[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42126-42132]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15032]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0412; FRL-9818-01-R9]

Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, California
Areas Classified as Serious for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Marginal for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Nevada County (Western part) and Ventura County
areas in California, both classified as Serious for the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), attained the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the July 20, 2021 attainment date. The EPA is also proposing
to determine that six areas in California classified as Marginal for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August 3,
2021 attainment date. These six areas are: Butte County, Calaveras
County, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County,
and Tuscan Buttes. Our proposed determination of attainment is based on
the exclusion of exceedances of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS that
occurred on multiple days in 2018 and 2020, because the exceedances are
due to exceptional events. We are further proposing to find that, if we
finalize these proposed determinations of attainment by the attainment
date for the Nevada County (Western part) and Ventura nonattainment
areas, then the requirement for the state to have contingency measures
for Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for these areas will no longer apply, because the contingency
measures would never be needed given the attainment of the NAAQS. This
action, if finalized as proposed, will fulfill the EPA's statutory
obligation to determine whether these ozone nonattainment areas
attained the NAAQS by the relevant attainment date.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0412, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to our public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if
you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Statutory and Regulatory Background for the Proposed Actions
    B. Determination of Attainment or Failure to Attain
    1. 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    2. 2015 Ozone NAAQS
    C. Data Considered for This Proposed Determination
    D. Areas Addressed in Proposed Action
    1. Areas Classified Serious for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    2. Areas Classified Marginal for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
II. Proposed Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date
    A. Determinations of Attainment and the EPA's Analysis of
Relevant Air Quality Monitoring Data
    B. Exceptional Events Relevant to the EPA's Analysis of Relevant
Air Quality Monitoring Data
    C. Effect of This Proposal: Designation and Classification
    D. Effect of This Proposal: Contingency Measures
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Summary of Proposal
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background for the Proposed Actions

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires the EPA to establish
primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for certain pervasive pollutants that ``may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.'' \1\ The primary
NAAQS is designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety, and the secondary NAAQS is designed to protect public welfare
and the environment. The EPA has set standards for six common air
pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants, including ozone
(O3). These standards represent the air quality levels an
area must meet to comply with the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 108(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ozone is a gas created in the troposphere by chemical reactions
between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. Ground-level ozone can
harm human health and the environment. Ozone exposure has been
associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory infections,
increased medication use by asthmatics, and increased health care
visits, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions for
individuals with

respiratory disease. Ozone exposure may also contribute to metabolic
diseases, such as diabetes, and premature death, especially in people
with heart and lung disease.
    In March 2008, the EPA strengthened the ozone NAAQS, establishing
primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards at a level of 0.075 ppm
(``2008 ozone NAAQS'' or ``2008 ozone standards'').\2\ The numerical
level of the NAAQS had previously been set at 0.08 ppm. In October
2015, the EPA further strengthened the primary and secondary eight-hour
ozone NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm (``2015
ozone NAAQS'' or ``2015 ozone standards'').\3\ Both of these standards
require that the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration may not exceed the numerical
level of the standard. Section 107(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to
designate an area ``nonattainment'' if it is violating the standards or
if it has sources contributing to a violation of the standards in a
nearby area. The EPA designates areas for each standard separately, and
makes determinations of attainment individually for each area and each
standard. For ozone standards, the EPA classifies nonattainment areas
as ``Marginal,'' ``Moderate,'' ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' or ``Extreme,''
depending upon ambient air monitoring results calculated as an ozone
design value of the area at the time of designation.4 5 An
ozone nonattainment area with a higher classification is subject to a
greater number of, and more stringent, CAA planning and control
requirements than lower classification areas, but the state is provided
more time to attain the NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \3\ 80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015).
    \4\ See CAA section 181(a)(1).
    \5\ A design value is a statistic used to compare data collected
at an ambient air quality monitoring site to the applicable NAAQS to
determine compliance with the standard. The design value for the
2015 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration. The
design value is calculated for each air quality monitor in an area
and the area's design value is the highest design value among the
individual monitoring sites in the area.
    \6\ See, generally, subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Determination of Attainment or Failure To Attain

    The EPA is required to determine whether areas designated
nonattainment attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and
to take certain steps for areas that failed to attain.\7\ For a
concentration-based standard, such as the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS,
the determination of attainment or failure to attain is based on a
nonattainment area's design value, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CAA section 181(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    Under the EPA regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 50, appendix P, the 2008 ozone NAAQS is attained at a monitor site
when the design value, (i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone
concentration) does not exceed 0.075 ppm. The data handling convention
in Appendix P dictates that concentrations shall be reported in parts
per million to the third decimal place, with additional digits to the
right being truncated. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone
concentration of 0.076 ppm is greater than 0.075 ppm and would exceed
the standard, but a design value of 0.0759 is truncated to 0.075 and
attains the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA's determination of attainment is based upon data that have
been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58
and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.\8\ Ambient
air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period preceding the year of
the attainment date (i.e., 2018-2020 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious
areas with an attainment date of July 20, 2021) must meet the data
completeness requirements in Appendix P.\9\ The completeness
requirements are met for the 3-year period at a monitoring site if
daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations of ozone are available for
at least 90 percent of the days within the ozone monitoring season, on
average, for the 3-year period, and no single year has less than 75
percent data completeness. Additional information on data handling
conventions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) accompanying this rulemaking.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA maintains the AQS, a database that contains ambient
air pollution data collected by the EPA, state, local, and tribal
air pollution control agencies. The AQS also contains meteorological
data, descriptive information about each monitoring station
(including its geographic location and its operator) and data
quality assurance/quality control information. The AQS data is used
to (1) assess air quality, (2) assist in attainment/non-attainment
designations, (3) evaluate SIPs for nonattainment areas, (4) perform
modeling for permit review analysis, and (5) prepare reports for
Congress as mandated by the CAA. Access is through the website at
https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
    \9\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix P, section 2.3(b).
    \10\ Technical Support Document (TSD) Regarding Ozone
Monitoring--Data Determinations of Attainment under the 2008 and
2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
Select Areas in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2015 Ozone NAAQS
    Under the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix U, the 2015
ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the design value (i.e., the 3-
year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentration) does not exceed 0.070 ppm. The
data handling convention in Appendix P dictates that concentrations
shall be reported in ``ppm'' to the third decimal place, with
additional digits to the right being truncated. Thus, a computed 3-year
average ozone concentration of 0.071 ppm is greater than 0.070 ppm and
would exceed the standard, but a design value of 0.0709 is truncated to
0.070 and attains the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA's determination of attainment is based upon data that have
been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58
and recorded in the EPA's AQS database. Ambient air quality monitoring
data for the 3-year period preceding the attainment date (i.e., 2018-
2020 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS Marginal areas with an attainment date of
August 3, 2021) must meet the data completeness requirements in
Appendix U.\11\ The completeness requirements are met for the 3-year
period at a monitoring site if daily maximum 8-hour average
concentrations of ozone are available for at least 90 percent of the
days within the ozone monitoring season, on average, for the 3-year
period, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness.
Additional information on data handling conventions for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS is found in the technical support document (TSD) accompanying
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix U, section 4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Data Considered for This Proposed Determination

