,
2015, proposal and reiterated later, the
EPA believes it is appropriate for the
three states involved to be able to meet
their obligations under the SIP Call for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS with their
Moderate area SIP submittal for the
2008 ozone standard. This final action
also supersedes the 18 months, which is
the maximum period allowed under
CAA section 110(k)(5), that EPA
proposed to provide the states of New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut from
the effective date of a final SIP Call to
develop and submit to the EPA the
relevant SIPs for the 1997 or 2008 ozone
NAAQS. As discussed previously, the
EPA is finalizing that the required SIP
revisions for these areas shall be
submitted as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than January 1,
2017. We also note that this deadline
meets the statutory timeframe for a SIP
revision under CAA section 110(k)(5).
The EPA did not receive adverse
comments on its August 27, 2015,
proposal to reclassify the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area to Moderate, nor did
the EPA receive comments about its
statement that submitting an attainment
plan for the 2008 ozone standard would
satisfy a final SIP Call on the 1997
ozone standard. We received a number
of comments on the May 15, 2014,
proposal (79 FR 27830) to rescind the
CDD for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area and the
accompanying SIP Call for attainment
plans. We summarize later some of the
significant comments submitted in
response to the May 15, 2014, proposal
and our responses. Additionally, we
have made available a more detailed
summary of comments and responses in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
a document titled, ‘‘Response to
Comments: Proposed Rule: Rescission of
Determination of Attainment and Call
for Attainment Plans for New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut for the 1997 8Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for the NY-NJ-CT
1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area,’’
which is available in the docket
associated with this rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter believed
that CAA section 110(k)(5) either
compels or provides the EPA the
authority necessary to expand the
proposed SIP Call to include any state
that is shown to significantly contribute
to the failure of the NY-NJ-CT area to
attain because these states have failed to
meet their obligations under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).13 The
commenter further believed that CAA
section 110(k)(5) allows the EPA to
issue a SIP Call to address states’ SIPs
that are inadequate in mitigating
transport as described in CAA sections
176A and 184. The commenter believed
that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
EPA v. EME Homer City (134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014)), compels the EPA to
immediately issue FIPs for upwind
states that have failed to take all
necessary steps to make it feasible for
any nonattainment area significantly
impacted by interstate air pollution to
attain and maintain both the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Finally, the
commenter noted that the ‘‘CSAPR
modeling shows that Connecticut
receives no more than a 0.2 ppb total
benefit from the CSAPR remedy, which
is entirely inadequate given the
overwhelming scope of transport.’’
Response: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states to
prohibit emissions that contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by any other
state with respect to primary and
secondary NAAQS. In the CSAPR
promulgated on August 8, 2011 (76 FR
48207), the EPA found that emissions of
sulfur dioxide and NOX in 27 eastern,
midwestern, and southern states
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in one or more downwind
states with respect to one or more of
three air quality standards—the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in
2006, and, as relevant here, the ozone
NAAQS promulgated in 1997.
For the 1997 ozone NAAQS
specifically, twenty states are required
13 The commenter refers to states’ interstate
transport obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), but the EPA understands these
citations to in fact refer to the good neighbor
provision, which is CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under CSAPR to reduce NOX emissions
during the ozone season (May through
September) because they contribute to
downwind states’ ozone pollution. The
emission reductions under CSAPR in
these upwind states will improve ozone
air quality in downwind states and help
them attain and maintain the 1997 8hour ozone standard.
The timing of CSAPR’s
implementation was initially affected by
litigation over the rule. On December
30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed the
effectiveness of CSAPR pending
resolution of judicial review. On August
21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated
CSAPR,14 but on April 29, 2014, the
U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion
reversing the D.C. Circuit’s 2012
decision and remanded the case to the
D.C. Circuit.15 Following the remand,
on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit
granted the EPA’s motion to lift the
CSAPR stay and toll the CSAPR
compliance deadlines by 3 years.
Accordingly, CSAPR Phase 1
implementation began on January 1,
2015, with Phase 2 beginning in 2017.
See CSAPR interim final rule at 81 FR
13275 (March 14, 2016). Subsequently,
the D.C. Circuit issued its final ruling as
to CSAPR, affirming it in most respects
but invalidating without vacating
several of the rule’s state-specific
budgets, including some of the rule’s
Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets.16
The EPA has since proposed a
rulemaking to update to the CSAPR
ozone-season NOX budgets in order to
address the more stringent 2008 ozone
NAAQS and to respond to the D.C.
Circuit’s remand of the Phase 2 ozoneseason NOX budgets.17 As proposed, the
CSAPR Update ozone-season NOX
budgets would be effective starting in
2017, effectively replacing CSAPR Phase
2.
The EPA disagrees with the
commenter that the Supreme Court’s
decision in EPA v. EME Homer City
compels the agency to issue new FIPs or
to expand the scope of the proposed SIP
Call to address the 1997 and 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS. The Supreme
Court did, however, confirm that the
EPA properly issued the CSAPR FIPs in
response to disapprovals of SIPs or
findings of failure to submit SIPs
implementing states’ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations with regard to the 1997
ozone NAAQS. Those FIPs took effect
and began implementation on January 1,
14 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Circuit 2012).
15 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134
S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
16 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118 (D.C. Circuit 2015).
17 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
2015 pursuant to the D.C. Circuit’s grant
of the EPA’s motion requesting lifting of
the stay, so we note that at the time the
NY-NJ-CT area fell back into
nonattainment of the 1997 standard, it
did not have the benefit of CSAPR
reductions. While the commenter points
out that modeling conducted for the
CSAPR rulemaking projected that the
remedy would provide ‘‘no more than a
0.2 ppb total benefit,’’ the same
modeling also predicted that those
reductions, once implemented, would
fully resolve nonattainment and
maintenance problems for the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the receptors
identified in the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area. For upwind states
that were linked only to receptors where
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance problems were fully
resolved under the remedy, the EPA
found that CSAPR quantified the full
reduction responsibility for the 1997
ozone NAAQS under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).18 Therefore, the EPA
could not expand the scope of the SIP
Call being issued on the basis that
upwind states had not fulfilled their
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations as to the
1997 ozone NAAQS when the EPA has
already issued a FIP that fully resolves
the obligations of those states with
respect to that standard.
The EPA also does not agree that it
would be appropriate in this action to
more broadly apply its 110(k)(5)
authority to include additional states in
this SIP Call to address interstate
pollutant transport as described in
sections 176A and 184 of the CAA. The
EPA acknowledges that a number of
states, including Connecticut and New
York, submitted a petition under CAA
section 176A requesting that the EPA
add additional states to the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) that was
established under section 184 of the
CAA. The EPA is reviewing that petition
separately and is not acting on that
petition in this action. In addition, the
EPA’s authority to require SIP revisions
under 110(k)(5) as they relate to
additional control measures required by
CAA section 184 applies to only states
that are currently part of the OTR.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Environmental Justice
Considerations
The CAA requires that states with
areas designated as nonattainment
submit to the Administrator the
appropriate SIP revisions and
implement specified control measures
18 See 76 FR 48210, Federal Implementation
Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals
(August 8, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
by certain dates applicable to the area’s
classification. By requiring additional
planning and implementation
requirements for the 11 nonattainment
areas that we determined failed to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS standard, the
part of this action reclassifying those 11
areas from Marginal to Moderate will
protect all those residing, working,
attending school, or otherwise present
in those areas regardless of minority or
economic status.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) because it makes determinations
if designated 2008 ozone nonattainment
areas are either attaining or failing to
attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date along with resulting
reclassifications or determination to
grant 1-year attainment date extensions.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This rule does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0695. This action to find that the
Marginal ozone nonattainment areas
listed in Table 3 failed to attain the 2008
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, to reclassify those areas as
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas,
and to adjust any applicable deadlines,
does not establish any new information
collection burden that has not already
been identified in the existing 2008
ozone NAAQS Information Collection
Request number 2347.01.
26707
that deadline, if based on the statute,
would otherwise be more stringent. In
this final action, the EPA is exercising
discretion under CAA section 182(i)
which allows the Administrator to
provide state air agencies additional
time to comply with those requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. No tribal areas are
implicated in the 11 areas that we are
finding to have failed to meet their
attainment date. The CAA and the
Tribal Authority Rule establish the
relationship of the federal government
and tribes in developing plans to attain
the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing
to modify that relationship. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. Determinations of
nonattainment and the resulting
reclassification of nonattainment areas
by operation of law under section
181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of
themselves create any new
requirements. Instead, this rulemaking
only makes a factual determination, and
does not directly regulate any entities.
This action also establishes the deadline
by which states will need to submit
revisions to their SIPs to address the
new Moderate area requirements, and
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because this action determines that 11
areas, identified in Table 3, did not
attain the 2008 ozone standard by their
applicable attainment date and to
reclassify these areas as Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas and to adjust
applicable deadlines.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26708
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. The results of this
evaluation are contained in the section
of the preamble titled ‘‘Environmental
Justice Considerations.’’
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA
because it is a rule of particular
applicability that names specific entities
where this rule makes factual
determinations and does directly
regulate any entities. The
determinations of attainment and failure
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and
resulting reclassifications), and the
determination to grant 1-year attainment
date extensions do not in themselves
create any new requirements beyond
what is mandated by the CAA.
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of final
actions that are locally and regionally
applicable may be filed only in the
United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit. However, the statute
also provides that notwithstanding that
general rule, ‘‘a petition for review of
any action . . . may be filed only in the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia if such action is
based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such
action the Administrator finds and
publishes that such action is based on
such a determination.’’ 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(1). See also Dalton Trucking v.
EPA, 808 F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2015).
Because this final action makes findings
with regard to nonattainment areas
across the country, interprets the CAA
and applies such interpretations to
states and nonattainment areas across
the country, and establishes SIP
deadlines for newly reclassified areas in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
different states in a consistent fashion,
the Administrator finds that this action
has nationwide scope and effect.
Therefore, in accordance with CAA
section 307(b)(1), petitions for review of
this final action may be filed only in the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by July 5,
2016. Note, under CAA section
307(b)(2), the requirements established
by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings for enforcement.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and
classifications, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and
classifications, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 11, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, parts 52 and 81, title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E—Arkansas
2. Add § 52.174 to read as follows:
Control strategy and regulations:
(a) The EPA has determined that the
Crittenden County Marginal 2008 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area attained the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015.
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart F—California
3. Section 52.282 is amended by
revising paragraphs (e) introductory text
and (e)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
(e) Determinations of attainment.
Effective June 3, 2016.
(1) Approval of applications for
extensions of applicable attainment
dates. Under section 181(a)(5) of the
Clean Air Act, the EPA is approving the
applications submitted by the California
Air Resources Board dated June 1, 2015,
referencing the District’s letter of May
19, 2015, for extensions of the
applicable attainment date for the San
Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo),
CA 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas from July 20, 2015 to July 20,
2016.
(2) Determinations of attainment. The
EPA has determined that the Calaveras
County, Chico (Butte County), San
Francisco Bay Area and Tuscan Buttes
2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
in California have attained the 2008 8hour ozone standard by the July 20,
2015 applicable attainment date, based
upon complete quality-assured data for
2012–2014. Therefore, the EPA has met
its obligation pursuant to CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the
area’s air quality data as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. As a result of
these determinations, the Calaveras
County, Chico (Butte County), San
Francisco Bay Area and Tuscan Buttes
2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas
in California will not be reclassified for
failure to attain by their July 20, 2015,
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 52.377 is amended by
adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
*
■
■
§ 52.174
Ozone.
Control strategy and regulations:
Subpart H—Connecticut
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
■
§ 52.282
Ozone.
§ 52.377
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(p) Rescission of clean data
determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016,
the EPA is determining that complete
quality-assured and certified ozone
monitoring data for 2012–2014 show the
NY-NJ-CT 1997 eight-hour ozone
nonattainment area did not meet 1997
eight-hour ozone standard. Therefore,
the EPA is rescinding the clean data
determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard only. The prior
determination (see paragraph k of this
section) is in accordance with 40 CFR
51.918. The prior determination
suspended the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the standard for
as long as this area continues to meet
the 1997 annual eight-hour ozone
NAAQS. This rescission of the clean
data determination will result in a SIP
Call for a new ozone attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable
further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the standard, for
this area only. If the revised plan is
approved by the EPA as demonstrating
reasonable further progress and
attainment for the more stringent 2008
NAAQS by the Moderate area
attainment date, and is approved by the
EPA as containing adequate contingency
measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then the
plan would be deemed to have also
satisfied requirements of the SIP Call
associated with violations for the 1997
NAAQS.
Subpart I—Delaware
7. Section 52.930 is amended by
adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.930
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Determination of attainment. The
EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016,
that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air
quality data, the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment
area has attained the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the
area’s air quality data as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Cincinnati, OH-KYIN nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart T—Louisiana
8. Section 52.977 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
■
5. Section 52.425 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 52.977
Ozone.
§ 52.425
*
■
Determinations of attainment.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The EPA has determined, as of
June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014
ambient air quality data, the Seaford, DE
2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment
area has attained the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA
has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area’s air quality data as of
the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Seaford
nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart P—Indiana
6. Section 52.777 is amended by
adding paragraph (tt) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.777 Control strategy: photochemical
oxidants (hydrocarbons).
*
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 52.1273
Subpart S—Kentucky
*
*
*
*
(tt) Determination of attainment. As
required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the
Clean Air Act, the EPA has determined
that the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Marginal
2008 ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of July 20,
2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
Control strategy and regulations:
*
*
*
*
(f) The EPA has determined that the
Baton Rouge Marginal 2008 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area attained the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
9. Section 52.1129 is amended by
adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1129
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Determination of attainment for
the eight-hour ozone standard. Effective
June 3, 2016, the EPA is determining
that complete quality-assured and
certified ozone monitoring data for 2012
to 2014 show the Dukes County,
Massachusetts eight-hour ozone
nonattainment area attained the 2008
eight-hour ozone standard by its July 20,
2015 attainment deadline. Therefore,
the EPA has met the requirement
pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to
determine, based on the area’s air
quality data as of the attainment date,
whether the area attained the standard.
The EPA also determined that the Dukes
County nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart Z—Mississippi
■
10. Add § 52.1273 to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26709
Control strategy: Ozone.
