[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82133-82146]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33475]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0638; FRL-9612-8]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0638 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket
are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some
may not be publicly available in

either location (e.g., Confidential Business Information). To inspect
the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal
business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Background
    B. Technical Evaluation
    C. Consequences
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Proposed Action

    On September 14, 2011 (76 FR 56694), EPA proposed to determine,
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), that three areas previously
designated nonattainment for the one-hour ozone NAAQS--the South Coast,
the San Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert--failed to attain the
NAAQS for one-hour ozone by their applicable one-hour NAAQS attainment
dates.

A. Background

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

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

    An area is considered to have attained the one-hour ozone standard
if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR section 50.9, based on three
consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured and certified
monitoring data. A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality
monitoring data show greater than one (1.0) ``expected number'' of
exceedances per year at any site in the area, when averaged over three
consecutive calendar years.\2\ An exceedance occurs when the maximum
hourly ozone concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more
information, please see ``National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards for ozone'' (40 CFR 50.9) and ``Interpretation of
the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An ``expected number'' of exceedances is a statistical term
that refers to an arithmetic average. An ``expected number'' of
exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances
plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling. See, 40 CFR
part 50, appendix H. Because, in this context, the term
``exceedances'' refers to days (during which the daily maximum
hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible
number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that was violating the one-hour ozone standard,
generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through
1989 period (section 107(d)(4) of the Act; 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on the severity of
their nonattainment problem, as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or
Extreme.
    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the one-
hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's
classification. Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated
control requirements and had the earliest attainment date, November 15,
1993, while Severe and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent
planning requirements and were provided more time to attain the
standard. Two measures that are triggered if a Severe or Extreme area
fails to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date are
contingency measures [section 172(c)(9)] and a major stationary source
fee provision [sections 182(d)(3) and 185](``major source fee program''
or ``section 185 fee program'').
Designations and Classifications
    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated the South Coast \3\ as
``Extreme'' nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, with an
attainment date no later than November 15, 2010 (56 FR 56694). In its
November 6, 1991 final rule, EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley \4\
as ``Serious'' nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, but later
reclassified the valley as ``Severe'' (66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001),
and then as ``Extreme'' (69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004) for the one-hour
ozone standard, with the same attainment date (November 15, 2010) as
the South Coast. In its 1991 final rule, EPA designated the Southeast
Desert \5\ as ``Severe-17'' nonattainment for the one-hour ozone
standard, with an attainment date no later than November 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Under California law, each air district is responsible for adopting
and implementing stationary source rules, such as the fee program rules
required under CAA section 185, while the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) adopts and implements consumer products and mobile source
rules. The district and state rules are submitted to EPA by CARB.
Transition From One-Hour Ozone Standard to Eight-Hour Ozone Standard
    In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective standard for ozone
based on an eight-hour average concentration (the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard). In 2004, EPA published the 1997 eight-hour ozone
designations and classifications and a rule governing certain facets of
implementation of the eight-hour ozone standard (herein referred to as
the ``Phase 1 Rule'') (69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951, respectively, April
30, 2004).

    Although EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard (effective June
15, 2005), to comply with anti-backsliding requirements of the Act,
eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas remain subject to certain
requirements based on their one-hour ozone classification. Initially,
in our rules to address the transition from the one-hour to the eight-
hour ozone standard, EPA did not include contingency measures or the
section 185 fee program among the measures retained as one-hour ozone
anti-backsliding requirements.\7\ However, on December 23, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
determined that EPA should not have excluded these requirements (and
certain others not relevant here) from its anti-backsliding
requirements. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) reh'g denied 489 F.3d 1245 (clarifying that the
vacatur was limited to the issues on which the court granted the
petitions for review) (referred to herein as the South Coast case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Thus, the Court vacated the provisions that excluded these
requirements. As a result, States must continue to meet the obligations
for one-hour ozone NAAQS contingency measures and, for Severe and
Extreme areas, section 185 major source fee programs. EPA has issued a
proposed rule that would remove those specific portions of 40 CFR
51.905(e) that the court vacated, and that addresses contingency
measures for failure to attain or make reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the one-hour standard. See 74 FR 2936, January 16,
2009 (proposed rule); 74 FR 7027, February 12, 2009 (notice of public
hearing and extension of comment period).
Rationale for Proposed Action
    In our September 14, 2011 proposed rule, we explained that, after
revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue to provide
a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding
requirements that have been specifically retained. See South Coast, 47
F.3d 882, at 903. In keeping with this responsibility with respect to
one-hour anti-backsliding contingency measures and section 185 fee
programs for these three California areas, on September 14, 2011, EPA
proposed to determine that each area failed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by its applicable attainment date.