    Because the design value is based on three complete calendar years
of data, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year
prior to the attainment date. Accordingly, for these areas in
California with attainment dates of July 20, 2021 and August 3, 2021,
the areas must show attainment by December 31, 2020. Our proposed
determination is therefore based upon the 2018-2020 design value for
each area, which is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified
ozone monitoring data from calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020. The
data the EPA is using to calculate the 2018-2020 design values for
these areas are provided in the accompanying TSD,

which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.

D. Areas Addressed in Proposed Action

    This notice includes proposed determinations of attainment by the
attainment date for eight areas in California.\12\ For the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, this proposal addresses the Ventura County area and the Nevada
County (Western part) area (or ``Western Nevada County area''), both of
which are classified Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with an
attainment date of July 20, 2021. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, this
proposal addresses the Butte County, Calaveras County, San Luis Obispo
(Eastern part) (or ``Eastern San Luis Obispo''), Sutter Buttes,
Tuloumne County, and Tuscan Buttes areas. These six areas are
classified Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, with an attainment date
of August 3, 2021. In separate rulemakings, the EPA has recently
proposed determinations of attainment by the attainment date and
findings of failure to attain for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for
other areas in California and nationwide.\13\ The EPA omitted some
areas in California from the national notices because the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) had submitted exceptional events
demonstrations for events in 2018 and 2020. The EPA required additional
time to review these claimed exceptional events, as the EPA's actions
on these demonstrations would affect the areas' design values. These
demonstrations and the EPA's evaluation of and action on these
demonstrations is discussed in section II.B of this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This notice does not address all ozone nonattainment areas
in California with attainment dates in 2021. On April 13, 2022, the
EPA published proposed determinations of attainment or failure to
attain for areas across the country classified Serious for the 2008
ozone standards and Marginal for the 2015 ozone standards (see 87 FR
21842 (April 13, 2022) and 87 FR 21825 (April 13, 2022)), including
several areas in California.
    \13\ 87 FR 21842 (April 13, 2022) and 87 FR 21825 (April 13,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Areas Classified Serious for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    The Ventura County nonattainment area consists of the main portion
of Ventura County (excluding the Channel Islands of Anacapa and San
Nicolas Islands), within California's South Central Coast Air Basin.
The Western Nevada County area consists of the western portion of
Nevada County, within the Mountain Counties Air Basin in northern
California. For more information about these areas, see the TSD) for
California for designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which is included
in the docket for this rulemaking.\14\ For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the
Ventura County area and Nevada County (Western part) area were
designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Technical Support Document for 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Designations: California Area Designations for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    \15\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of designation, in a separate action, the EPA assigned
classification thresholds and attainment dates based on the severity of
each nonattainment area's ozone problem, determined by the area's
design value.\16\ The Ventura County area was initially classified
Serious, with an attainment date of July 20, 2021. The Western Nevada
County area was initially classified Marginal, with an initial
attainment date of July 20, 2015. Effective June 3, 2016, the EPA
determined that the Western Nevada County area had failed to attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2015 Marginal attainment date. This
finding resulted in the area being reclassified to Moderate
nonattainment, with a new attainment date of July 20, 2018.\17\
Effective September 23, 2019, the EPA determined that the Western
Nevada County area had failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
July 20, 2018 Moderate attainment date.\18\ This finding resulted in
the area being reclassified to Serious nonattainment, with an
attainment date of July 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 77 FR 30160 (May 21, 2012).
    \17\ 81 FR 26698 (May 4, 2016).
    \18\ 84 FR 44238 (August 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Areas Classified Marginal for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
    The Butte County area consists of the entirety of Butte County, in
California's Sacramento Valley Air Basin, and areas of Indian country
belonging to the Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California,
the Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California, the Mechoopda
Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, and the Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu
Indians of California. The Calaveras County area consists of the
entirety of Calaveras County, in California's Mountain Counties Air
Basin, and areas of Indian country belonging to the California Valley
Miwok Tribe. The Eastern San Luis Obispo area consists of the eastern
portion of San Luis Obispo County, and lies within California's South
Central Coast Air Basin. The Sutter Buttes area is a mountaintop area
that comprises the area of the Sutter Buttes above 2,000 feet (610
meters) in elevation in Sutter County. The Tuloumne County area
consists of the entirety of Tuolumne County, in the Mountain Counties
Air Basin, and areas of Indian country belonging to the Chicken Ranch
Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk
Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California. The Tuscan Buttes area
is a mountaintop area that comprises the area of the Tuscan Buttes
above 1,800 feet (549 meters) in elevation, in Tehama County. For more
information about these areas, see the Technical Support Document (TSD)
for California for designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which is
included in the docket for this rulemaking.\19\ Effective August 3,
2018, the EPA designated the Butte County, Calaveras County, Eastern
San Luis Obispo, Sutter Buttes, Tuloumne County and Tuscan Buttes areas
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\20\ The areas were classified
Marginal for this standard, and required to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than three years from the
date of designation as nonattainment, i.e., August 3, 2021.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See CALIFORNIA: Intended Area Designations for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Technical Support
Document (TSD).
    \20\ 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
    \21\ See 40 CFR 51.1303(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    The EPA is proposing this action to fulfill its statutory
obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine whether select
ozone nonattainment areas with attainment dates in 2021 attained the
standard by their applicable attainment dates. Specifically, we are
proposing to determine that the Ventura County and Western Nevada
County nonattainment areas attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date of July 20, 2021 and that the Butte County, Calaveras
County, Eastern San Luis Obispo, Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County and
Tuscan Buttes areas attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment
date of August 3, 2021. As discussed in section I.D of this proposed
rulemaking, the EPA has addressed proposed determinations for other
areas in California and around the country in separate rulemakings.
This proposed determination is based on complete, quality-assured,
certified data for the three-year period before the attainment date for
each area (see design value data presented in Tables 1 and 2 below).
    We are also proposing to determine that, if we finalize these
proposed determinations of attainment by the attainment date for the
Nevada County (Western part) and Ventura