(a) Determination of attainment. The
EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016,
that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air
quality data, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR
2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment
area has attained the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the
area’s air quality data as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Memphis, TN-MSAR nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart FF—New Jersey
§ 52.1576
[Amended]
11. Section 52.1576 is amended by
remove paragraph (d).
■ 12. Section 52.1582 is amended by
adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1582 Control strategy and
regulations: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(p) Rescission of clean data
determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016,
the EPA is determining that complete
quality-assured and certified ozone
monitoring data for 2012–2014 show the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT 1997 eight-hour ozone
nonattainment area did not meet 1997
eight-hour ozone standard. Therefore,
the EPA is rescinding the clean data
determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard only. The prior
determination (see paragraph (n)(2)) is
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. The
prior determination suspended the
requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this area
continues to meet the 1997 annual
eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This
rescission of the clean data
determination will result in a SIP Call
for a new ozone attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable
further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the standard, for
this area only. If the revised plan is
approved by the EPA as demonstrating
reasonable further progress and
attainment for the more stringent 2008
NAAQS by the Moderate area
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26710
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
attainment date, and is approved by the
EPA as containing adequate contingency
measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then the
plan would be deemed to have also
satisfied requirements of the SIP Call
associated with violations for the 1997
NAAQS.
Subpart HH—New York
13. Section 52.1679 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1679
Determinations of attainment.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Determination of attainment. The
EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016,
that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air
quality data, the Jamestown, NY 2008
ozone Marginal nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the
area’s air quality data as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Jamestown, NY
nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
■ 14. Section 52.1683 is amended by
revising paragraph (f)(2)(v) and adding
paragraph (n) to read as follows:
§ 52.1683
Control strategy: Ozone.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Jamestown (consisting of
Chautauqua County) as of June 3, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Rescission of clean data
determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016,
the EPA is determining that complete
quality-assured and certified ozone
monitoring data for 2012 to 2014 show
the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT 1997 eight-hour
ozone nonattainment area did not meet
the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
Therefore, the EPA is rescinding the
clean data determination for the 1997
eight-hour ozone standard only. The
prior determination (see paragraph
(f)(2)(viii) of this section) is in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. The
prior determination suspended the
requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this area
continues to meet the 1997 annual
eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
rescission of the clean data
determination will result in a SIP Call
for a new ozone attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable
further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the standard, for
this area only. If the revised plan is
approved by the EPA as demonstrating
reasonable further progress and
attainment for the more stringent 2008
NAAQS by the Moderate area
attainment date, and is approved by the
EPA as containing adequate contingency
measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then the
plan would be deemed to have also
satisfied requirements of the SIP Call
associated with violations for the 1997
NAAQS.
Subpart II—North Carolina
15. Section 52.1779 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1779
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Determination of attainment. The
EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016,
that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air
quality data, the Charlotte-Rock Hill,
NC-SC 2008 ozone Marginal
nonattainment area has attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area’s air quality data as of
the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Charlotte-Rock Hill,
NC-SC nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart KK—Ohio
16. Section 52.1885 is amended by
adding paragraph (nn) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1885
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(nn) Determination of attainment. As
required by section 181(b)(2)(A) of the
Clean Air Act, the EPA has determined
that the Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN and
Columbus, OH Marginal 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas have attained the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
17. Section 52.2056 is amended by
adding paragraphs (k), (l), and (m) to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.2056
*
PO 00000
*
Determinations of attainment.
*
Frm 00044
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
(k) The EPA has determined, as of
June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014
ambient air quality data, the AllentownBethlehem-Easton, PA 2008 ozone
Marginal nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date of July
20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met
the requirement pursuant to CAA
section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based
on the area’s air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The EPA also determined that the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA
marginal nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date pursuant to
section 181(b)(2)(A).
(l) The EPA has determined, as of
June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014
ambient air quality data, the Lancaster,
PA 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment
area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA
has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area’s air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The EPA also determined that the
Lancaster, PA Marginal nonattainment
area will not be reclassified for failure
to attain by its applicable attainment
date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A).
(m) The EPA has determined, as of
June 3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014
ambient air quality data, the Reading,
PA 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment
area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA
has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area’s air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the area
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The EPA also determined that the
Reading, PA Marginal nonattainment
area will not be reclassified for failure
to attain by its applicable attainment
date pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart PP—South Carolina
18. Section 52.2125 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2125
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Determination of attainment. The
EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016,
that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air
quality data, the Charlotte-Rock Hill,
NC-SC 2008 ozone Marginal
nonattainment area has attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
has met the requirement pursuant to
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26711
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area’s air quality data as of
the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Charlotte-Rock Hill,
NC-SC nonattainment area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by its
applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart RR—Tennessee
19. Section 52.2235 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 52.2235
*
*
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
*
*
(d) Determination of attainment. The
EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016,
that based on 2011 to 2013 ambient air
quality data, the Knoxville, TN and
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 ozone
Marginal nonattainment areas have
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on an
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
Subpart ZZ—Wyoming
■
■
Basin Area, WY nonattainment area will
not be reclassified for failure to attain by
its applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
(b) [Reserved]
area’s air quality data as of the
attainment date, whether the areas
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Knoxville, TN and
Memphis, TN-MS-AR nonattainment
areas will not be reclassified for failure
to attain by their applicable attainment
date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
21. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
20. Add § 52.2623 to read as follows:
§ 52.2623 Control strategy and
regulations: Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
(a) Determination of attainment. The
EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016,
that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air
quality data, the Upper Green River
Basin Area, WY 2008 ozone Marginal
nonattainment area has attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area’s air quality data as of
the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also
determined that the Upper Green River
Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment
Status Designations
22. Section 81.303 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Arizona-2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by
revising the heading entry for ‘‘PhoenixMesa, AZ’’ and the entries for
‘‘Maricopa County (part)’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 81.303
*
Arizona.
*
*
*
*
ARIZONA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Date 1
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ: 2 ........................................................................................
Maricopa County (part)
T1N, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1N, R2E; T1N,
R3E; T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E; T1N, R7E; T1N, R1W;
T1N, R2W; T1N, R3W; T1N, R4W; T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W; T1N,
R7W; T1N, R8W; T2N, R1E; T2N, R2E; T2N, R3E; T2N, R4E;
T2N, R5E; T2N, R6E; T2N, R7E; T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E; T2N,
R10E; T2N, R11E; T2N, R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R13E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R1W;
T2N, R2W; T2N, R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W; T2N, R6W; T2N,
R7W; T2N, R8W; T3N, R1E; T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E; T3N, R4E;
T3N, R5E; T3N, R6E; T3N, R7E; T3N, R8E; T3N, R9E; T3N,
R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, R11E (except
that portion in Gila County); T3N, R12E (except that portion in
Gila County); T3N, R1W; T3N, R2W; T3N, R3W; T3N, R4W;
T3N, R5W; T3N, R6W; T4N, R1E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; T4N,
R4E; T4N, R5E; T4N, R6E; T4N, R7E; T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E;
T4N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R11E (except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R12E (except that portion
in Gila County); T4N, R1W; T4N, R2W; T4N, R3W; T4N, R4W;
T4N, R5W; T4N, R6W; T5N, R1E; T5N, R2E; T5N, R3E; T5N,
R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N, R6E; N, R8E; T5N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T5N, R10E (except that portion in Gila
County); T5N, R1W; T5N, R2W; T5N, R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N,
R5W; T6N, R1E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T6N,
R2E; T6N, R3E; T6N, R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E;
T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N,
R10E (except that portion in Gila County); T6N, R1W (except
that portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2W; T6N, R3W; T6N,
R4W; T6N, R5W; T7N, R1E; (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T7N, R2E (except that portion in Yavapai County);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Date 1
Type
Nonattainment
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
6/3/16
Type
Moderate.
26712
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ARIZONA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Date 1
Type
Type
T7N, R3E; T7N, R4E; T7N, R5E; T7N, R6E; T7N, R7E; T7N,
R8E; T7N, R9E (except that portion in Gila County); T7N, R1W
(except that portion in Yavapai County); T7N, R2W (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R2E (except that portion in
Yavapai County); T8N, R3E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R4E (except that portion in Yavapai County);
T8N, R5E (except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R6E
(except that portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R7E (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T8N, R8E (except that portion in
Yavapai and Gila Counties); T8N, R9E (except that portion in
Yavapai and Gila Counties); T1S, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1S, R2E (except that portion in Pinal County
and in Indian Country); T1S, R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S,
R6E; T1S, R7E; T1S, R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S, R3W; T1S, R4W;
T1S, R5W; T1S, R6W; T2S, R1E (except that portion in Indian
Country); T2S, R5E; T2S, R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, R1W; T2S,
R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S, R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E; T3S, R1W;
T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W; T3S, R4W; T3S, R5W; T4S, R1E; T4S,
R1W; T4S, R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W; T4S, R5W; T5S, R4W
(Sections 1 through 22 and 27 through 34).
*
1 This
*
*
*
*
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
*
*
*
*
*
23. Section 81.305 is amended in the
table for ‘‘California-2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by
revising the entries for ‘‘Imperial
■
County, CA’’, ‘‘Kern County (Eastern
Kern), CA’’, ‘‘Mariposa County, CA’’,
‘‘Nevada County (Western part), CA’’,
and ‘‘San Diego County, CA’’, and ‘‘San
Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo),
CA’’ and adding a footnote ‘‘5’’ to read
as follows:
§ 81.305
*
*
California.
*
*
*
CALIFORNIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
*
*
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Imperial County, CA: 2 ..................................................................
Imperial County.
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation 3.
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 3.
Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA: 2 ..............................................
Kern County (part).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Type
Date 1
*
*
Type
*
........................
Nonattainment .........
6/3/16
Moderate.
........................
Nonattainment .........
6/3/16
Moderate.
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26713
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
CALIFORNIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Type
Date 1
Type
That portion of Kern County (with the exception of that portion
in Hydrologic Unit Number 18090205—the Indian Wells Valley) east and south of a line described as follows: Beginning
at the Kern-Los Angeles County boundary and running north
and east along the northwest boundary of the Rancho La
Liebre Land Grant to the point of intersection with the range
line common to Range 16 West and Range 17 West, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along the range line to
the point of intersection with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant
boundary; then southeast, northeast, and northwest along the
boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Grant to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 11 North, Range 17 West; then
west 1.2 miles; then north to the Rancho El Tejon Land
Grant boundary; then northwest along the Rancho El Tejon
line to the southeast corner of Section 34, Township 32
South, Range 30 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian;
then north to the northwest corner of Section 35, Township
31 South, Range 30 East; then northeast along the boundary
of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the southwest corner
of Section 18, Township 31 South, Range 31 East; then east
to the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 31 South,
Range 31 East; then north along the range line common to
Range 31 East and Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and
Meridian, to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 29
South, Range 32 East; then east to the southwest corner of
Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 32 East; then north
along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range
32 East to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 28
South, Range 32 East, then west to the southeast corner of
Section 36, Township 27 South, Range 31 East, then north
along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range
32 East to the Kern-Tulare County boundary.
*
*
*
*
Mariposa County, CA: 2 Mariposa County ...................................
Nevada County (Western part), CA: 2 ..........................................
Nevada County (part).
That portion of Nevada County, which lies west of a
line, described as follows: Beginning at the NevadaPlacer County boundary and running north along the
western boundaries of Sections 24, 13, 12, 1, Township 17 North, Range 14 East, Mount Diablo Base
and Meridian, and Sections 36, 25, 24, 13, 12,
Township 18 North, Range 14 East to the NevadaSierra County boundary.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
17:12 May 03, 2016
........................
........................
*
*
San Diego County, CA: 2 .............................................................
San Diego County.
Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians
of the Barona Reservation 3.
Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo
Indian Reservation 3.
Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California 3.
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumayaay Indians 3.
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel 3.
Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and
Cosmit Reservation 3.
Jamul Indian Village of California 3.
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 3.
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La
Posta Indian Reservation 3.
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00047
Nonattainment .........
Nonattainment .........
6/3/16
6/3/16
*
........................
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
*
Nonattainment .........
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
6/3/16
04MYR1
*
Moderate.
Moderate.
*
Moderate.
26714
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
CALIFORNIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Date 1
Type
Type
Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the
Manzanita Reservation 3.
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the
Mesa Grande Reservation 3.
Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation 3.
Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and
Yuima Reservation 3.
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon
Reservation 3.
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California 3.
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 3.
Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of
Mission Indians 3.
*
*
*
*
CA: 2
San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo),
....................
San Luis Obispo County (part).
That portion of San Luis Obispo County that lies east
of a line described as follows: Beginning at the San
Luis Obispo County/Santa Barbara County boundary
and running north along 120 degrees 24 minutes
longitude to the intersection with 35 degrees 27 minutes latitude; east along 35 degrees 27 minutes latitude to the intersection with 120 degrees 18 minutes
longitude; then north along 120 degrees 18 minutes
longitude to the San Luis Obispo County/Monterey
County boundary.
*
*
*
........................
*
*
Nonattainment .........
*
*
6/3/16
*
Marginal.5
*
*
1 This
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in this
table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA
lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this table.
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
2 Excludes
3 Includes
*
*
*
*
*
24. Section 81.306 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Colorado—2008 8-Hour
■
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
secondary)’’ by revising the entries for
‘‘Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. CollinsLoveland, CO’’ to read as follows:
§ 81.306
*
*
Colorado.
*
*
*
COLORADO—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Date 1
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO: 2
Adams County.
Arapahoe County.
Boulder County.
Broomfield County.
Denver County.
Douglas County.
Jefferson County.
Larimer County (part).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Type
........................
Nonattainment ..................
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
Date 1
6/3/16
04MYR1
Type
Moderate.
26715
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
COLORADO—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Date 1
Type
Type
That portion of the county that lies south of
a line described as follows: Beginning at
a point on Larimer County’s eastern
boundary and Weld County’s western
boundary intersected by 40 degrees, 42
minutes, and 47.1 seconds north latitude,
proceed west to a point defined by the
intersection of 40 degrees, 42 minutes,
47.1 seconds north latitude and 105 degrees, 29 minutes, and 40.0 seconds
west longitude, thence proceed south on
105 degrees, 29 minutes, 40.0 seconds
west longitude to the intersection with 40
degrees, 33 minutes and 17.4 seconds
north latitude, thence proceed west on 40
degrees, 33 minutes, 17.4 seconds north
latitude until this line intersects Larimer
County’s western boundary and Grand
County’s eastern boundary.
Weld County (part).