B. Technical Evaluation

    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the one-hour
ozone standard is generally based upon three years of complete,\8\
quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at
established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (``SLAMS'') in the
nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. Data from air monitors operated by state/local agencies in
compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the
AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are
accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies
primarily on data in its AQS database when determining the attainment
status of an area. See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, appendix H; 40 CFR
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D and E. All data are
reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with
40 CFR part 50, appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.9, the one-hour ozone standard
is attained at a monitoring site when the expected number of days per
calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12
parts per million (235 micrograms per cubic meter) is equal to or less
than 1, as determined by 40 CFR part 50, appendix H.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In our September 14, 2011 proposed rule, EPA proposed to determine
that the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert
failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard by their applicable
attainment dates based on findings that the number of expected
exceedances at sites in each of the three nonattainment areas was
greater than one per year in the period prior to the applicable
attainment date. These proposed determinations were based on three
years of quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring
data in AQS for the 2008-2010 monitoring period for the South Coast and
the San Joaquin Valley, and quality-assured and certified data in AQS
for 2005-2007 for the Southeast Desert.
    In so doing, in our September 14, 2011 proposed rule, we reviewed
documents prepared by CARB and the local air districts in connection
with the ozone monitoring networks as well as any applicable EPA
technical systems audits to determine the comprehensiveness and
reliability of the data reported to AQS and used by EPA to determine
the attainment status of the areas with respect to the one-hour ozone
standard. We then evaluated the ozone monitoring data contained in AQS
from each area against the criterion discussed above to determine
whether the areas attained the one-hour ozone standard by their
applicable attainment dates.
    With respect to the South Coast, based on the monitoring data from
29 ozone monitoring sites for the years 2008-2010, we found that,
generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the South Coast occur in
the northern and eastern portions of the area. We also determined that
the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in
the South Coast Air Basin for 2008-2010 is 10.4 (at Crestline, a site
located at 4,500 feet elevation in the San Bernardino Mountains).
Because the calculated exceedance rate of 10.4 represents a violation
of the one-hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected
exceedances less than or equal to 1), and taking into account the
extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, and
the data collected therefrom, we proposed in our September 14, 2011
action to determine that the South Coast Air Basin failed to attain the
one-hour ozone standard (as defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by
the applicable attainment date (i.e., November 15, 2010). Please see
pages 56696-56698 in the September 14, 2011 proposed rule for
additional information on the ozone monitoring network operating in the
South Coast during the relevant period and the data collected
therefrom.
    With respect to the San Joaquin Valley, based on the monitoring
data from 22 ozone monitoring sites for the years 2008-2010, we found
that, generally, the highest ozone concentrations in San Joaquin Valley
occur in the central (i.e., in and around the city of Fresno) and the
southern portions (i.e., southeast of Bakersfield) of the area. We also
determined that the highest three-year average of expected exceedances
at any site in the San Joaquin Valley for 2008-2010 is 6.6 at Arvin, a
site located with mountains to the east, west, and south. Because the
calculated exceedance rate of 6.6 represents a violation of the one-
hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected exceedances less
than or equal

to 1), and taking into account the extent and reliability of the
applicable ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom,
we proposed in our September 14, 2011 action to determine that the San
Joaquin Valley failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as defined
in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment date (i.e.,
November 15, 2010). Please see pages 56698-56699 in the September 14,
2011 proposed rule for additional information on the ozone monitoring
network operating in the San Joaquin Valley during the relevant period
and the data collected therefrom.
    With respect to the Southeast Desert, based on the monitoring data
from nine ozone monitoring sites for the years 2005-2007, we found
that, generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the Southeast
Desert occur in the far southwestern portion of the area, near mountain
passes through which pollutants are transported to the Southeast Desert
from the South Coast Air Basin. We also determined that the highest
three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in the Southeast
Desert for 2005-2007 is 2.3 at Palm Springs in Riverside County and
Hesperia in San Bernardino County. Because the calculated exceedance
rate of 2.3 represents a violation of the one-hour ozone standard (a
three-year average of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1),
and taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable
ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom, we proposed
to determine in our September 14, 2011 proposed action that the
Southeast Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard (as
defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H) by the applicable attainment
date (i.e., November 15, 2007). Please see pages 56699-56700 in the
September 14, 2011 proposed rule for additional information on the
ozone monitoring network operating in the Southeast Desert during the
relevant period and the data collected therefrom.