nonattainment areas, then the requirement for the state to have
contingency measures for failure to meet Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) and failure to attain for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will no longer
apply, because contingency measures would never be needed given the
attainment of the NAAQS. (see section II.D).

A. Determinations of Attainment and the EPA's Analysis of Relevant Air
Quality Monitoring Data

    The EPA evaluated air quality data to determine if these
nonattainment areas attained or failed to attain the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS by their applicable attainment dates. The design values for
the 2018-2020 period for the two areas classified Serious for the 2008
ozone NAAQS are shown in Table 1, and the design values for the six
areas classified Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are shown in Table
2.

 Table 1--2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious Nonattainment Area Evaluation Summary
                                   \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2018-2020
              2008 NAAQS nonattainment area                Design value
                                                               (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada County (Western part)............................           0.075
Ventura County..........................................           0.075
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The data shown exclude exceedances due to exceptional events.>

 Table 2--2015 Ozone NAAQS Serious Nonattainment Area Evaluation Summary
                                   \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2018-2020
              2015 NAAQS nonattainment area                Design value
                                                               (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butte County............................................       \b\ 0.070
Calaveras County........................................           0.069
San Luis Obispo (Eastern part)..........................           0.070
Sutter Buttes...........................................           0.070
Tuolumne County.........................................           0.070
Tuscan Buttes...........................................           0.070
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The data shown exclude exceedances due to exceptional events.
\b\ The average percent completeness for one of the monitors in Butte
  County, located in Paradise, CA, is 88 percent due to a power loss
  caused by a regional California wildfires. Per 40 CFR part 50,
  Appendix U, 4(c) CARB submitted a request to the Regional
  Administrator for Region 9 to count missing data for 79 days between
  November 8, 2018, and January 25, 2019, towards the minimum data
  completeness requirements. This request was approved and results in
  data completeness over 90 percent on average over the three-year
  period of 2018-2020 for the site; therefore, this design value is
  considered valid. For more information regarding the Paradise monitor
  data certification and the state's request, see the TSD for this
  notice and data certification letters included in this docket.

    As explained in section I.B, the 2008 ozone NAAQS is met at an
ambient monitoring site when the design value for the area does not
exceed 0.075 parts per million (ppm). The 2015 ozone NAAQS is met at an
ambient monitoring site when the design value for the area does not
exceed 0.070 parts per million (ppm). The design values shown in Table
1 show that the Ventura County and Western Nevada County areas have met
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The design values shown in Table 2 show that the
Butte County, Calaveras County, Eastern San Luis Obispo County, Sutter
Buttes, Tuolumne County and Tuscan Buttes areas have met the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The data the EPA used to calculate the 2018-2020 design values
for these areas are provided in the TSD for this action, which can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking. Also found in the docket for
this rulemaking are design value reports from the EPA's AQS database,
and data certification materials from CARB for the relevant years.

B. Exceptional Events Relevant to the EPA's Analysis of Relevant Air
Quality Monitoring Data

    On March 22, 2007, the EPA adopted a final rule, ``Treatment of
Data Influenced by Exceptional Events,'' also known as the Exceptional
Events Rule (EER), to govern the review and handling of certain air
quality monitoring data for which the normal planning and regulatory
processes are not appropriate.\22\ On October 3, 2016, the EPA adopted
revisions to this rule.\23\ Under the EER, the EPA may exclude data
from use in determinations of NAAQS exceedances and violations if a
state demonstrates that an ``exceptional event'' (EE) caused the
exceedance or exceedances.\24\ Before the EPA can exclude data from
these regulatory determinations, the state must flag the data in the
EPA's AQS database, notify the EPA of the state's intent to submit an
EE demonstration, and, after public notice and opportunity for comment,
submit a demonstration to the EPA to justify the exclusion. The EPA
considers the demonstration and concurs or nonconcurs with the state's
flag. If the EPA concurs that the exceedance was due to an exceptional
event covered under the EER, the data is excluded from regulatory
consideration, including from a determination of whether the area
attained a NAAQS by its attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 72 FR 13560 (March 22, 2007).
    \23\ 81 FR 68216 (October 3, 2016).
    \24\ 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In submittals dated September 3, 2021, September 17, 2021, November
18, 2021, and December 8, 2021, CARB provided documentation for ozone
exceedances that occurred at the monitors listed in Tables 3 and 4
below on multiple days in 2018 and 2020, and which the state had
flagged as due to wildfire ozone exceptional events.\25\