That portion of the county that lies south of
a line described as follows: Beginning at
a point on Weld County’s eastern boundary and Logan County’s western boundary intersected by 40 degrees, 42 minutes, 47.1 seconds north latitude, proceed west on 40 degrees, 42 minutes,
47.1 seconds north latitude until this line
intersects Weld County’s western boundary and Larimer County’s eastern boundary.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1 This
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary
and secondary)’’ to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
25. Section 81.307 is amended by
revising the table for ‘‘Connecticut—
■
§ 81.307
*
*
Connecticut.
*
*
*
CONNECTICUT—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Date 1
Greater Connecticut, CT: 2 ................................
Hartford County
Litchfield County
New London County
Tolland County
Windham County
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut 3
Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut 3
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJCT: 2.
Fairfield County
Middlesex County
New Haven County
1 This
Date 1
Type
........................
Nonattainment ................................
6/3/16
Moderate.
........................
Nonattainment ................................
6/3/16
Moderate.
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Type
26716
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
3 Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in this
table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA
lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this table.
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
secondary)’’ to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
26. Section 81.308 is amended by
revising the table for ‘‘Delaware—2008
■
§ 81.308
*
*
Delaware.
*
*
*
DELAWARE—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Date 1
........................
Nonattainment ................................
6/3/16
........................
Nonattainment ................................
........................
........................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE: 2.
New Castle County
Seaford: 2
Sussex County
Rest of State: 3
Southern Delaware Intrastate AQCR: (remainder)
Kent County
Type
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Type
Marginal.4
Marginal.
1 This
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified.
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
2 Excludes
3 Includes
Columbia—2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
(Primary and secondary)’’ to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
27. Section 81.309 is amended by
revising the table for ‘‘District of
■
§ 81.309
*
*
District of Columbia.
*
*
*
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Type
........................
Washington, DC-MD-VA: District of Columbia 2
Date 1
Nonattainment ................................
Type
6/3/16
Marginal.3
1 This
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
3 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
2 Excludes
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by
revising the entries for ‘‘Atlanta, GA’’ to
read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
28. Section 81.311 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Georgia—2008 8-Hour Ozone
■
§ 81.311
*
*
Georgia.
*
*
*
GEORGIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Atlanta, GA: 2 .....................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
Type
........................
Nonattainment ................................
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
Date 1
6/3/16
04MYR1
Type
Moderate.
26717
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
GEORGIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Date 1
Type
*
Type
*
Bartow County
Cherokee County
Clayton County
Cobb County
Coweta County
DeKalb County
Douglas County
Fayette County
Forsyth County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Henry County
Newton County
Paulding County
Rockdale County
*
1 This
*
*
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
*
*
*
*
*
29. Section 81.314 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Illinois—2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by:
■ a. Revising the entries for ‘‘ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI’’;
b. Revising the heading entry ‘‘St.
Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL’’
and the entries ‘‘Madison County’’,
‘‘Monroe County’’, and ‘‘St. Clair
County’’; and
■ c. Adding a footnote ‘‘4’’.
■
■
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 81.314
*
*
Illinois.
*
*
*
ILLINOIS—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: 2 ..........................
Cook County
DuPage County
Grundy County (part)
Aux Sable Township
Goose Lake Township
Kane County
Kendall County (part)
Oswego Township
Lake County
McHenry County
Will County
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL: 2 .......
Madison County
Monroe County
St. Clair County
*
1 This
*
Type
........................
Nonattainment ................................
6/3/16
Moderate.
........................
Nonattainment ................................
6/3/16
Marginal.4
*
*
Date 1
*
Type
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
2 Excludes
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
30. Section 81.315 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Indiana—2008 8-Hour Ozone
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by
revising the entries for ‘‘ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI’’ to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 81.315
*
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
*
Indiana.
*
04MYR1
*
*
26718
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
INDIANA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: 2 ..........................
Lake County
Porter County
*
1 This
Type
........................
Nonattainment ................................
*
*
*
Date 1
Type
6/3/16.
*
Moderate.
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
*
*
*
*
*
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
a. Revising the entries for
‘‘Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE’’;
■ b. Revising the heading entry
‘‘Washington, DC-MD-VA’’; and
■ c. Adding a footnote ‘‘4’’.
■
31. Section 81.321 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Maryland—2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
secondary)’’ by:
■
§ 81.321
*
*
Maryland.
*
*
*
MARYLAND—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
*
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE: 2.
Cecil County ........................................................
Washington, DC-MD-VA: 2 ..........................................
*
1 This
*
Type
........................
*
*
Nonattainment ..................
*
6/3/16
Marginal.4
........................
........................
..........................................
Nonattainment ..................
........................
6/3/16
Marginal. 4
*
*
Date 1
*
Type
*
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
§ 81.326
secondary)’’ by revising the heading
entry for ‘‘St. Louis-St. CharlesFarmington, MO-IL’’ and adding a
footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 32. Section 81.326 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Missouri—2008—8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
*
*
Missouri.
*
*
*
MISSOURI—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL: 2 ................
*
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1 This
*
Type
........................
Nonattainment ..................
*
*
Date 1
Type
6/3/16
*
Marginal.4
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
33. Amend § 81.331 by revising the
table for ‘‘New Jersey—2008 8-Hour
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
secondary)’’ to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 81.331
*
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
*
New Jersey.
*
04MYR1
*
*
26719
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
NEW JERSEY—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT: 2 ..
Bergen County.
Essex County.
Hudson County.
Hunterdon County.
Middlesex County.
Monmouth County.
Morris County.
Passaic County.
Somerset County.
Sussex County.
Union County.
Warren County.
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE: 2.
Atlantic County.
Burlington County.
Camden County.
Cape May County ................................................
Cumberland County.
Gloucester County.
Mercer County.
Ocean County.
Salem County.
1 This
Type
Date 1
........................
Nonattainment .................
6/3/16
Moderate.
........................
Nonattainment .................
6/3/16
Marginal.3.
Type
........................
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
date is extended to July 20, 2016.
2 Excludes
3 Attainment
*
*
*
*
*
34. Section 81.333 is amended in the
table for ‘‘New York—2008 8-Hour
■
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
secondary)’’ by revising the entries for
‘‘New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT’’ to read as follows:
§ 81.333
*
*
New York.
*
*
*
NEW YORK—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
*
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT: 2
Bronx County.
Kings County.
Nassau County.
New York County.
Queens County.
Richmond County.
Rockland County.
Suffolk County.
Westchester County.
Shinnecock Indian Nation 3.
*
*
Type
........................
*
*
Nonattainment ..................
*
*
Date 1
Type
*
6/3/16
*
*
Moderate.
*
*
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1 This
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
3 Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in this
table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA
lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this table.
2 Excludes
*
*
*
*
*
35. Section 81.336 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Ohio—2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
revising the entries for ‘‘ClevelandAkron-Lorain, OH’’ and adding a
footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 81.336
*
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
*
Ohio.
*
04MYR1
*
*
26720
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
OHIO—2008—8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
*
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH: 2 ....................................
Ashtabula County.
Cuyahoga County.
Geauga County.
Lake County.
Lorain County.
Medina County.
Portage County.
Summit County.
*
1 This
*
Type
........................
*
*
Nonattainment ..................
*
*
Date 1
Type
*
6/3/16
*
*
Marginal.4
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2Excludes
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
36. Section 81.339 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Pennsylvania—2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
■
secondary)’’ by revising the entries for
‘‘Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE’’ and ‘‘Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, PA’’ and adding a
footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows:
§ 81.339
*
*
Pennsylvania.
*
*
*
PENNSYLVANIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date1
*
*
*
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE 2.
Bucks County.
Chester County.
Delaware County.
Montgomery County.
Philadelphia County.
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA 2 ...................................
Allegheny County.
Armstrong County.
Beaver County.
Butler County.
Fayette County.
Washington County.
Westmoreland County.
*
*
Type
........................
*
*
Nonattainment ..................
*
6/3/16
Marginal.4
........................
Nonattainment ..................
6/3/16
Marginal.4
*
*
Date1
*
Type
*
*
*
1 This
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 37. Section 81.344 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Texas—2008 8-Hour Ozone
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by
revising the entries for ‘‘HoustonGalveston-Brazoria, TX’’ and adding a
footnote ‘‘4’’ to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 81.344
*
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
*
Texas.
*
04MYR1
*
*
26721
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TEXAS—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date1
*
*
*
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX:2 .............................
Brazoria County.
Chambers County.
Fort Bend County.
Galveston County.
Harris County.
Liberty County.
Montgomery County.
Waller County.
*
*
Type
........................
*
*
Nonattainment ..................
*
*
Date1
Type
*
6/3/16
*
*
Marginal.4
*
*
1 This
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by
revising the entries for ‘‘Washington,
DC-MD-VA’’ and adding a footnote ‘‘4’’
to read as follows:
38. Section 81.347 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Virginia—2008 8-Hour Ozone
■
§ 81.347
*
*
Virginia.
*
*
*
VIRGINIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area 1
Date 2
Washington, DC-MD-VA: 2 ..........................................
Arlington County.
Fairfax County.
Loudoun County.
Prince William County.
Alexandria City.
Fairfax City.
Falls Church City.
Manassas City.
Manassas Park City.
*
1 This
*
Type
........................
Nonattainment ..................
*
*
Date 2
Type
6/3/16
*
Marginal.4
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
39. Section 81.350 is amended in the
table for ‘‘Wisconsin—2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and
secondary)’’ by:
■
a. Revising the heading entry for
‘‘Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI’’ and the
entries for ‘‘Sheboygan County, WI’’;
and
■ b. Adding a footnote ‘‘4’’.
■
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 81.350
*
*
Wisconsin.
*
*
*
WISCONSIN—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Type
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: 2 ...................................
........................
Nonattainment ..................
6/3/16
Moderate.
*
*
*
Sheboygan County, WI: 2 ............................................
........................
*
*
Nonattainment ..................
*
6/3/16
Marginal.4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
Date 1
04MYR1
Type
*
26722
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
WISCONSIN—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Date 1
Type
Type
Sheboygan County.
*
1 This
*
*
*
*
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
* * *
4 Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 180
I. General Information
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0014; FRL–9944–82]
A. Does this action apply to me?
Mefenoxam; Pesticide Tolerances
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–09729 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of mefenoxam in
or on rapeseed subgroup 20A. Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC., requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective May
4, 2016. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
July 5, 2016, and must be filed in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
SUMMARY:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0014, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lewis, Registration Division
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 May 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2015–0014 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before July 5, 2016. Addresses for mail
and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2015–0014, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting
or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of April 6,
2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL–9924–00),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 4F8323) by
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 410
Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27419. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.546
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26697-26722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09729]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0468; FRL-9945-17-OAR]
Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Extensions
of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on three separate and independent types of determinations for
each of the 36 areas that are currently classified as ``Marginal'' for
the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). First,
the EPA is determining that 17 areas attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015, based on complete,
quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2012-2014.
Second, the EPA is granting 1-year attainment date extensions for eight
areas on the basis that the requirements for such extensions under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's implementing regulations have been
met. Third, the EPA is determining that 11 areas failed to attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015,
and thus are reclassified by operation of law as ``Moderate'' for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. States containing any or any portion of these new
Moderate areas must submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
that meet the statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to 2008
ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate by January 1, 2017.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 3, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0468
for this action. All documents in the docket are listed on https://www.regulation.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Cecil (Butch) Stackhouse or Mr. H.
Lynn Dail, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Telephone Mr. Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208 or Mr. Dail at (919) 541-
2363; or both at fax number: (919) 541-5315; email addresses:
stackhouse.butch@epa.gov, or dail.lynn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Actions
A. Determinations of Attainment
B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment Dates
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and Reclassification
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission Deadline
E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Proposed SIP Call
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for the New York-N. New Jersey-Long
Island (NY-NJ-CT) Nonattainment Area
II. Final Actions
A. Determinations of Attainment
B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment Dates
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and Reclassification
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission Deadline
E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Final SIP Call for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for the New York-N. New Jersey-Long
Island (NY-NJ-CT) Nonattainment Area
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
L. Judicial Review
I. Proposed Actions
On August 27, 2015, the EPA proposed to find that 17 Marginal areas
attained the 2008 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20,
2015, based on complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring
data for 2012-2014. See 80 FR 51992. The EPA also proposed to find that
eight areas met the criteria, as provided in CAA section 181(a)(5) and
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.1107, to qualify for a 1-year
attainment date extension for the 2008 ozone NAAQS even though they did
not attain the NAAQS by the applicable deadline. Finally, the EPA
proposed to find that 11 areas failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
the applicable Marginal attainment date and that they did not qualify
for a 1-year attainment date extension. Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A),
if the EPA determines that an area failed to attain a given NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date, the area shall be reclassified to a
higher classification. In the EPA's August 2015 proposal, the EPA
specified those 11 areas would be reclassified to Moderate.
[[Page 26698]]
The reclassified areas must attain the standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but in any event no later than July 20, 2018.
The EPA proposed two options for establishing a deadline for states
to submit the SIP revisions required for Moderate areas once their
areas are reclassified from Marginal. The first option would have
required state air agencies to submit the required SIP revisions as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the beginning of the
ozone season in 2017 for each respective area. The second option would
have required state air agencies to submit the required SIP revisions
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2017.
After consideration of the comments received on these proposed options,
the EPA is finalizing a due date of no later than January 1, 2017, for
all Moderate area SIP requirements that apply to newly reclassified
areas.
A. Determinations of Attainment
In the proposal, the EPA evaluated data from air quality monitors
in the 36 areas classified as Marginal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
order to determine each area's attainment status as of the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2015. Seventeen of the 36 nonattainment
areas' monitoring sites with valid data had a design value \1\ equal to
or less than 0.075 parts per million (ppm) based on 2012-2014
monitoring period.\2\ Thus, the EPA proposed to determine, in
accordance with section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and the EPA's
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.1103, that the 17 areas listed in
the following Table 1 attained the standard by the applicable
attainment date for Marginal areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Design value is a statistic that describes the air quality
status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS.
Design values for a site are the 3-year average annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
\2\ These determinations were based upon 3 years of complete,
quality-assured and certified 2012-2014 data, in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's Air Quality Statistics (AQS)
database. Some areas attained the standard earlier with 2011, 2012
and 2013 data and maintained the standard in 2014, i.e., Knoxville,
TX attained the standard with 2011-2013 ozone data and continued to
attain with 2012-2014 data.