These events occurred during the July 26-August 10, 2018 and August 18-
October 4, 2020 time periods. A full list of days identified as
exceptional events at each monitor is included in Tables 1 and 2 in the
TSD for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See: (1) letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Chief, Air
Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB to Elizabeth Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 9, dated September
3, 2021, transmitting Exceptional Events Demonstration for Ozone
Exceedances: Northern California July-August 2018 Wildfire Events;
(2) letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Chief, Air Quality
Planning and Science Division, CARB to Elizabeth Adams, Director,
Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 9, dated September 17, 2021,
transmitting Exceptional Events Demonstration for Ozone Exceedances:
Eastern Portion of San Luis Obispo County, California August 2018
Wildfire Events; (3) letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Chief,
Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB to Matthew Lakin,
Acting Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 9 dated
November 18, 2021, transmitting Exceptional Events Demonstration for
Ozone Exceedances: Northern California 2020 Wildfire Events; and (4)
letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Chief, Air Quality Planning
and Science Division, CARB to Matthew Lakin, Acting Director, Air
and Radiation Division, EPA Region 9 dated December 8, 2021,
transmitting Exceptional Events Demonstration for Ozone Exceedances:
Southern California 2020 Wildfire Events.

                        Table 3--Exceedances Due to Exceptional Events--2008 Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of          Number of
       2008 NAAQS nonattainment area                    Monitor                exceedances        exceedances
                                                                             excluded in 2018   excluded in 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada County (Western part)...............  Grass Valley (06-057-0005)...                 11                  5
Ventura County.............................  Simi Valley (06-111-2002)....                  0                  5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Table 4--Exceedances Due to Exceptional Events--2015 Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of          Number of
       2015 NAAQS nonattainment area                    Monitor                exceedances        exceedances
                                                                             excluded in 2018   excluded in 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butte County...............................  Paradise (06-007-0007).......                 11                  0
Calaveras County...........................  San Andreas--Gold Strike (06-                  8                  0
                                              009-0001).
San Luis Obispo (Eastern part).............  Red Hills (06-079-8005)......                  5                  5
Sutter Buttes..............................  Sutter Buttes (06-101-0004)..                  9                  2
Tuolumne County............................  Sonora (06-109-0005).........                 11                  3
Tuscan Buttes..............................  Tuscan Butte (06-103-0004)...                  9                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviewed the documentation submitted by the State and
concurred with CARB's determinations that the exceedances identified by
CARB in 2018 and 2020 and listed in Tables 1 and 2 in the TSD
accompanying this rulemaking were caused by wildfire ozone exceptional
events, and that these exceedances meet the criteria for exclusion from
regulatory consideration under the EER. Accordingly, the EPA concurred
with the exclusion flags for the days flagged in 2018 and 2020 for
these areas and is excluding the monitored exceedances associated with
these exceptional events from use in determinations of exceedances and
violations, including the evaluation of whether the nonattainment areas
considered in this notice have attained the relevant ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date in accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).
    A concurrence letter notifying CARB of our decision was sent on May
4, 2022.\26\ Included with the letter were TSDs setting forth in detail
the bases for the EPA's concurrences.\27\ The state's demonstrations
and the EPA's concurrence letter and accompanying TSDs are included in
the docket for this rulemaking. Also included in the docket for this
rulemaking are the state's Initial Notification of Intent (INI)
documents, notifying the EPA of the state's intent to submit EE
demonstrations, and the EPA's responses to the INIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, California Air Resources Board, dated May
4, 2022.
    \27\ The 16 TSDs associated with this concurrence letter are
organized under the heading, ``Technical Support Documents for EPA
Concurrence on July 26-August 10, 2018 and August 18-October 4, 2020
O3 Exceedances in Northern and Southern California as
Exceptional Events.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth in the concurrence letter and its
enclosures, the EPA is excluding from regulatory consideration data
showing exceedances due to exceptional events at the monitoring sites,
as summarized below in Tables 3 and 4, in this determination of
attainment. For additional information, including a list of each day
excluded at each monitoring site, please see the TSD for this
rulemaking action and the TSDs accompanying the EPA's May 4, 2022
concurrence letter.

C. Effect of This Proposal: Designation and Classification

    If the EPA finalizes these proposed determinations, the areas will
remain designated nonattainment, and will retain their current
classifications. A determination of attainment by the attainment date
does not have the effect of redesignating an area to attainment.
Redesignation of an area to attainment requires that an area has met
all applicable requirements of CAA section 110 and Part D, and that the
area has submitted, and the EPA has approved, a redesignation request
and maintenance plan.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Memorandum dated September 4, 1992 from John Calcagni,
Director, EPA Air Quality Management Division, to Regional Air
Directors, titled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Effect of This Proposal: Contingency Measures

    Based on our proposed finding of attainment by the applicable
attainment date, we are also proposing to find that the CAA requirement
for a state implementation plan (``SIP'') to include contingency
measures to be implemented in the event the area fails to attain
(``attainment contingency measures'') or fails to meet reasonable
further progress milestones (``RFP contingency measures'') will no
longer apply to the Ventura County and Western Nevada County
nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), attainment contingency measures must
be implemented only if the area fails to attain by the attainment date.
Therefore, if we finalize the determination that the Ventura County and
Western Nevada County nonattainment areas have attained the 2008 ozone
standard by the applicable attainment date, then attainment contingency
measures for this NAAQS would never be required to be implemented,
regardless of whether the areas continue to attain the

NAAQS.\29\ This proposed finding will not prevent the EPA, in the event
that an area subsequently violates the NAAQS, from exercising its
authority under the CAA to address violations of the NAAQS.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Bahr v.  Regan, 6 F.4th 1059 (July 28, 2021).
    \30\ See id. at 1085; see also 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the purpose of the RFP requirements under the CAA is
to ensure progress toward attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Consistent with this purpose, under CAA
section 182(g), ozone nonattainment areas classified ``Serious'' or
higher are required to meet RFP emission reduction ``milestones'' and
to demonstrate compliance with those milestones, except when the
milestone coincides with the attainment date and the standard has been
attained.\31\ This specific statutory exemption from milestone
compliance demonstration (MCD) submittals for areas that attained by
the attainment date indicates that Congress intended that a finding
that an area attained the standard--the finding made in a determination
of attainment by the attainment date--would serve as a demonstration
that RFP requirements for the area have also been met. In other words,
if a Serious or above area has attained the NAAQS by the attainment
date, then the RFP milestones have been sufficiently achieved.
Accordingly, such a finding of attainment by the attainment date would
also indicate that RFP contingency measures could not be triggered and
are therefore no longer necessary.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CAA section 182(g)(2).
    \32\ See Matusow v. Wheeler, No. 20-72279 (9th Cir. Apr. 21,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 28, 2022, the EPA found that California's MCD submittal
for Ventura County and Western Nevada County adequately demonstrated
that the applicable 2020 milestone for the 2008 ozone NAAQS had been
met for these areas.\33\ Notably, 2020 is the last applicable milestone
prior to the attainment date for areas classified Serious for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Therefore, if we finalize the determination that the
Ventura County and Western Nevada County nonattainment areas have
attained the 2008 ozone standard, RFP contingency measures for this
NAAQS would never be required to be implemented, regardless of whether
the area continues to attain the NAAQS. This proposed finding will not
prevent the EPA, in the event that an area subsequently violates the
NAAQS, from exercising its authority under the CAA to address
violations of the NAAQS.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Letter from Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air
Resources Board, February 28, 2022.
    \34\ See Bahr at 1085; see also 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The state submitted contingency measures as part of the Final 2016
Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan and the Ventura County
portion of the 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation
Plan, and as part of the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan,
respectively.The EPA will address these measures, as appropriate, in
separate actions, taking into consideration this proposed finding of
attainment by the applicable attainment date and resulting
determination that the attainment and RFP contingency measure
requirements are no longer required for these areas for purposes of the
2008 ozone NAAQS.

III. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA believes that this proposed action will not have
disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations. The purpose
of this rule is to determine whether two nonattainment areas in
California attained the 2008 ozone standard by their Serious area
attainment date, and to determine whether six nonattainment areas in
California attained the 2015 ozone standard by their Marginal area
attainment date. These determinations are required under CAA section
181(b)(2) for purposes of implementing the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards and there are no particular facts or circumstances that would
compel the EPA Administrator to consider information beyond the
statutory criteria.

IV. Summary of Proposal

    For the reasons articulated above, we are proposing to determine
that:
     The Ventura County and Western Nevada County nonattainment
areas attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2021 attainment
date;
     The Butte County, Calaveras County, Eastern San Luis
Obispo County, Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, and Tuscan Buttes
nonattainment areas attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August 3, 2021
attainment date; and
     The CAA requirement for the SIP to provide for contingency
measures for attainment and RFP will no longer apply to the Ventura
County and Western Nevada County nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
    We note that we are not proposing a redesignation to attainment for
any areas. The EPA would consider a redesignation to attainment for
these areas following a submittal by the State of a formal
redesignation request and maintenance plan.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA not already approved by the OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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, tribes, or the relationship
between the national government and the states and tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
Tribes.''
    The EPA has identified tribal areas within three of the
nonattainment areas covered by this proposed rule, that would be
potentially affected by this rule. Specifically, as discussed in
section I.D, the Butte County, Calaveras County, and Tuolumne County
nonattainment areas addressed in this proposal have tribes located
within their boundaries. A full list of impacted tribes is included in
section I.D and in the TSD for this action.
    The EPA has concluded that the proposed rule may have tribal
implications for these tribes for the purposes of Executive Order
13175, but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes,
nor would it preempt tribal law. If we finalize the determinations of
attainment by the attainment date proposed in this notice, these
determinations would also apply on tribal lands within the
nonattainment areas. The nonattainment areas, including the tribal
lands within the nonattainment areas, would remain designated
nonattainment and would retain their existing classifications.
    The EPA intends to notify the potentially affected tribes located
within the boundaries of the nonattainment areas addressed in this
proposal. Because our proposed action, if finalized, would not change
the tribe's existing nonattainment designation or classification, we do
not intend to offer government-to-government consultation on this
proposal, however, we will initiate government-to-government
consultation at the request of any of the tribes.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks 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 it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) 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 Population

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. Upon
review, the EPA did not identify any particular facts or circumstances
that would indicate this action will have potential disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority,
low-income, or indigenous populations. Upon review, the EPA did not
identify any particular facts or circumstances that would indicate this
action will have potential disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations.
    Furthermore, with respect to the determinations of whether areas
have attained the NAAQS by the attainment date, the EPA has no
discretionary authority to address environmental justice in these
determinations. The CAA directs that within 6 months following the
applicable attainment date, the Administrator shall determine, based on
the area's design value as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard by that date. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). Except
for any Severe or Extreme area, any area that the Administrator finds
has not attained the standard by that date shall be reclassified by
operation of law to either the next higher classification or the
classification applicable to the area's design value.