Table 1--Marginal Nonattainment Areas That Attained the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
by the July 20, 2015, Attainment Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2014
2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area design value
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA.......................... 0.070
Baton Rouge, LA......................................... 0.072
Calaveras County, CA.................................... 0.071
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC.............................. 0.073
Chico (Butte County), CA................................ 0.074
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN.................................... 0.075
Columbus, OH............................................ 0.075
Dukes County, MA........................................ 0.068
Jamestown, NY........................................... 0.071
Knoxville, TN........................................... 0.067
Lancaster, PA........................................... 0.071
Memphis, TN-MS-AR....................................... 0.073
Reading, PA............................................. 0.071
San Francisco Bay Area, CA.............................. 0.072
Seaford, DE............................................. 0.074
Tuscan Buttes, CA....................................... 0.075
Upper Green River Basin Area, WY........................ 0.064
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment Dates
Of the 36 Marginal nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
there are eight areas for which the EPA proposed to grant a 1-year
attainment date extension based on determinations that these areas met
the requirements for an extension under CAA section 181(a)(5),
including compliance with all commitments and requirements in the
applicable implementation plan and ``clean'' data in the year preceding
the attainment year. In addition, for each of these areas, at least one
state with jurisdiction over all or part of the area requested such an
extension.
The EPA proposed that eight Marginal nonattainment areas for the
2008 ozone NAAQS failed to attain the NAAQS by July 20, 2015, but met
the attainment date extension criteria of CAA section 181(a)(5), as
interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1107. The EPA proposed to find that all
implicated states were meeting the obligations and commitments of their
applicable implementation plans, in accordance with CAA section
181(a)(5)(A), and that, per CAA section 181(a)(5)(B) and the
implementing regulations, the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentrations for all monitors in each area were not greater than
0.075 ppm for 2014, the year preceding the attainment year (see 40 CFR
51.1107). The EPA, therefore, proposed to grant a 1-year extension of
the applicable Marginal area attainment date from July 20, 2015, to
July 20, 2016, for the nonattainment areas listed in Table 2.
Table 2--Marginal Nonattainment Areas That Qualify for a 1-Year
Attainment Date Extension for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 4th
2012-2014 highest daily
2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area design value maximum 8-hr
(ppm) average (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH.............. 0.078 0.075
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX.......... 0.080 0.072
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 0.077 0.074
PA-NJ-MD-DE............................
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA............ 0.077 0.071
San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis 0.076 0.073
Obispo), CA............................
Sheboygan County, WI.................... 0.081 0.072
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL. 0.078 0.072
Washington, DC-MD-VA.................... 0.076 0.069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26699]]
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and Reclassification
Lastly, the EPA proposed to determine that 11 areas (listed in
Table 3) failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2015 and were not eligible for a 1-year
attainment date extension. For each of these areas, the 4th highest
daily maximum 8-hour average for at least one monitor in each area was
greater than 0.075 ppm for 2014. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) provides that
a Marginal nonattainment area shall be reclassified by operation of law
upon a determination by the EPA that such area failed to attain the
relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The new
classification proposed for each of these 11 areas would be the next
higher classification of ``Moderate'' under the CAA statutory
scheme.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The 2012-2014 design values for the 11 areas did not exceed
0.100 ppm, which is the threshold for reclassifying an area to
Serious per CAA section 181(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.1103.
Table 3--Marginal Nonattainment Areas To Be Reclassified as Moderate
Because They Did Not Attain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2015,
Attainment Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 4th
2012-2014 highest daily
2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area design value maximum 8-hr
(ppm) average (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA............................. 0.077 0.079
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI............ 0.081 0.076
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins- 0.082 0.077
Loveland, CO...........................
Greater Connecticut, CT................. 0.080 0.077
Imperial County, CA..................... 0.080 0.078
Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA.......... 0.084 0.089
Mariposa County, CA..................... 0.078 0.077
Nevada County (Western part), CA........ 0.079 0.082
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY- 0.085 0.081
NJ-CT..................................
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ........................ 0.080 0.080
San Diego County, CA.................... 0.079 0.079
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission Deadline
The EPA also proposed to apply the Administrator's discretion, per
CAA section 182(i), to adjust the statutory deadlines for submitting
required SIP revisions for reclassified Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas. CAA section 182(i) requires that reclassified areas meet the
applicable plan submission requirements ``according to the schedules
prescribed in connection with such requirements, except that the
Administrator may adjust any applicable deadlines (other than
attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment is necessary or
appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions.''
Under the Moderate area plan requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1) and
40 CFR 51.1108, states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate are provided 3 years (or 36 months) from the date of
designation to submit a SIP revision complying with the Moderate ozone
nonattainment plan requirements. For areas designated nonattainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and originally classified as Moderate, that
deadline was July 20, 2015, a date that has already passed. The EPA,
therefore, interpreted CAA section 182(i) as providing the authority to
adjust the applicable deadlines ``as necessary or appropriate to assure
consistency among the required submissions'' for the 11 reclassified
2008 Marginal ozone nonattainment areas. The CAA neither provides
authority for the EPA to adjust the deadline to provide the full 3
years from the date of reclassification nor provides that the EPA may
adjust the attainment date. In determining an appropriate deadline for
the states with jurisdiction for these 11 reclassified nonattainment
areas to submit their Moderate area SIP revisions, the EPA proposed two
options for deadlines. The first proposed option would require that
states submit the required SIP revisions as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the beginning of the ozone season in
2017 for each state. We believed that this option would provide states
additional time that may be needed to accomplish planning,
administrative and SIP revision processes. Of the 11 areas proposed for
reclassification to Moderate, four areas have ozone seasons that begin
later than January 1 (based on ozone monitoring season changes
finalized with the 2015 ozone NAAQS) \4\ and this option would provide
2 additional months past January 2017 for those four areas. The second
proposed option would require states submit the SIP revisions as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2017. We
believed that setting a single specific submittal date would establish
a consistent deadline for all 11 nonattainment areas, similar to the
single uniform SIP submission deadline that would have applied to all
areas if they had been initially classified as Moderate. This option
would provide states with approximately 9 months after these
reclassifications are finalized to develop complete SIP submissions and
it is the latest SIP submittal date that would be compatible with the
date by when Moderate area reasonably available control measures (RACM)
and reasonably available control technology (RACT) must be in place
(i.e., begin no later than January 1 of the 5th year after the
effective date of designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which is, in
this case, January 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Table D-3 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Proposed SIP Call for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-
CT) Nonattainment Area
On June 18, 2012, the EPA issued a clean data determination (CDD)
for the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, suspending the three states'
obligations to submit attainment-related planning requirements,
including the obligation to submit attainment demonstrations, RACM and
reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, and contingency measures, with
respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
[[Page 26700]]
standard. On May 15, 2014 (79 FR 27830), the EPA proposed to rescind
the CDD for the area based on the fact that the area was no longer
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the EPA proposed a SIP
Call for submittal of a new ozone attainment demonstration for the NY-
NJ-CT area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As an alternative to submitting a
new attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed
to permit the relevant states to respond to the SIP Call by voluntarily
requesting to be reclassified to Moderate for the 2008 ozone standard
(see CAA section 181(b)(3)) and to prepare SIP revisions demonstrating
how they would attain the more stringent 2008 standard as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than the Moderate area attainment date in
2018. The EPA explained in the May 2014 proposal that, because the 2008
standard is more stringent than the 1997 standard, the area would
necessarily attain the 1997 standard once the area adopted a control
strategy designed to achieve the tighter standard. Moreover, where
state planning resources were constrained, those resources were better
used focused on attaining the more stringent standard.
In the agency's August 27, 2015, proposal regarding determinations
of attainment of the 2008 Marginal ozone areas, the EPA discussed how
its proposed actions affected the May 2014 proposed options for
responding to a SIP Call for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically,
the proposed option to permit the relevant states to respond to the
final SIP Call by requesting reclassification to Moderate for the 2008
ozone standard [see CAA section 181(b)(3)] would consequently require
that the states submit SIPs demonstrating how they would attain the
more stringent 2008 standard as expeditiously as practicable. We
explicitly noted in the August 2015 proposal that, if we were to
finalize the determination that the NY-NJ-CT area failed to attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment date, the area would
be reclassified by operation of law, and thus effectively eliminating
the need for the three states to voluntarily request reclassification.
The area would then be subject to Moderate nonattainment area planning
requirements, and the subsequent submission of Moderate area attainment
plans for the 2008 ozone standard would necessarily satisfy a final SIP
Call for the NY-NJ-CT area on the 1997 ozone standard, because an
approvable plan would demonstrate attainment of a more stringent NAAQS.
We also noted that either of the proposed 2008 ozone attainment plan
due dates would meet the statutory timeframe for the SIP revision due
subsequent to a SIP Call for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the area.
II. Final Actions
The publication of the EPA's proposed rule on August 27, 2015, (80
FR 51992) started a public comment period that ended on September 28,
2015.\5\ The comments received during this period may be found in the
electronic docket for this action. A majority of commenters supported
the EPA's actions as proposed to determine that certain areas attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, to provide 1-
year attainment date extensions to the identified areas, and to
reclassify to Moderate the non-attaining areas that do not qualify for
an attainment date extension. Additional significant comments pertinent
to each proposed action are addressed in the following appropriate
sections. Included in the docket for this action is a full summary of
significant comments received on the EPA's proposal and our responses
to those comments. To access comments and the Response to Comment
document, please go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0468, or contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The EPA offered to hold a public hearing on the proposed
actions, but no one requested such a hearing.
Table 4--2008 Ozone Marginal Nonattainment Area Final Action Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of
Determination Determination the marginal
Nonattainment area of attainment of failure to area attainment
by the attain by the date to July
attainment date attainment date 20, 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA............................... X ............... ...............
Atlanta, GA.................................................. ............... X ...............
Baton Rouge, LA.............................................. X ............... ...............
Calaveras County, CA......................................... X ............... ...............
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC \a\............................... X ............... ...............
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI................................. ............... X ...............
Chico (Butte County), CA..................................... X ............... ...............
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN......................................... X ............... ...............
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH................................... ............... ............... X
Columbus, OH................................................. X ............... ...............
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO.............. ............... X ...............
Dukes County, MA............................................. X ............... ...............
Greater Connecticut, CT...................................... ............... X ...............
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX............................... ............... ............... X
Imperial County, CA.......................................... ............... X ...............
Jamestown, NY................................................ X ............... ...............
Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA............................... ............... X ...............
Knoxville, TN \b\............................................ X ............... ...............
Lancaster, PA................................................ X ............... ...............
Mariposa County, CA.......................................... ............... X ...............
Memphis, TN-MS-AR \c\........................................ X ............... ...............
Nevada County (Western part), CA............................. ............... X ...............
New York, N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT................ ............... X ...............
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE........... ............... ............... X
[[Page 26701]]
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ............................................. ............... X ...............
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA................................. ............... ............... X
Reading, PA.................................................. X ............... ...............
San Diego County, CA......................................... ............... X ...............
San Francisco Bay Area, CA................................... X ............... ...............
San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA................ ............... ............... X
Seaford, DE.................................................. X ............... ...............
Sheboygan County, WI......................................... ............... ............... X
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL...................... ............... ............... X
Tuscan Buttes, CA............................................ X ............... ...............
Upper Green River Basin Area, WY............................. X ............... ...............
Washington, DC-MD-VA......................................... ............... ............... X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ On July 28, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill,
NC-SC, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective August 27, 2015. See 80 FR 44873. On
December 11, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the South Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill,
NC-SC, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective January 11, 2016. See 80 FR 76865. The
EPA is herein determining that this area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in
order to satisfy the agency's obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).
\b\ On July 13, 2015, the EPA redesignated to attainment the Knoxville, TN, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, effective August 12, 2015. See 80 FR 39970. Given that this area was still designated
nonattainment as of July 20, 2015, the EPA is herein determining that this area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date in order to satisfy the agency's obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).
\c\ On February 10, 2016, the EPA proposed to redesignate to attainment the Arkansas portion of the Memphis, TN-
MS-AR, nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7046. On February 11, 2016, the EPA
proposed to redesignate to attainment the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR, nonattainment area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 7269.
A. Determinations of Attainment
Pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1103, the
EPA is making a final determination that the 17 Marginal nonattainment
areas listed in Table 1 attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2105. We received no adverse comments on
this proposal.
Once effective, this action satisfies the EPA's obligation pursuant
to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on an area's air
quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the
standard by that date. The effect of a final determination of
attainment by the area's attainment date is to discharge the EPA's
obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), and to establish that, in
accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), the areas will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by the applicable attainment date.
These determinations of attainment do not constitute a redesignation to
attainment. Redesignations require states to meet a number of
additional statutory criteria, including the EPA approval of a state
plan demonstrating maintenance of the air quality standard for 10 years
after redesignation. As for all NAAQS, the EPA is committed to working
with states that choose to submit redesignation requests for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
B. Extensions of Marginal Area Attainment Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5), the EPA is making a final
determination to grant 1-year attainment date extensions of the
applicable attainment date from July 20, 2015, to July 20, 2016, for
the 8 Marginal nonattainment areas listed in Table 2. The EPA received
a number of comments on its proposal to extend the Marginal area
attainment dates for the areas listed in Table 2. We summarize and
respond to some of the key comments. The docket for this action
contains a more detailed Response to Comment document.
Comment: One commenter claimed that the EPA's proposed 1-year
extension of the attainment date for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE area is unlawful and arbitrary because the
state of Delaware did not request an extension of the attainment date.
The commenter argued that granting an attainment date extension to a
multi-state area when all states have not requested the extension is
inconsistent with the EPA's failure to grant the state of New York's
most recent voluntary reclassification request with regard to the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\6\ The commenter stated that there, the EPA refused
to grant New York's request because the agency's position was that
voluntarily reclassifying the area required all states with
jurisdiction over the multi-state area to request the reclassification.
The commenter noted that in that case the EPA interpreted CAA section
182(j)(1) ``to require coordination and unanimity among the affected
states,'' and the commenter stated that the provision ``seemingly has
equal bearing'' on a request to extend the attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter from Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, addressed to the EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson. June 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that a request for
voluntary reclassification under CAA section 181(b)(3) and a request
for an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 181(a)(5)
both require ``unanimity'' among the affected states. The EPA also does
not agree that granting an extension of the attainment date to all
states with jurisdiction over the Philadelphia multi-state
nonattainment area is inconsistent with its prior reading of CAA
section 182(j)(1).