List of Subjects in 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 and Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 8, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-15032 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


July 2004 Final Report: December 2003 Peer Review of the CMAQ Model Submitted to: Community Modeling and Analysis System Center Carolina Environmental Program The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Submitted by: Praveen Amar Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management Robert Bornstein San Jose State University Howard Feldman American Petroleum Institute Harvey Jeffries The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Douw Steyn The University of British Columbia Robert Yamartino Consultant, Integrals Unlimited Yang Zhang North Carolina State University 2 Introduction The external CMAQ Model Program Peer Review Panel that reviewed the CMAQ model in December 2003 provides this report in order to assess the current state of the model, to guide its development in the short term, and to assess the appropriateness of resources ( institutional support, staffing, and operational funding) in the long term to achieve desired advances. The report is written from the range of perspectives represented by the seven members of the review panel:

  Praveen Amar ( Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management)

  Robert Bornstein ( San Jose State University)

  Howard Feldman ( American Petroleum Institute)

  Harvey Jeffries ( The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  Douw Steyn ( The University of British Columbia)

  Robert Yamartino ( consultant, Integrals Unlimited)

  Yang Zhang ( North Carolina State University)

The panel members read a considerable volume of material on CMAQ provided by EPA, and attended two days of presentations on CMAQ by EPA staff.

Federal, state, and local governments as well as regional organizations have used 3 D deterministic models such as CMAQ with one fundamental goal in mind: evaluation and the optimum selection of alternative control strategies to attain ambient standards for various criteria pollutants The main regulatory purpose of such models is to understand how future changes in emissions (" delta E") would result in future changes in concentrations of various pollutants (" delta C"). Ozone ( 1 h standard) has been the primary focus so far, and fine particles ( those below 2.5 µ m and/ or 10 µ m in diameter) will be the new focus in addition to a continuing focus on ozone ( 8 h standard). From the science, policy, and implementation perspectives, particulate matter ( PM) will be much more challenging than ozone, in that PM has an annual standard ( in addition to the 24 h standard) that requires annual modeling ( unlike ozone, which is usually modeled over periods of a few days to a few weeks). Also, our present understanding of PM chemistry and physics is considerably weaker than that for ozone, though the understanding of PM is evolving rapidly. PM modeling has additional problems related to the need for acceptable and quality assured annual data for emissions, and atmospheric measurements for model evaluation In addition, the most sophisticated treatments of aerosol chemistry and physics will lead to substantial increases in computational requirements ( run time and hardware requirements).

The CMAQ model must take into account the fact that ozone plus PM modeling could involve considerably more than twice the work of ozone modeling alone. Also, in addition to ozone and 3 PM, it is important for CMAQ to address the issues of air toxics ( including mercury) and acid deposition.

These considerations provided a context for the panel's review of CMAQ. Of great interest and concern are efforts to expand the range of the model's scales of applicability into both the micro scale ( through " urbanization" of its 1 km scale version) and the global scale. Such scale expansion, while consistent with a growing trend toward " end to end" models, presents considerable technical and computational challenges, made more challenging when faced with limited resources.

CMAQ is a massive computer code designed to model a wide range of physical and chemical processes that occur at particular scales in the lower atmosphere. Some of these processes are well understood ( for example, dispersion of pollutants by mean wind and turbulent fluctuations), some processes reasonably well understood ( for example, the production of oxidant substances by photochemical reactions between volatile organic substances and oxides of nitrogen), and some processes only poorly understood ( for example, the production of organic nitrate aerosols by heterogeneous reactions between volatile organic substances and oxides of nitrogen). This range of knowledge about the processes being modeled, and the fact that processes subject to uncertainty are the subject of active research worldwide, means that parts of the model code are well established enough to be considered fixed, while other parts of the code are in constant development. The result of this is that there must exist at all times two versions of the model: ( 1) a currently active, reasonably stable version of CMAQ that is used in an operational and regulatory mode, and, in parallel, ( 2) a development version of CMAQ that is continually being improved by the CMAQ development team. From time to time, the development version replaces the operational version, thus bringing recent advances in atmospheric science to the operational realm. Having a model exist in both operational and research realms is a situation not uncommon for computer codes. However, the existence of these two versions considerably complicates the task of this review panel. The panel concentrated its attention on the operational version of CMAQ, but where appropriate, has referred in this report to characteristics of the development version. Clearly the development version is closer to " state of the science" than is the operational version, and the differences are most marked in areas that are topics of current research.

The main substance of this report is thus a review and set of recommendations designed to assess the current state of CMAQ and to guide its development in the short term. These statements are primarily directed at the operational version of CMAQ. As requested by EPA, the panel concentrated on five areas of interest:

1. What is the overall quality of the scientific research in the CMAQ Modeling Program?

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the science being used within the components of the CMAQ Model development program?

3. What is the quality and relevance of the research applications and model evaluations being conducted as part of the CMAQ Modeling Program?

4. What are your perceptions of the integration across the elements of the CMAQ Modeling Program ( links between model development, applications, evaluation)? What is your 4 perception of the usefulness of the CMAQ Modeling Program to the EPA and ORD Agency mission?

5. Are there modeling research areas that are not being addressed or are given insufficient attention within the CMAQ Modeling Program? Are there current areas of research emphasis that might be given lower priority or eliminated? For the resources available to the CMAQ Modeling Program, are they being used in an effective manner in terms of the choice and quality of research being conducted? 5 Panel Report This panel report is presented as a set of recommendations. These are not ranked in order of priority, but are grouped merely for convenience.

Overall Recommendations   The CMAQ effort should remain focused on its main mission. From the perspective of its major clients, this is urban/ regional modeling of PM and ozone for State Implementation Plan ( SIP) purposes. The main regulatory purpose of CMAQ and similar models is to provide an understanding of how future changes in emissions would result in future changes in concentrations of various pollutants.

  The core research effort of the CMAQ modeling program should focus on model improvements and urban/ regional applications. The research effort in air quality modeling at a fine scale and up to a global scale to study the linkages among air quality, health impacts, and global change is important, but should not distract from the main effort of developing CMAQ as an urban to regional scale model.