The statutory provisions governing voluntary reclassifications and
requests for 1-year attainment date extensions differ in key respects
regarding the question of whether all states in a nonattainment area
need to request the action before the EPA may grant such requests. CAA
section 181(b)(3), which governs voluntary reclassifications, states
that ``the Administrator shall grant the request of any State to
reclassify a nonattainment area in that State [in accordance with the
area's
[[Page 26702]]
design value] to a higher classification'' (emphasis added). The EPA
reads that provision, and specifically the words ``in that state,'' to
mean that although any state may request a reclassification, it can
only do so on behalf of its own state. The same limiting phrase does
not appear in the statutory provision governing 1-year attainment date
extensions. That provision, CAA section 181(a)(5), states, ``Upon
application by any State, the Administrator may extend for 1 additional
year'' the attainment date, provided that the state has complied with
all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in its
applicable implementation plan and the area meets certain air quality
criteria. Because the statute grants the EPA the discretion to extend
an attainment date ``upon application by any State'' and establishes
limiting conditions that can be demonstrated as satisfied by either a
state or by the EPA, CAA section 181(a)(5) by its terms does not
require the consent of every state within a multi-state nonattainment
area. The EPA does, however, interpret that provision as requiring all
states with jurisdiction over the nonattainment area to substantively
meet the two statutory conditions, although we note that the provision
does not specify who must make the demonstration that the conditions
have been met.
Interpreting these two provisions to permit differing thresholds of
state ``unanimity'' is particularly reasonable given the consequence of
the EPA's action in each case. In extending an attainment date, the EPA
imposes no additional obligation upon any state, but rather grants
areas that are close to achieving the air quality standard 1 additional
year to come into compliance, provided that the states governing that
area meet certain criteria. A voluntary reclassification, on the other
hand, can impose significant new attainment planning and emission
reduction obligations. Had Congress intended to allow one state to
request a reclassification on behalf of another state, and, therefore,
to impose upon another state, without that state's consent, all of the
resource-intensive consequences potentially associated with that
action, it could have clearly stated so.
The EPA further disagrees with the commenter that its prior
interpretation of CAA section 182(j)(1)--requiring all states in a
multi-state ozone nonattainment area to agree to a voluntary
reclassification--is inconsistent with not requiring such consensus in
the case of an attainment date extension. CAA section 182(j)(1)(A)
directs states to ``take all reasonable steps to coordinate,
substantively and procedurally, the revisions and implementation of
[SIPs] applicable to the nonattainment area concerned.'' This provision
on its face does not apply to an attainment date extension under CAA
section 181(a)(5). Extending the attainment date by 1 year does not
change an area's SIP submission requirements. Therefore, CAA section
182(j)(1)(A)'s directive to states governing a multi-state area to
coordinate SIP submissions plainly does not have bearing on a provision
that does not alter or affect SIP submissions. By contrast, as the EPA
has stated, the coordination required by CAA section 182(j)(1)(A) is
relevant to a voluntary reclassification, which establishes upon the
states with jurisdiction over the nonattainment area new obligations to
prepare and submit revisions to SIPs.
Comment: One commenter stated that the states of Delaware and New
Jersey did not make any claim or demonstration that they have complied
with all requirements and commitments in the SIP, and, therefore,
granting an extension to the multi-state area is not warranted. The
commenter alleged that the EPA implied that an analysis of Delaware's
compliance with the CAA section 181(a)(5)(A) criteria was conducted but
that the EPA failed to provide any evidence or showing that Delaware
did in fact comply with all requirements and commitments in the
applicable implementation plan pertaining to the Philadelphia
nonattainment area.
Response: Given the state and federal partnership in implementing
the CAA, it is not unreasonable for the EPA to interpret CAA section
181(a)(5)(A), in the absence of a state submitting a certification of
compliance, for the EPA to exercise discretion and conduct an
independent review of the applicable SIP in order to, in this case,
determine whether Delaware and New Jersey are in compliance with the
requirements and commitments of the federally-approved SIP. CAA section
302(q) defines ``applicable implementation plan'' as the portion (or
portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof,
which has been approved under CAA section 110, or promulgated under CAA
section 110(c), or promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations
promulgated under CAA section 201(d) and which implements the relevant
requirements of the CAA. The Act does not specify what type of review
is required in order for the states or the EPA to demonstrate that the
condition under CAA section 181(a)(5)(A) has been met; therefore, the
EPA reasonably interprets the condition to require a review of the
relevant, applicable approved implementation plan provisions, and an
application of its own knowledge and expertise with regard to whether
the state is meeting those obligations, including a review of whether
the agency or outside parties has identified state noncompliance with
the obligations. Therefore, in proposing to grant a 1-year extension of
the attainment date for the Philadelphia area, and in conjunction with
EPA Headquarters, the EPA Regional Offices, which have particular
expertise and knowledge of the contents and implementation of SIPs,
conducted reviews of whether Delaware and New Jersey are in compliance
with their applicable implementation plans.
The EPA reviewed New Jersey's applicable ozone implementation plan
found at 40 CFR 52.1570 and the most recent actions related to New
Jersey's applicable ozone implementation plan, which include the
following EPA approvals: 74 FR 22837--``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation plans, New Jersey Reasonable Further Progress Plans,
Reasonable Available Control Technology, Reasonably Available Control
Measures and Conformity Budgets''; 75 FR 45483--``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Implementation Plan Revision;
State of New Jersey''; and 75 FR 80340--``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 8-hour Ozone Control Measure.'' Since
the adoption of these measures, New Jersey has also amended its SIP to
adopt and implement additional emission reductions as part of its SIPs
to reduce regional haze and to meet the NAAQS for fine particles. The
EPA has reviewed the contents of New Jersey's applicable SIPs and notes
that there are no pending enforcement actions by the EPA or outside
parties alleging that New Jersey has failed to implement its applicable
plan.
Similarly, the EPA reviewed Delaware's applicable ozone
implementation plan found at 40 CFR 52.420. In our August 2015
proposal, we noted a recent proposal to disapprove a revision to
Delaware's New Source Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program
regulation, see 80 FR 30015 (May 26, 2015). Despite this proposed
disapproval of a SIP revision, we did not believe this proposal to
disapprove a SIP revision was a bar to the EPA granting a 1-year
attainment date extension for the Philadelphia area because there is an
underlying approved nonattainment NSR SIP. The EPA has examined its own
internal database of the notices required under 40 CFR 51.161(a), (b)
and (d) (relating to a
[[Page 26703]]
notice providing for public and the EPA comment on permit applications)
and information posted by the state of Delaware. For the period after
September 11, 2013 (the date on which Delaware's newly expanded offset
area provisions under state law were effective), the EPA has identified
no permits which triggered the requirement for lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) and offsets under Delaware's Regulation 1125
relating to ozone precursors of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). The EPA found that Delaware had undertaken a
number of permitting actions since September 11, 2013, but none of
these were subject to sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 of Delaware's Regulation
1125. The EPA also did not find any incidences of enforcement actions
by the agency or outside parties alleging that Delaware is not meeting
its SIP obligations.
Moreover, the commenter has not presented any evidence or made any
demonstration that suggests either New Jersey or Delaware is not in
compliance with their applicable SIP and is, thus, unqualified to
receive an attainment date extension. Based on its review of the
states' applicable implementation plans and its knowledge and expertise
of state actions with regard to those plans, the EPA is making a final
determination that both New Jersey and Delaware are meeting the
conditional requirement of CAA section 181(a)(5)(A).
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA deny Wisconsin's
request for a 1-year extension to their attainment year for the
Sheboygan County Marginal ozone nonattainment area. The commenter
argued that 2015 preliminary air quality monitoring data for the
Sheboygan area indicates that the area will not attain the standard in
2016, and, moreover, that the data also will not support a second 1-
year extension of the attainment date for the Sheboygan area. The
commenter maintained that even if a state meets the two conditions
provided in CAA section 181(a)(5), the EPA retains the discretion to
deny a request for a 1-year extension, and the commenter urged that the
EPA should exercise its discretion in this case. In support, the
commenter provided a citation to a 1994 EPA memo (Berry Memorandum) \7\
that cautions states to consider whether an attainment date extension
will ultimately be helpful if the area is not likely to attain the
NAAQS by the extended attainment date. The commenter further pointed
out that Wisconsin has an ``inflexible and lengthy process for
rulemaking,'' which could further hinder the state's ability to meet
the attainment date in the future, if the state delays planning and
implementing additional control measures now. The commenter also
pointed out that the Sheboygan area has not made considerable progress
towards attaining the standard, and that the area backslid into
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2012 and 2013. The
commenter suggested that, rather than granting a 1-year extension of
the attainment date, the EPA should determine that the Sheboygan area
failed to meet its Marginal area attainment date of July 20, 2015, and,
therefore, the EPA should reclassify the area to Moderate, which will
allow the state of Wisconsin adequate time to achieve emissions
reductions to meet the new attainment date for a Moderate area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See memorandum signed by D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air
Quality Management Division, ``Procedures for Processing Bump Ups
and Extension Requests for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas.''
U.S. EPA, February 3, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: CAA section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, as interpreted by the
EPA in 40 CFR 51.1107, authorizes the EPA to grant a 1-year attainment
date extension upon application by a state if: (1) The state has
complied with all requirements and commitments in the applicable SIP,
and (2) all monitors in the area have a fourth highest daily maximum 8-
hour average of 0.075 ppm or less for the last full year of air quality
data prior to the attainment date (i.e., 2014 for an attainment date of
July 20, 2015). Here, Wisconsin has clearly met both of the conditions
for the Sheboygan area. Wisconsin submitted a request to the EPA for a
1-year extension of the attainment date for the Sheboygan area,
certifying that Wisconsin had complied with all requirements and
commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation
plan and that all monitors in the area have a fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average of 0.075 ppm or less for 2014, the most recent
complete year of quality-assured and certified data preceding the July
20, 2015, attainment date.\8\ The EPA has also evaluated the quality-
assured and certified air quality monitoring data for 2014 and
determined that Sheboygan met the air quality requirements of CAA
section 181(a)(5)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1107. Although the EPA agrees with
the commenter that the Administrator retains the discretion to deny a
state's request for an attainment date extension even if the state has
met both criteria in CAA section 181(a)(5), the agency is declining to
exercise that discretion here. The commenter relies primarily upon
preliminary air quality data for 2015 that has not been quality assured
and certified to contend that the Administrator should deny Wisconsin's
request here.\9\ Given that the state meets the extension criteria, the
Administrator is disinclined to deny the state's request based on
preliminary data. Moreover, the citation from the Berry Memorandum that
the commenter relies upon is directed at cautioning states, in deciding
whether to request an extension, to consider whether a 1-year
attainment date extension will be helpful in achieving the NAAQS and is
not directed at the Administrator's decision to grant or deny such
request. The EPA does, however, agree with the commenter that, given
the air quality trends and data presented by the commenter, it would be
prudent for the state to begin preparing for the possibility that the
area may not attain by the July 20, 2016, attainment date, and also may
fail to meet the requirements to get an additional 1-year attainment
date extension. However, the agency does not believe that those
possibilities are reason enough to deny the state's request for this
first 1-year attainment date extension, given that Wisconsin has met
the two statutory criteria. Therefore, the EPA declines to grant the
commenter's request to find that the area failed to attain by July 20,
2015, and to subsequently reclassify the area accordingly. The
Sheboygan nonattainment area will remain classified as Marginal for the
2008 ozone NAAQS until the EPA (1) determines, based on quality assured
and certified air quality data for 2013-2015, that the area did not
attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2016, and does not qualify for
an additional 1-year extension\10\ and (2) reclassifies the area based
on this determination. We expect Wisconsin to be taking the necessary
steps to achieve timely attainment and will continue to work with the
state toward that end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See letter signed by Bart Sponseller, Deputy Division
Administrator, Air, Waste and Remediation & Redevelopment Division,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources addressed to Ms. Susan
Hedman, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 5. RE: Request for
1-year extension to the attainment date for the Sheboygan, WI
nonattainment area, May 12, 2015. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0468-0022
at https://www.regulations.gov.
\9\ These data are subject to the EPA's date certification
requirements of 40 CFR 58.15, which require a state to submit its
annual data certification letter by May 1.
\10\ The area will qualify for a second 1-year extension if, and
only if, the average of annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour
ozone concentrations for 2014 and 2015 is at or below 0.075 ppm at
all monitors in Sheboygan County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26704]]
Comment: One commenter maintained that, in evaluating whether a
state is in compliance with all requirements and commitments pertaining
to an area pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5)(A), the EPA may not rely
on a letter from the state certifying that the state is meeting this
requirement. The commenter argued that there must be a factual and
rational basis for the agency to grant 1-year extensions and that
assertions by the states that they are in compliance with all
requirements and commitments does not provide a factual or rational
basis when there is no evidence that the assertion was based on a
systematic review of compliance or noncompliance.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion. CAA
section 181(a)(5) does not specify who must make the demonstration as
to whether a state is complying with all requirements and commitments
to the area in the applicable implementation plan. Nothing in the
provision explicitly prohibits the EPA from relying on certified
statements from state officials that the requirement of CAA section
181(a)(5)(A) has been met, and nothing in the provision supports the
commenter's suggestion that the EPA is independently required to
perform a ``systematic review of compliance or noncompliance'' of the
state's SIP regardless of whether a state official has made a certified
statement to that effect in order to grant an attainment date
extension. Given the state and federal partnership in implementing the
CAA, it is not unreasonable for the EPA to interpret CAA section
181(a)(5)(A) as permitting the agency to rely upon the certified
statements of its state counterparts, and the EPA has long interpreted
the provision to be satisfied by such statements.\11\ In practice, in
conjunction with a request for an extension, a state air agency's
Executive Officer, or other senior individual with equivalent
responsibilities, signs and affirms that their state is complying with
their applicable federally-approved SIP. The commenter argues that the
certifications lack rational or factual bases, but has not presented
any evidence or made any demonstration that suggests any of the states
receiving an attainment date extension are not in compliance with their
SIPs. Absent such a showing, the EPA is disinclined to invalidate the
certifications made by the states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Berry Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and Reclassification
Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), the EPA is finalizing its
proposed determinations that the 11 Marginal nonattainment areas listed
in Table 3 have failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, upon the effective date of
this rule, these 11 Marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment areas will be
reclassified by operation of law to Moderate for the 2008 ozone
standard. The EPA received a number of adverse comments on its proposal
to find that certain Marginal nonattainment areas failed to attain and
to reclassify those areas. We summarize and respond to some of the key
comments later. The docket for this action contains a more detailed
Response to Comments document.
Comment: A number of commenters, while conceding that air quality
monitoring data factually required the EPA to determine that an area
failed to attain by its attainment date, alleged that certain
nonattainment areas' failure to attain by the Marginal area attainment
date was due in large part to the influence of transported emissions
from upwind states. These commenters alleged that the EPA has not done
enough to enforce CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), which requires states to
eliminate emissions that significantly contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. One commenter further noted
that the EPA's current strategy with regard to ozone transport
addresses only the revoked 85 parts per billion (ppb) standard, and
that the EPA has no strategy to reduce transport after 2017.
Response: The agency's mandatory duty to make determinations of
attainment or failure to attain the NAAQS exists regardless of the
nature or effect of transported emissions on monitored air quality data
in a given nonattainment area.\12\ Nonetheless, the EPA readily
acknowledges the role interstate transport of precursors to ozone
pollution plays in the efforts of downwind areas to attain and maintain
the NAAQS. To that end, as commenters have alluded to, the agency has
taken a number of steps to fulfill its statutory obligation to enforce
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), or the ``good neighbor'' provision, including
the NOX SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). most recently, the EPA has
proposed to update CSAPR specifically to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS
with tightened NOX budgets designed to achieve emission
reductions in upwind states before the Moderate area attainment date of
July 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 160-62 (D.C. Cir.
2002) (holding that the EPA is not permitted to relax mandatory
statutory requirements for downwind areas on the basis of interstate
transport).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission Deadline
The EPA received a number of comments on its two proposed options
for establishing the Moderate area SIP due date that would apply to
areas newly reclassified under this final action. After full
consideration of those comments and pursuant to CAA section 182(i), the
EPA is finalizing that SIP revisions required for the newly
reclassified Moderate areas must be submitted as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than January 1, 2017. The EPA acknowledges
that for some states with Moderate nonattainment areas reclassified
from Marginal, meeting this SIP submittal deadline may be challenging.
The EPA is committed to working closely with these states to help them
prepare their SIP revisions in a timely manner.
We summarize and provide responses to the most significant comments
on this issue later; however, all comments received on the proposed
options and the EPA's responses are available in the Response to
Comment document located in the docket for this final rule.
Comment: One commenter contended that the EPA failed to provide a
legal basis for extending the SIP submittal deadlines for Moderate
nonattainment areas. The commenter believed that the EPA made no claim
that the 2017 SIP submittal deadlines are necessary or appropriate to
assure consistency among the required submissions. The commenter also
believed that the EPA's proposed extension would interfere with the
attainment date and contravene CAA section 110(l). The commenter
pointed out that if the EPA finalized the SIP submission deadline to
coincide with the area's beginning of the ozone monitoring season, the
consequence would be that the EPA would have less than 18 months to
take action on state SIP submittals, as late as July 2018, which is
very near the attainment date. The commenter believed that would be far
too late for the EPA to require timely corrections of SIPs that fail to
satisfy the requirements and fail to assure timely attainment.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter on all aspects of
these comments. First, we believe that CAA section 182(i) clearly
provides the Administrator the discretion to adjust any applicable
deadline for reclassified
[[Page 26705]]
areas (other than attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment is
necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required
submissions.
The EPA disagrees with the implication of the comment that the
default assumption upon reclassification is that the EPA would not
adjust the Moderate area SIP submission deadlines. The fact that
Congress included CAA section 182(i) in the statute indicates that it
envisioned that upon reclassification, deadlines would be adjusted by
the Administrator in a reasonable fashion. This is a particularly
reasonable interpretation under the facts at issue here: The attainment
date for Marginal areas under the statute and regulations was July 20,
2015, and the Moderate area SIP submission date for areas initially
classified as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS was also July 20, 2015.
Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), the EPA must make determinations of
attainment and necessary reclassifications within 6 months of the
statutory attainment date. Therefore, under the commenter's
interpretation of the CAA, upon reclassification 6 months after July
20, 2015, states would immediately be found to be in default of the
obligation to submit a Moderate area plan, a deadline that had passed 6
months prior, even though that obligation did not apply until the
moment of reclassification. We do not agree that Congress would have
intended the draconian and absurd result of providing states initial
notice of an obligation and in the same action finding them at fault
for already failing to have met that obligation. Therefore, the EPA
believes that it is reasonable to read CAA section 182(i) in the
context of the 11 reclassified 2008 Marginal ozone areas to provide the
Administrator the authority to adjust the applicable deadline for
Moderate area attainment plans ``as necessary or appropriate to assure
consistency among the required submissions.''
Moreover, failing to establish new Moderate area SIP submission
deadlines for the 11 areas that we are reclassifying in this rulemaking
would lead to potential inconsistency in required submissions among
those areas. Under the commenter's interpretation, these areas would
all have missed their deadline to submit a Moderate area plan on July
20, 2015. The commenter would, therefore, have the EPA begin issuing
findings of failure to submit under CAA section 110(k), which are
required by statute 6 months following the statutory deadline to submit
a SIP, simultaneously with this action, that is, the EPA's
determination that the areas failed to attain and reclassification of
those areas. Following the EPA's issuance of findings of failure to
submit for the 11 areas, there would be no defined statutory or
regulatory deadline by which to remedy the states' failures to make
submittals, except the outside limit of 2 years, the deadline for EPA's
obligation to implement a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
Additionally, if the EPA had not affirmatively determined that a state
had made a complete SIP submittal for an area within 18 months from the
issuance of a finding of failure to submit, the offset sanction
identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply to the affected
nonattainment area.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter that establishing a new
SIP submittal deadline for the reclassified areas is in contravention
of CAA section 110(l). CAA section 110(l) requires that plan revisions
must go through notice and public hearing at the state level before
submission to the EPA, and that ``the Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . .
or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' In order for the
EPA's proposed SIP submittal date to be in contravention of CAA section
110(l), one has to assume that the states will submit deficient SIPs
and that the EPA will not take any kind of corrective action on those
SIPs until after the maximum possible time period permitted under the
statue to take action on such submittals (18 months) has passed. Only
then could a SIP submittal date of more than 18 months prior to the
attainment date be interpreted as interfering with the attainment of
the NAAQS. The EPA does not believe this is a reasonable reading of CAA
section 110(l) or the circumstances of these reclassifications and SIP
deadline adjustments. While the EPA acknowledges that the timeline for
preparation and submittal of SIPs must be compressed in order for
measures to be in place to ensure areas attain by their new Moderate
area attainment date, in establishing the new SIP submittal deadlines
for these reclassified areas, the agency is also taking into account
the time required for states to identify measures, complete the public
notice and hearing process at the state level, and prepare SIP
submissions.
Comment: Several commenters supported the EPA's proposed option to
align the deadline for SIP revisions with the start of the respective
nonattainment area's 2017 ozone season. They cited a number of reasons
this option was preferred, including that more time would be provided
to states to accomplish planning, administrative and SIP revisions
processes in order to meet the deadline. They also cited that this
option would be consistent among states in that they would need to
submit their SIP revisions by their respective ozone seasons. However,
another commenter pointed out that finalizing this option would result
in SIP submittal dates that would be varied among the states and,
therefore, inconsistent. The same commenter also stated that setting
the SIP deadline for the beginning of each area's ozone season would
not be compatible with ensuring implementation of RACT by January 1,
2017, which is the deadline established in 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3).
Response: As noted earlier, of the 11 areas being reclassified to
Moderate, there are only four areas located in states with ozone
seasons that begin later than January 1 that could potentially benefit
from an extra 2 months to submit their SIP revisions. While the EPA
recognizes the value of additional time (beyond January 1, 2017) to
these states to develop an attainment demonstration, an RFP plan, and
contingency measures, the EPA also recognizes the value in establishing
a single due date for Moderate area SIP submissions--including RACT--
that does not extend beyond the deadline for implementing such
controls. Thus, the EPA is finalizing its second proposed option, which
requires that states submit the required Moderate area SIP revisions as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2017. This
approach aligns the SIP submittal deadline with the January 1, 2017,
deadline for implementing RACT pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1112(a)(3), for
each area, and would also ensure that SIPs requiring control measures
needed for attainment, including RACM, would be submitted prior to when
those controls are required to be implemented. This option also treats
states consistently, in keeping with CAA section 182(i). The EPA
recognizes the challenges posed by these very short deadlines and is
committed to working closely with all states to help them prepare their
SIP revisions, including parallel processing, in a timely manner.
E. Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Final SIP Call for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS for the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island (NY-
NJ-CT) Nonattainment Area
This action finalizes the EPA's determination that the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area failed to attain the
[[Page 26706]]
2008 standard by the Marginal area attainment date of July 20, 2015,
and must be reclassified to Moderate by operation of law in accordance
with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). In addition, the EPA is also finalizing
in this rulemaking the proposed rescission of its prior CDD for the NY-
NJ-CT nonattainment area with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as
well as the accompanying SIP Call proposed with that rescission. As
noted previously, in the May 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that one
way the affected states could respond to the SIP Call would be to
voluntarily request a reclassification under the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
to submit a SIP that meets the Moderate area requirements for that
standard.
By reclassifying the area by operation of law, this final action
effectively eliminates the need for the three affected states to
request reclassification under this option. However, as explained in
the agency's August 27, 2015, proposal and reiterated later, the EPA
believes it is appropriate for the three states involved to be able to
meet their obligations under the SIP Call for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with
their Moderate area SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone standard. This
final action also supersedes the 18 months, which is the maximum period
allowed under CAA section 110(k)(5), that EPA proposed to provide the
states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut from the effective date
of a final SIP Call to develop and submit to the EPA the relevant SIPs
for the 1997 or 2008 ozone NAAQS. As discussed previously, the EPA is
finalizing that the required SIP revisions for these areas shall be
submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1,
2017. We also note that this deadline meets the statutory timeframe for
a SIP revision under CAA section 110(k)(5).
The EPA did not receive adverse comments on its August 27, 2015,
proposal to reclassify the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area to Moderate, nor
did the EPA receive comments about its statement that submitting an
attainment plan for the 2008 ozone standard would satisfy a final SIP
Call on the 1997 ozone standard. We received a number of comments on
the May 15, 2014, proposal (79 FR 27830) to rescind the CDD for the NY-
NJ-CT 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and the accompanying SIP
Call for attainment plans. We summarize later some of the significant
comments submitted in response to the May 15, 2014, proposal and our
responses. Additionally, we have made available a more detailed summary
of comments and responses in a document titled, ``Response to Comments:
Proposed Rule: Rescission of Determination of Attainment and Call for
Attainment Plans for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the NY-NJ-CT
1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area,'' which is available in the docket
associated with this rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter believed that CAA section 110(k)(5) either
compels or provides the EPA the authority necessary to expand the
proposed SIP Call to include any state that is shown to significantly
contribute to the failure of the NY-NJ-CT area to attain because these
states have failed to meet their obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\13\ The commenter further believed that CAA section
110(k)(5) allows the EPA to issue a SIP Call to address states' SIPs
that are inadequate in mitigating transport as described in CAA
sections 176A and 184. The commenter believed that the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in EPA v. EME Homer City (134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014)),
compels the EPA to immediately issue FIPs for upwind states that have
failed to take all necessary steps to make it feasible for any
nonattainment area significantly impacted by interstate air pollution
to attain and maintain both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Finally, the commenter noted that the ``CSAPR modeling shows that
Connecticut receives no more than a 0.2 ppb total benefit from the
CSAPR remedy, which is entirely inadequate given the overwhelming scope
of transport.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The commenter refers to states' interstate transport
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), but the EPA
understands these citations to in fact refer to the good neighbor
provision, which is CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states to
prohibit emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in,
or interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to
primary and secondary NAAQS. In the CSAPR promulgated on August 8, 2011
(76 FR 48207), the EPA found that emissions of sulfur dioxide and
NOX in 27 eastern, midwestern, and southern states
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in one or more downwind states with respect to one or more of three air
quality standards--the annual PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in
1997, the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2006, and, as
relevant here, the ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997.
For the 1997 ozone NAAQS specifically, twenty states are required
under CSAPR to reduce NOX emissions during the ozone season
(May through September) because they contribute to downwind states'
ozone pollution. The emission reductions under CSAPR in these upwind
states will improve ozone air quality in downwind states and help them
attain and maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
The timing of CSAPR's implementation was initially affected by
litigation over the rule. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed
the effectiveness of CSAPR pending resolution of judicial review. On
August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR,\14\ but on April 29,
2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the D.C.
Circuit's 2012 decision and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit.\15\
Following the remand, on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted the
EPA's motion to lift the CSAPR stay and toll the CSAPR compliance
deadlines by 3 years. Accordingly, CSAPR Phase 1 implementation began
on January 1, 2015, with Phase 2 beginning in 2017. See CSAPR interim
final rule at 81 FR 13275 (March 14, 2016). Subsequently, the D.C.
Circuit issued its final ruling as to CSAPR, affirming it in most
respects but invalidating without vacating several of the rule's state-
specific budgets, including some of the rule's Phase 2 ozone-season
NOX budgets.\16\ The EPA has since proposed a rulemaking to
update to the CSAPR ozone-season NOX budgets in order to
address the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS and to respond to the D.C.
Circuit's remand of the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX
budgets.\17\ As proposed, the CSAPR Update ozone-season NOX
budgets would be effective starting in 2017, effectively replacing
CSAPR Phase 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38
(D.C. Circuit 2012).
\15\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014).
\16\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C.
Circuit 2015).
\17\ 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Supreme Court's
decision in EPA v. EME Homer City compels the agency to issue new FIPs
or to expand the scope of the proposed SIP Call to address the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Supreme Court did, however, confirm that
the EPA properly issued the CSAPR FIPs in response to disapprovals of
SIPs or findings of failure to submit SIPs implementing states'
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Those FIPs took effect and began implementation on January 1,
[[Page 26707]]
2015 pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's grant of the EPA's motion
requesting lifting of the stay, so we note that at the time the NY-NJ-
CT area fell back into nonattainment of the 1997 standard, it did not
have the benefit of CSAPR reductions. While the commenter points out
that modeling conducted for the CSAPR rulemaking projected that the
remedy would provide ``no more than a 0.2 ppb total benefit,'' the same
modeling also predicted that those reductions, once implemented, would
fully resolve nonattainment and maintenance problems for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the receptors identified in the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area.