  We believe that air quality forecasting is an important and worthwhile goal that could be accomplished with CMAQ, supplemented with other less intensive tools such as Autoregression Integrated Moving Average ( ARIMA) or Artificial Neural Net ( ANN) statistical models. Since long term air quality forecasting (> 1 month) may provide potentially important information for SIPs, EPA should coordinate their efforts and resources effectively with the lead organizations charged with achieving this capability, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) and National Center for Atmospheric Research ( NCAR).

Core Model Capability and Applicability   We recommend that enhancing the chemical and dynamic aspects of PM modeling in CMAQ become a top priority. We note that the primary objective of the Atmospheric Modeling Division's ( AMD's) CMAQ model research program is to develop operational air quality models for use by EPA and the states in making emission management decisions. A continuing focus of scientific improvement should be on CMAQ's aerosol treatments. Much effort has gone into improving these treatments over the past several years, but there remains room for improvement. It is also important to note that while CMAQ is a leader in this area among other operational air quality models, all such models lag noticeably behind worldwide research efforts. 6   We recommend that EPA maintain its position in the forefront of model evaluation for the types of applications for which CMAQ is used. Operational evaluation should be expanded into more insightful diagnostic/ mechanistic/ probabilistic evaluation. A guideline/ protocol for PM evaluation should be published by EPA.

  We recommend that the CMAQ team perform an in house evaluation of emissions modeling by use of techniques such as " inverse modeling."

Fine Scale and Global Scale Model Applicability   We recommend that EPA and others undertake an investigation of the range of scales ( temporal and spatial) over which the model can legitimately be applied. Results of this investigation should be publicized to all users.

  Recognizing pressure from users and regulators to provide a nested modeling capability down to the scale of urban canyons, we recommend EPA move cautiously in this logical next step, given the significant challenges on the meteorological side of developing a linkage of the Pennsylvania State University/ NCAR Mesoscale Model ( version 5) ( MM5) to computational fluid dynamics ( CFD) and/ or large eddy simulation ( LES) codes.

Air Quality Forecasting   We recommend that EPA resist pressures to implement nesting within the Weather Research and Forecasting model ( WRF), as we believe that this task should be undertaken by NCAR. We note also that WRF will have to incorporate nudging capability for it to be an appropriate driver for CMAQ, but such data assimilation capabilities are also demanded by weather forecasters. Thus, EPA should also not be responsible for implementing nudging, but should work to ensure that this capability is included into WRF in a manner well suited to both weather forecasters and air quality modelers.

  We recommend that EPA coordinate efforts and resources effectively with other organizations ( e. g., NOAA, NCAR) to develop a version of CMAQ for real time operational forecasting that leads to development of a nationwide air quality forecasting program.

CMAQ User and Developer Communities   Recent key staff retirements in the ORD CMAQ group raise concern about continuation of the PM modeling effort. Given the importance of PM modeling to EPA's mandate in the PM2.5 PM10 areas and given the complexity of aerosol physics and chemistry, we recommend that the modeling group work actively to ensure they have sufficient research level staff to support needed PM modeling efforts.

  We recommend that the CMAQ model development team increase its number of postdoctoral researchers, as these personnel will be most likely to introduce continuing improvements into CMAQ. 7   We recommend that EPA, or others, develop a group of beta testers who will test research and operational ( pre released) versions of CMAQ, while the current released version is in active use.

  We recommend that EPA widely and publicly acknowledge the contributions of non EPA developers and beta testers of CMAQ. This should include those providing code extensions, modifications, corrections, and bug fixes. A mechanism to implement bug fixes discovered in this way should be established.

  We recommend that EPA staff be given time and resources to build collaborative links to non EPA researchers, so as to ensure that CMAQ reflects the state of the science in all its aspects. This could be achieved through focused workshops or conferences on topics central to the development of CMAQ.

  We recommend the creation of a mechanism for the periodic review of CMAQ to ensure that it remains state of the science. We strongly recommend that the scientific review of CMAQ be made an ongoing activity and be undertaken about every two years.

  We recommend that the CMAQ team carefully consider efforts underway to improve MM5, so as to avoid working in problem areas that parallel the efforts of the meteorological community. This will free staff to work on problem areas that are " CMAQspecific

  We support EPA's current and quite successful efforts in its outreach to scientific and regulatory communities through CMAS. It is extremely important that CMAS have sufficient public and private resources to offer focused training classes and workshops relating to various components of CMAQ.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 49510]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-96-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Revised Public Comment
Meeting and Additional Public Comment Meeting on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Algonquin Incremental Market
Project

    On August 6, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC
or Commission) issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Algonquin Incremental Market Project. The Draft EIS announced
the close of the comment period on September 29, 2014 and identified
four public comment meetings. This notice revises the date of the
meeting to be held in Cortlandt Manor, New York from September 11, 2014
to September 15, 2014; and adds one new meeting in Mapleville, Rhode
Island on September 16, 2014. The other announced meetings in
Connecticut and Massachusetts will be held at the dates, times, and
locations previously identified. The new meetings noticed herein will
begin at 6:30 p.m. and are scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, September 15, 2014 (There is NO     Muriel H. Morabito Community
 meeting on September 11, 2014).             Center, 29 Westbrook Drive,
                                             Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014...............  Crystal Lake Golf Club, 100
                                             Bronco Highway, Mapleville,
                                             RI 02839,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This and all public meetings will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information. Additional information about the
project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs,
at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link and the project docket number (i.e., CP-14-96).

    Dated: August 15, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19864 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 7619-7621]
[DOCID:fr08fe08-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57261; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Allow
CBOE to List Up to Seven Expiration Months for Reduced-Value and Jumbo
Options That Overlie Broad-Based Security Indexes for Which Full-Value
Options are Used by CBOE To Calculate a Constant Three-Month Volatility
Index

February 1, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 14, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been

substantially prepared by the Exchange. On January 31, 2008, CBOE filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is
publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposal,
as amended, from interested persons and to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 24.9(a)(2), Terms of Index Option
Contracts, to allow the Exchange to list up to seven expiration months
for reduced-value and jumbo options that overlie broad-based security
indexes for which full-value options are used by the Exchange to
calculate a constant three-month volatility index. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal
), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Commission recently approved a rule change that allows the
Exchange to list up to seven expiration months for broad-based security
index options upon which the Exchange calculates a constant three-month
volatility index.\3\ This current proposal seeks to extend that
provision to reduced-value and jumbo option contracts which overlie the
same broad-based security index (e.g., Jumbo DJX Index Options
(``DXL''), CBOE Mini-NDX Index (``MNX''), Mini-Russell 2000 Index
(``RMN''), and Mini-SPX Index Options (``XSP'')) as full-value option
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56821 (November 20,
2007), 72 FR 66210 (November 27, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-82) (``Seven
Month Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the prior proposal, the Exchange requested the ability to list
up to seven expiration months in order to maintain four consecutive
near term contract months and three quarterly cycle contract months. In
order to maintain this structure, the Exchange noted that it would need
to add a seventh contract month eight times a year.
    Since the Commission issued the Seven Month Approval Order, the
Exchange has had one occasion to utilize the new provision for S&P 500
Index (``SPX'') options.\4\ Specifically after December 2007
expiration, the remaining SPX option series were: January 2008,
February 2008, March 2008, June 2008, September 2008 and December 2008.
In order to maintain four consecutive near term contract months, the
Exchange added the April 2008 SPX option series on December 24, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, CBOE calculates only one three-month volatility
index, the CBOE S&P 500 Three-Month Volatility Index (``VXV''),
based on SPX options. Therefore, only SPX options are eligible for
the addition of a seventh contract month in order to maintain four
consecutive near term contract months and three quarterly cycle
contract months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the addition of the seventh SPX option contract
month after December 2007 expiration, the Exchange received inquiries
from market participants who expressed interest about whether a seventh
contract month would be added for XSP options. Under CBOE's current
Rule 24.9, this is not permitted.
    In order to provide consistent treatment across all like products
and in response to customer demand, the Exchange is proposing to permit
the addition of a seventh contract month for reduced-value and jumbo
option contracts (e.g., XSP and DLX options) that overlie broad-based
security indexes for which full-value options are used by the Exchange
to calculate a constant three-month volatility index. To effect this
change, the Exchange is proposing to add the phrase ``including
reduced-value and jumbo option contracts'' to Rule 24.9(a)(2).
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange states it has always been
the intention of the Exchange to list the same contract months for
reduced-value options as for full-value options that overlie the same
broad-based security index.\5\ Because the Exchange currently only
calculates one three-month volatility index, the current proposal would
only apply to XSP options. If in the future, however, the Exchange
calculates other constant three-month volatility indexes, the current
proposal would permit the listing of seven contract months for reduced-
value and jumbo contract options that overlie broad-based security
indexes for which full-value options are used by the Exchange to
calculate a constant three-month volatility index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32893
(September 14, 1993), 58 FR 49070 (September 21, 1993) (``Consistent
with Exchange Rule 24.9, 'Terms of Option Contracts,' the CBOE
proposes to list reduced-value SPX options expiring in the same
quarterly cycle as full-value SPX options and to list expirations in
the current and next two succeeding calendar months.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capacity

    CBOE has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the
Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary
systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the
listing of a seventh contract month for reduced-value and jumbo options
that overlie broad-based security indexes for which full-value options
are used by the Exchange to calculate a constant three-month volatility
index.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Because the Exchange currently only calculates one three-
month volatility index (the CBOE S&P 500 Three-Month Volatility
Index (``VXV'') based on SPX options) the current proposal would
only apply to Mini-SPX Index (``XSP'') options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Because the increase in the number of expiration months is limited
to options overlying broad based security indexes upon which the
Exchange calculates a constant three-month volatility and because the
series could be added without presenting capacity problems, the
Exchange believes the rule proposal is consistent with Act and the
rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities
exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the section 6(b)(5) Act \8\ requirements that
the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2008-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-05 and should be
submitted on or before February 29, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that CBOE's proposal to
amend Rule 24.9(a)(2), Terms of Index Option Contracts to allow the
Exchange to list up to seven expiration months for reduced-value and
jumbo options that overlie broad-based security indexes for which full-
value options are used by the Exchange to calculate a constant three-
month volatility index is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange \9\ and, in particular, the requirements of section
6 of the Act \10\ and the rules and regulations thereunder. The
Commission believes that increasing, from six to seven, the number of
expiration months for these options (to accomodate a fourth consecutive
near-term month while maintaining the listing of three months on a
quarterly expiration cycle) will result in a more consistent and
predictable calculation in which the option series that bracket three
months to expiration will always expire one month apart, thereby
promoting just and equitable principles of trade while protecting
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also notes CBOE's representations that it possesses
the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic
associated with the additional listing of a seventh contract month for
reduced-value and jumbo options that overlie broad-based security
indexes for which full-value options are used by the Exchange to
calculate a constant three-month volatility index.
    The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of the proposed
rule change. The Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ for approving this proposed rule change before
the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
Federal Register because accelerating approval will enable CBOE to
harmonize the contract month listings between full-value SPX options
and reduced-value SPX options (i.e., XSP options) by listing a seventh
expiration month (May 2008) in order to maintain four consecutive near
term contract months and three quarterly cycle contracts months. The
Commission notes that this proposed rule change does not raise any new
regulatory issues from those raised in the rule filing which allowed
CBOE to list add a seventh expiration month for full-value broad-based
security index options.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ See supra Note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2008-05), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2330 Filed 2-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P