For upwind states that were linked only to receptors where downwind
nonattainment and maintenance problems were fully resolved under the
remedy, the EPA found that CSAPR quantified the full reduction
responsibility for the 1997 ozone NAAQS under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\18\ Therefore, the EPA could not expand the scope
of the SIP Call being issued on the basis that upwind states had not
fulfilled their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations as to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS when the EPA has already issued a FIP that fully resolves the
obligations of those states with respect to that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 76 FR 48210, Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP
Approvals (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also does not agree that it would be appropriate in this
action to more broadly apply its 110(k)(5) authority to include
additional states in this SIP Call to address interstate pollutant
transport as described in sections 176A and 184 of the CAA. The EPA
acknowledges that a number of states, including Connecticut and New
York, submitted a petition under CAA section 176A requesting that the
EPA add additional states to the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that was
established under section 184 of the CAA. The EPA is reviewing that
petition separately and is not acting on that petition in this action.
In addition, the EPA's authority to require SIP revisions under
110(k)(5) as they relate to additional control measures required by CAA
section 184 applies to only states that are currently part of the OTR.
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
The CAA requires that states with areas designated as nonattainment
submit to the Administrator the appropriate SIP revisions and implement
specified control measures by certain dates applicable to the area's
classification. By requiring additional planning and implementation
requirements for the 11 nonattainment areas that we determined failed
to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS standard, the part of this action
reclassifying those 11 areas from Marginal to Moderate will protect all
those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in
those areas regardless of minority or economic status.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it makes determinations if designated 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas are either attaining or failing to attain the 2008
ozone NAAQS by the attainment date along with resulting
reclassifications or determination to grant 1-year attainment date
extensions.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This rule does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0695. This action to find that the Marginal ozone
nonattainment areas listed in Table 3 failed to attain the 2008 NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date, to reclassify those areas as
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, and to adjust any applicable
deadlines, does not establish any new information collection burden
that has not already been identified in the existing 2008 ozone NAAQS
Information Collection Request number 2347.01.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
Determinations of nonattainment and the resulting reclassification of
nonattainment areas by operation of law under section 181(b)(2) of the
CAA do not in and of themselves create any new requirements. Instead,
this rulemaking only makes a factual determination, and does not
directly regulate any entities. This action also establishes the
deadline by which states will need to submit revisions to their SIPs to
address the new Moderate area requirements, and that deadline, if based
on the statute, would otherwise be more stringent. In this final
action, the EPA is exercising discretion under CAA section 182(i) which
allows the Administrator to provide state air agencies additional time
to comply with those requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal areas are implicated in the 11 areas
that we are finding to have failed to meet their attainment date. The
CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the
federal government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS,
and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action determines that 11 areas,
identified in Table 3, did not attain the 2008 ozone standard by their
applicable attainment date and to reclassify these areas as Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas and to adjust applicable deadlines.
[[Page 26708]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained
in the section of the preamble titled ``Environmental Justice
Considerations.''
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability that names specific entities where this rule makes
factual determinations and does directly regulate any entities. The
determinations of attainment and failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(and resulting reclassifications), and the determination to grant 1-
year attainment date extensions do not in themselves create any new
requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of final actions that are locally and regionally applicable may be
filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit. However, the statute also provides that notwithstanding that
general rule, ``a petition for review of any action . . . may be filed
only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or
effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and
publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' 42
U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). See also Dalton Trucking v. EPA, 808 F.3d 875 (D.C.
Circuit 2015). Because this final action makes findings with regard to
nonattainment areas across the country, interprets the CAA and applies
such interpretations to states and nonattainment areas across the
country, and establishes SIP deadlines for newly reclassified areas in
different states in a consistent fashion, the Administrator finds that
this action has nationwide scope and effect. Therefore, in accordance
with CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for review of this final action
may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by July 5, 2016. Note, under CAA section
307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings for
enforcement.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 11, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 81, title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E--Arkansas
0
2. Add Sec. 52.174 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.174 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.
(a) The EPA has determined that the Crittenden County Marginal 2008
ozone NAAQS nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2015.
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart F--California
0
3. Section 52.282 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) introductory
text and (e)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.
* * * * *
(e) Determinations of attainment. Effective June 3, 2016.
(1) Approval of applications for extensions of applicable
attainment dates. Under section 181(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA
is approving the applications submitted by the California Air Resources
Board dated June 1, 2015, referencing the District's letter of May 19,
2015, for extensions of the applicable attainment date for the San Luis
Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas from July 20, 2015 to July 20, 2016.
(2) Determinations of attainment. The EPA has determined that the
Calaveras County, Chico (Butte County), San Francisco Bay Area and
Tuscan Buttes 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in California have
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone standard by the July 20, 2015 applicable
attainment date, based upon complete quality-assured data for 2012-
2014. Therefore, the EPA has met its obligation pursuant to CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the area's air quality data as of
the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard. As a
result of these determinations, the Calaveras County, Chico (Butte
County), San Francisco Bay Area and Tuscan Buttes 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas in California will not be reclassified for failure
to attain by their July 20, 2015, applicable attainment date under
section 181(b)(2)(A).
* * * * *
Subpart H--Connecticut
0
4. Section 52.377 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(p) Rescission of clean data determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016, the EPA is determining that
complete quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2012-
2014 show the NY-NJ-CT 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area did not
meet 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Therefore, the EPA is rescinding
the clean data determination for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard
only. The prior determination (see paragraph k of this section) is in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. The prior determination suspended the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable
[[Page 26709]]
further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the standard for as long as this area
continues to meet the 1997 annual eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This
rescission of the clean data determination will result in a SIP Call
for a new ozone attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard, for this area only. If the revised plan is approved by
the EPA as demonstrating reasonable further progress and attainment for
the more stringent 2008 NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date, and
is approved by the EPA as containing adequate contingency measures for
the 2008 NAAQS, then the plan would be deemed to have also satisfied
requirements of the SIP Call associated with violations for the 1997
NAAQS.
Subpart I--Delaware
0
5. Section 52.425 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.425 Determinations of attainment.
* * * * *
(c) The EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, that based on 2012
to 2014 ambient air quality data, the Seaford, DE 2008 ozone Marginal
nonattainment area has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality data as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also determined that the Seaford
nonattainment area will not be reclassified for failure to attain by
its applicable attainment date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart P--Indiana
0
6. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (tt) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.777 Control strategy: photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).
* * * * *
(tt) Determination of attainment. As required by section
181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has determined that the
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July
20, 2015.
Subpart S--Kentucky
0
7. Section 52.930 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.930 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(m) Determination of attainment. The EPA has determined, as of June
3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air quality data, the
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality data as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also determined that the Cincinnati, OH-
KY-IN nonattainment area will not be reclassified for failure to attain
by its applicable attainment date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart T--Louisiana
0
8. Section 52.977 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.977 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.
* * * * *
(f) The EPA has determined that the Baton Rouge Marginal 2008 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of July 20, 2015.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
0
9. Section 52.1129 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1129 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(k) Determination of attainment for the eight-hour ozone standard.
Effective June 3, 2016, the EPA is determining that complete quality-
assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2012 to 2014 show the
Dukes County, Massachusetts eight-hour ozone nonattainment area
attained the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard by its July 20, 2015
attainment deadline. Therefore, the EPA has met the requirement
pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the area's
air quality data as of the attainment date, whether the area attained
the standard. The EPA also determined that the Dukes County
nonattainment area will not be reclassified for failure to attain by
its applicable attainment date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart Z--Mississippi
0
10. Add Sec. 52.1273 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1273 Control strategy: Ozone.
(a) Determination of attainment. The EPA has determined, as of June
3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air quality data, the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment area has attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the requirement
pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the area's
air quality data as of the attainment date, whether the area attained
the standard. The EPA also determined that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR
nonattainment area will not be reclassified for failure to attain by
its applicable attainment date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart FF--New Jersey
Sec. 52.1576 [Amended]
0
11. Section 52.1576 is amended by remove paragraph (d).
0
12. Section 52.1582 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1582 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.
* * * * *
(p) Rescission of clean data determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016, the EPA is determining that
complete quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2012-
2014 show the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 1997
eight-hour ozone nonattainment area did not meet 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard. Therefore, the EPA is rescinding the clean data determination
for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard only. The prior determination
(see paragraph (n)(2)) is in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. The prior
determination suspended the requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long
as this area continues to meet the 1997 annual eight-hour ozone NAAQS.
This rescission of the clean data determination will result in a SIP
Call for a new ozone attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard, for this area only. If the revised plan is approved by
the EPA as demonstrating reasonable further progress and attainment for
the more stringent 2008 NAAQS by the Moderate area
[[Page 26710]]
attainment date, and is approved by the EPA as containing adequate
contingency measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then the plan would be deemed
to have also satisfied requirements of the SIP Call associated with
violations for the 1997 NAAQS.
Subpart HH--New York
0
13. Section 52.1679 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1679 Determinations of attainment.
* * * * *
(b) Determination of attainment. The EPA has determined, as of June
3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air quality data, the
Jamestown, NY 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment area has attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the requirement pursuant
to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the area's air
quality data as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the
standard. The EPA also determined that the Jamestown, NY nonattainment
area will not be reclassified for failure to attain by its applicable
attainment date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
0
14. Section 52.1683 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(2)(v) and
adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Jamestown (consisting of Chautauqua County) as of June 3, 2016.
* * * * *
(n) Rescission of clean data determination for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard. Effective June 3, 2016, the EPA is determining that
complete quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2012
to 2014 show the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area did not meet the 1997 eight-
hour ozone standard. Therefore, the EPA is rescinding the clean data
determination for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard only. The prior
determination (see paragraph (f)(2)(viii) of this section) is in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. The prior determination suspended the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet
the 1997 annual eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This rescission of the clean
data determination will result in a SIP Call for a new ozone attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard, for this area
only. If the revised plan is approved by the EPA as demonstrating
reasonable further progress and attainment for the more stringent 2008
NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date, and is approved by the EPA
as containing adequate contingency measures for the 2008 NAAQS, then
the plan would be deemed to have also satisfied requirements of the SIP
Call associated with violations for the 1997 NAAQS.
Subpart II--North Carolina
0
15. Section 52.1779 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1779 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(c) Determination of attainment. The EPA has determined, as of June
3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air quality data, the
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality data as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also determined that the Charlotte-Rock
Hill, NC-SC nonattainment area will not be reclassified for failure to
attain by its applicable attainment date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart KK--Ohio
0
16. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (nn) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(nn) Determination of attainment. As required by section
181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has determined that the
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN and Columbus, OH Marginal 2008 ozone nonattainment
areas have attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July
20, 2015.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
17. Section 52.2056 is amended by adding paragraphs (k), (l), and (m)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2056 Determinations of attainment.
* * * * *
(k) The EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, that based on 2012
to 2014 ambient air quality data, the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA
2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015.
Therefore, the EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the area's air quality as of the
attainment date, whether the area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The EPA also determined that the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA
marginal nonattainment area will not be reclassified for failure to
attain by its applicable attainment date pursuant to section
181(b)(2)(A).
(l) The EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, that based on 2012
to 2014 ambient air quality data, the Lancaster, PA 2008 ozone Marginal
nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met
the requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the
area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA also determined that
the Lancaster, PA Marginal nonattainment area will not be reclassified
for failure to attain by its applicable attainment date pursuant to
section 181(b)(2)(A).
(m) The EPA has determined, as of June 3, 2016, that based on 2012
to 2014 ambient air quality data, the Reading, PA 2008 ozone Marginal
nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met
the requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the
area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA also determined that
the Reading, PA Marginal nonattainment area will not be reclassified
for failure to attain by its applicable attainment date pursuant to
section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart PP--South Carolina
0
18. Section 52.2125 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2125 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(c) Determination of attainment. The EPA has determined, as of June
3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air quality data, the
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to
[[Page 26711]]
CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on the area's air quality
data as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard.
The EPA also determined that the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC
nonattainment area will not be reclassified for failure to attain by
its applicable attainment date under section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart RR--Tennessee
0
19. Section 52.2235 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2235 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(d) Determination of attainment. The EPA has determined, as of June
3, 2016, that based on 2011 to 2013 ambient air quality data, the
Knoxville, TN and Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment
areas have attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met
the requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on an area's air quality data as of the attainment date, whether
the areas attained the standard. The EPA also determined that the
Knoxville, TN and Memphis, TN-MS-AR nonattainment areas will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by their applicable attainment date
under section 181(b)(2)(A).
Subpart ZZ--Wyoming
0
20. Add Sec. 52.2623 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2623 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.
(a) Determination of attainment. The EPA has determined, as of June
3, 2016, that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air quality data, the Upper
Green River Basin Area, WY 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment area has
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine, based on
the area's air quality data as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard. The EPA also determined that the Upper Green
River Basin Area, WY nonattainment area will not be reclassified for
failure to attain by its applicable attainment date under section
181(b)(2)(A).
(b) [Reserved]
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
21. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
22. Section 81.303 is amended in the table for ``Arizona-2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the heading entry for
``Phoenix-Mesa, AZ'' and the entries for ``Maricopa County (part)'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 81.303 Arizona.
* * * * *
Arizona--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ: \2\......................................... .............. Nonattainment.............. 6/3/16 Moderate.
Maricopa County (part)
T1N, R1E (except that portion in Indian Country); T1N,
R2E; T1N, R3E; T1N, R4E; T1N, R5E; T1N, R6E; T1N,
R7E; T1N, R1W; T1N, R2W; T1N, R3W; T1N, R4W; T1N,
R5W; T1N, R6W; T1N, R7W; T1N, R8W; T2N, R1E; T2N,
R2E; T2N, R3E; T2N, R4E; T2N, R5E; T2N, R6E; T2N,
R7E; T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E; T2N, R10E; T2N, R11E; T2N,
R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R13E
(except that portion in Gila County); T2N, R1W; T2N,
R2W; T2N, R3W; T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W; T2N, R6W; T2N,
R7W; T2N, R8W; T3N, R1E; T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E; T3N,
R4E; T3N, R5E; T3N, R6E; T3N, R7E; T3N, R8E; T3N,
R9E; T3N, R10E (except that portion in Gila County);
T3N, R11E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N,
R12E (except that portion in Gila County); T3N, R1W;
T3N, R2W; T3N, R3W; T3N, R4W; T3N, R5W; T3N, R6W;
T4N, R1E; T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E; T4N, R4E; T4N, R5E;
T4N, R6E; T4N, R7E; T4N, R8E; T4N, R9E; T4N, R10E
(except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R11E
(except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R12E
(except that portion in Gila County); T4N, R1W; T4N,
R2W; T4N, R3W; T4N, R4W; T4N, R5W; T4N, R6W; T5N,
R1E; T5N, R2E; T5N, R3E; T5N, R4E; T5N, R5E; T5N,
R6E; N, R8E; T5N, R9E (except that portion in Gila
County); T5N, R10E (except that portion in Gila
County); T5N, R1W; T5N, R2W; T5N, R3W; T5N, R4W; T5N,
R5W; T6N, R1E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T6N, R2E; T6N, R3E; T6N, R4E; T6N, R5E; T6N,
R6E; T6N, R7E; T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E (except that
portion in Gila County); T6N, R10E (except that
portion in Gila County); T6N, R1W (except that
portion in Yavapai County); T6N, R2W; T6N, R3W; T6N,
R4W; T6N, R5W; T7N, R1E; (except that portion in
Yavapai County); T7N, R2E (except that portion in
Yavapai County);
[[Page 26712]]
T7N, R3E; T7N, R4E; T7N, R5E; T7N, R6E; T7N, R7E;
T7N, R8E; T7N, R9E (except that portion in Gila
County); T7N, R1W (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T7N, R2W (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R2E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R3E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R4E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R5E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R6E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R7E (except that portion in Yavapai
County); T8N, R8E (except that portion in Yavapai and
Gila Counties); T8N, R9E (except that portion in
Yavapai and Gila Counties); T1S, R1E (except that
portion in Indian Country); T1S, R2E (except that
portion in Pinal County and in Indian Country); T1S,
R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S, R5E; T1S, R6E; T1S, R7E; T1S,
R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S, R3W; T1S, R4W; T1S, R5W; T1S,
R6W; T2S, R1E (except that portion in Indian
Country); T2S, R5E; T2S, R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, R1W;
T2S, R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S, R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E;
T3S, R1W; T3S, R2W; T3S, R3W; T3S, R4W; T3S, R5W;
T4S, R1E; T4S, R1W; T4S, R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W;
T4S, R5W; T5S, R4W (Sections 1 through 22 and 27
through 34).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California-2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Imperial County, CA'', ``Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA'', ``Mariposa
County, CA'', ``Nevada County (Western part), CA'', and ``San Diego
County, CA'', and ``San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA'' and
adding a footnote ``5'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.305 California.
* * * * *
California--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial County, CA: \2\............ .............. Nonattainment....... 6/3/16 Moderate.
Imperial County.................
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Indian Reservation \3\.
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians \3\.
Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA: \2\. .............. Nonattainment....... 6/3/16 Moderate.
Kern County (part)..............
[[Page 26713]]
That portion of Kern County (with
the exception of that portion in
Hydrologic Unit Number 18090205--
the Indian Wells Valley) east and
south of a line described as
follows: Beginning at the Kern-Los
Angeles County boundary and running
north and east along the northwest
boundary of the Rancho La Liebre
Land Grant to the point of
intersection with the range line
common to Range 16 West and Range
17 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian; north along the range
line to the point of intersection
with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant
boundary; then southeast,
northeast, and northwest along the
boundary of the Rancho El Tejon
Grant to the northwest corner of
Section 3, Township 11 North, Range
17 West; then west 1.2 miles; then
north to the Rancho El Tejon Land
Grant boundary; then northwest
along the Rancho El Tejon line to
the southeast corner of Section 34,
Township 32 South, Range 30 East,
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian;
then north to the northwest corner
of Section 35, Township 31 South,
Range 30 East; then northeast along
the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon
Land Grant to the southwest corner
of Section 18, Township 31 South,
Range 31 East; then east to the
southeast corner of Section 13,
Township 31 South, Range 31 East;
then north along the range line
common to Range 31 East and Range
32 East, Mount Diablo Base and
Meridian, to the northwest corner
of Section 6, Township 29 South,
Range 32 East; then east to the
southwest corner of Section 31,
Township 28 South, Range 32 East;
then north along the range line
common to Range 31 East and Range
32 East to the northwest corner of
Section 6, Township 28 South, Range
32 East, then west to the southeast
corner of Section 36, Township 27
South, Range 31 East, then north
along the range line common to
Range 31 East and Range 32 East to
the Kern-Tulare County boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariposa County, CA: \2\ Mariposa .............. Nonattainment....... 6/3/16 Moderate.
County.
Nevada County (Western part), CA: .............. Nonattainment....... 6/3/16 Moderate.
\2\.
Nevada County (part)............
That portion of Nevada
County, which lies west of
a line, described as
follows: Beginning at the
Nevada-Placer County
boundary and running north
along the western
boundaries of Sections 24,
13, 12, 1, Township 17
North, Range 14 East, Mount
Diablo Base and Meridian,
and Sections 36, 25, 24,
13, 12, Township 18 North,
Range 14 East to the Nevada-
Sierra County boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego County, CA: \2\........... .............. Nonattainment....... 6/3/16 Moderate.
San Diego County................
Barona Group of Capitan Grande
Band of Mission Indians of the
Barona Reservation \3\.
Campo Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians of the Campo Indian
Reservation \3\.
Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians of California
\3\.
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumayaay
Indians \3\.
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel \3\
Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit
Reservation \3\.
Jamul Indian Village of
California \3\.
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
\3\.
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians of the La Posta
Indian Reservation \3\.
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and
Cupeno Indians \3\.
[[Page 26714]]
Manzanita Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians of the
Manzanita Reservation \3\.
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians of the Mesa
Grande Reservation \3\.
Pala Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Pala Reservation
\3\.
Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Pauma and Yuima
Reservation \3\.
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Rincon
Reservation \3\.
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians of California
\3\.
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation \3\.
Viejas (Baron Long) Group of
Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians \3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis .............. Nonattainment....... 6/3/16 Marginal.\5\
Obispo), CA: \2\.
San Luis Obispo County (part)...
That portion of San Luis
Obispo County that lies
east of a line described as
follows: Beginning at the
San Luis Obispo County/
Santa Barbara County
boundary and running north
along 120 degrees 24
minutes longitude to the
intersection with 35
degrees 27 minutes
latitude; east along 35
degrees 27 minutes latitude
to the intersection with
120 degrees 18 minutes
longitude; then north along
120 degrees 18 minutes
longitude to the San Luis
Obispo County/Monterey
County boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information
pertaining to areas of Indian country in this table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an
EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA lacks the authority to
establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this
table.
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 81.306 is amended in the table for ``Colorado--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.306 Colorado.
* * * * *
Colorado--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins- .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
Loveland, CO: \2\.
Adams County..................
Arapahoe County...............
Boulder County................
Broomfield County.............
Denver County.................
Douglas County................
Jefferson County..............
Larimer County (part).........
[[Page 26715]]
That portion of the county
that lies south of a line
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on
Larimer County's eastern
boundary and Weld
County's western boundary
intersected by 40
degrees, 42 minutes, and
47.1 seconds north
latitude, proceed west to
a point defined by the
intersection of 40
degrees, 42 minutes, 47.1
seconds north latitude
and 105 degrees, 29
minutes, and 40.0 seconds
west longitude, thence
proceed south on 105
degrees, 29 minutes, 40.0
seconds west longitude to
the intersection with 40
degrees, 33 minutes and
17.4 seconds north
latitude, thence proceed
west on 40 degrees, 33
minutes, 17.4 seconds
north latitude until this
line intersects Larimer
County's western boundary
and Grand County's
eastern boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weld County (part)............
That portion of the county
that lies south of a line
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on
Weld County's eastern
boundary and Logan
County's western boundary
intersected by 40
degrees, 42 minutes, 47.1
seconds north latitude,
proceed west on 40
degrees, 42 minutes, 47.1
seconds north latitude
until this line
intersects Weld County's
western boundary and
Larimer County's eastern
boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
25. Section 81.307 is amended by revising the table for ``Connecticut--
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.307 Connecticut.
* * * * *
Connecticut--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Connecticut, CT: \2\...... .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
Hartford County
Litchfield County
New London County
Tolland County
Windham County
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of
Connecticut \3\
Mohegan Indian Tribe of
Connecticut \3\
New York-N. New Jersey-Long .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
Island, NY-NJ-CT: \2\.
Fairfield County
Middlesex County
New Haven County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 26716]]
\3\ Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information
pertaining to areas of Indian country in this table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an
EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA lacks the authority to
establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this
table.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 81.308 is amended by revising the table for ``Delaware--
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.308 Delaware.
* * * * *
Delaware--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE: \2\.
New Castle County
Seaford: \2\
Sussex County .............. Nonattainment........ .............. Marginal.
Rest of State: \3\
Southern Delaware Intrastate
AQCR: (remainder)
Kent County .............. Unclassifiable/ .....................
Attainment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified.
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
27. Section 81.309 is amended by revising the table for ``District of
Columbia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.309 District of Columbia.
* * * * *
District of Columbia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC-MD-VA: District of .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\3\
Columbia \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
28. Section 81.311 is amended in the table for ``Georgia--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Atlanta, GA'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.311 Georgia.
* * * * *
Georgia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA: \2\.................. .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
[[Page 26717]]
Bartow County
Cherokee County
Clayton County
Cobb County
Coweta County
DeKalb County
Douglas County
Fayette County
Forsyth County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Henry County
Newton County
Paulding County
Rockdale County
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 81.314 is amended in the table for ``Illinois--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by:
0
a. Revising the entries for ``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'';
0
b. Revising the heading entry ``St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-
IL'' and the entries ``Madison County'', ``Monroe County'', and ``St.
Clair County''; and
0
c. Adding a footnote ``4''.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 81.314 Illinois.
* * * * *
Illinois--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\. .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
Cook County
DuPage County
Grundy County (part)
Aux Sable Township
Goose Lake Township
Kane County
Kendall County (part)
Oswego Township
Lake County
McHenry County
Will County
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
MO-IL: \2\.
Madison County
Monroe County
St. Clair County
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 81.315 is amended in the table for ``Indiana--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.315 Indiana.
* * * * *
[[Page 26718]]
Indiana--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\. .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16. Moderate.
Lake County
Porter County
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
31. Section 81.321 is amended in the table for ``Maryland--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by:
0
a. Revising the entries for ``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-MD-DE'';
0
b. Revising the heading entry ``Washington, DC-MD-VA''; and
0
c. Adding a footnote ``4''.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 81.321 Maryland.
* * * * *
Maryland--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE: \2\.
Cecil County.................. .............. ..................... .............. .....................
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\......... .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\ 4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
32. Section 81.326 is amended in the table for ``Missouri--2008--8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the heading entry for
``St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL'' and adding a footnote ``4''
to read as follows:
Sec. 81.326 Missouri.
* * * * *
Missouri--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
MO-IL: \2\.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
33. Amend Sec. 81.331 by revising the table for ``New Jersey--2008 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.331 New Jersey.
* * * * *
[[Page 26719]]
New Jersey--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York-N. New Jersey-Long .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
Island, NY-NJ-CT: \2\.
1Bergen County................
Essex County..................
Hudson County.................
Hunterdon County..............
Middlesex County..............
Monmouth County...............
Morris County.................
Passaic County................
Somerset County...............
Sussex County.................
Union County..................
Warren County.................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\3\.
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE: \2\.
Atlantic County...............
Burlington County.............
Camden County.................
Cape May County............... ..............
Cumberland County.............
Gloucester County.............
Mercer County.................
Ocean County..................
Salem County..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
34. Section 81.333 is amended in the table for ``New York--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for ``New
York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.333 New York.
* * * * *
New York--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
New York-N. New Jersey-Long .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
Island, NY-NJ-CT: \2\.
Bronx County..................
Kings County..................
Nassau County.................
New York County...............
Queens County.................
Richmond County...............
Rockland County...............
Suffolk County................
Westchester County............
Shinnecock Indian Nation \3\..
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information
pertaining to areas of Indian country in this table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an
EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA lacks the authority to
establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this
table.
* * * * *
0
35. Section 81.336 is amended in the table for ``Ohio--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
* * * * *
[[Page 26720]]
Ohio--2008--8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH: \2\... .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
Ashtabula County..............
Cuyahoga County...............
Geauga County.................
Lake County...................
Lorain County.................
Medina County.................
Portage County................
Summit County.................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
36. Section 81.339 is amended in the table for ``Pennsylvania--2008 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE'' and
``Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.339 Pennsylvania.
* * * * *
Pennsylvania--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
City, PA-NJ-MD-DE \2\.
Bucks County..................
Chester County................
Delaware County...............
Montgomery County.............
Philadelphia County...........
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA \2\.. .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
Allegheny County..............
Armstrong County..............
Beaver County.................
Butler County.................
Fayette County................
Washington County.............
Westmoreland County...........
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
37. Section 81.344 is amended in the table for ``Texas--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 81.344 Texas.
* * * * *
[[Page 26721]]
Texas--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX:\2\ .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
Brazoria County...............
Chambers County...............
Fort Bend County..............
Galveston County..............
Harris County.................
Liberty County................
Montgomery County.............
Waller County.................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
38. Section 81.347 is amended in the table for ``Virginia--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Washington, DC-MD-VA'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.347 Virginia.
* * * * *
Virginia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area \1\ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \2\ Type Date \2\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\......... .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
Arlington County..............
Fairfax County................
Loudoun County................
Prince William County.........
Alexandria City...............
Fairfax City..................
Falls Church City.............
Manassas City.................
Manassas Park City............
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
0
39. Section 81.350 is amended in the table for ``Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by:
0
a. Revising the heading entry for ``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' and
the entries for ``Sheboygan County, WI''; and
0
b. Adding a footnote ``4''.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 81.350 Wisconsin.
* * * * *
Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\. .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Moderate.
* * * * * * *
Sheboygan County, WI: \2\......... .............. Nonattainment........ 6/3/16 Marginal.\4\
[[Page 26722]]
Sheboygan County..............
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-09729 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P