C. Consequences

    In our September 14, 2011 proposed rule, we explained that a final
determination of a Severe or Extreme area's failure to attain by its
one-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date would trigger the obligation to
implement one-hour contingency measures for failure to attain under
section 172(c)(9) and fee programs under sections 182(d)(3), 182(f),
and 185. Section 172(c)(9) requires one-hour ozone SIPs, other than for
``Marginal'' areas, to provide for implementation of specific measures
(referred to herein as ``contingency measures'') to be undertaken if
the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. Thus, in our
September 14, 2011 proposed rules, we stated that a consequence of the
proposed determinations, if finalized, would be to give effect to any
one-hour ozone contingency measures that are not already in effect
within the three subject California nonattainment areas.
    Section 182(d)(3) requires SIPs to include provisions required
under section 185, and section 185 requires one-hour ozone SIPs in
areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme'' to provide that, if the
area has failed to attain the standard by the applicable attainment
date, each major stationary source of ozone precursors located in the
area must begin paying a fee [computed in accordance with section
185(b)] to the State. Section 182(f) extends the section 185
requirements, among others, that apply to major stationary sources of
VOCs to major stationary sources of NOX unless EPA has
waived such requirements for NOX sources in the particular
nonattainment area. Thus, in our September 14, 2011 proposed rules, we
stated that another consequence of the determinations, if finalized,
would be to give effect to the section 185 fee requirements to the
extent they are not already in effect within the three subject
California nonattainment areas.
    Please see pages 56700-56701 in the September 14, 2011 proposed
rule for additional information on the consequences of our proposed
determinations in the three subject California one-hour ozone
nonattainment areas.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Our September 14, 2011 proposed rule provided a 30-day comment
period. During this period, we received three comment letters: a letter
from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) dated October 12, 2011; a letter from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) dated October 13, 2011; and a
letter from Earthjustice dated October 14, 2011. None of the commenters
challenge EPA's proposed air quality determinations themselves, nor any
aspect of the technical basis for the proposed determinations. Rather,
they variously challenge the necessity, rationale, and statutory basis
for the proposed actions and the consequences that they entail. We have
summarized the comments from each commenter's letter and provide EPA's
responses below.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District--Comments and
Responses

    SJVUAPCD Comment #1: The SJVUAPCD provides a number of grounds to
support its argument that EPA should not make a determination that the
San Joaquin Valley failed to meet its deadline for attaining the one-
hour ozone standard. The District's reasons include: the one-hour ozone
standard has been revoked; EPA's Phase 1 Ozone Implementation rule
stated that EPA will no longer make findings of failure to attain for
one-hour ozone nonattainment areas, citing 69 FR 23951, at 23984 (April
30, 2004); while certain provisions of EPA's April 2004 Ozone
Implementation rule were vacated, the applicable provision related to
findings of failure to attain was not challenged, and thus EPA remains
bound by it.
    EPA Response to SJVUAPCD Comment #1: Under EPA's April 30, 2004
Phase 1 Rule, EPA is no longer obligated, after revocation of the one-
hour ozone standard, to determine pursuant to section 179(c) or
181(b)(2) of the CAA whether an area attained the one-hour ozone
standard by that area's attainment date for the one-hour ozone
standard. See 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2). EPA agrees that the relevant
provision from EPA's Phase 1 Rule [i.e., 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)] was not
challenged and has not been vacated, but disagrees that this provision
precludes EPA from making the determinations that are the subject of
this notice. First, although the provision states that the Agency is no
longer obligated to make certain determinations, it does not prohibit
the Agency from exercising its discretion to do so. However, more to
the point, EPA is not today invoking the authority of section 179(c) to
determine that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by the applicable attainment date. Rather, EPA is acting
pursuant to its obligations to give effect to two specific one-hour
ozone anti-backsliding requirements whose implementation is dependent
on such determinations. In doing so, EPA is complying with the DC
Circuit's directive to formulate the Agency's procedures to dovetail
with the required anti-backsliding measures. For the reasons explained
in our September 14, 2011 proposed rule and further below, EPA is
acting pursuant to its authority under section 301(a) and also the
relevant portion of section 181(b)(2).
    SJVUAPCD Comment #2: The SJVUAPCD believes that EPA's action is
unnecessary with respect to the San Joaquin Valley because the
District's

one-hour ozone contingency measures take effect without further action
by the District or EPA, and because, with respect to section 185 fees,
the DC Circuit did not specify the mechanism that EPA must use to
trigger section 185 fees, and the District's rule implementing section
185 has been proposed for approval by EPA.
    EPA Response to SJVUAPCD Comment #2: EPA recognizes that the
approved one-hour ozone plan for the San Joaquin Valley relies on
existing State and federal on- and off-road road new engine standards
to meet the contingency measure requirements in section 172(c)(9), 75
FR 10420, at 10432 (March 8, 2010) and that such standards are already
being implemented and provide an estimated additional benefit in 2011
beyond the reductions from those measures in 2010 regardless of our
determination of failure to attain the one-hour ozone standard for the
San Joaquin Valley. EPA also recognizes that the District's rule (i.e.,
District Rule 3170) that is intended to implement section 185 of the
CAA in connection with the one-hour ozone standard does not condition
its applicability upon EPA's determination of failure by the area to
attain the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment date
and that the rule has been submitted to EPA for review.\10\ EPA,
however, believes that a determination of failure to attain the one-
hour ozone standard is appropriate to eliminate any uncertainty as to
whether such measures and rules must continue to be implemented in San
Joaquin Valley for anti-backsliding purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA proposed approval of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 at 76 FR 45212
(July 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Coast Air Quality Management District--Comments and Responses

    SCAQMD Comment #1: SCAQMD asserts that there is no need for EPA to
make the proposed determinations. SCAQMD believes that, with respect to
the South Coast, there is no need for a ``trigger mechanism'' which
would inform the area that, due to its failure to attain, the area must
implement section 185 fees and contingency measures because the related
section 185 fees rule (SCAQMD Rule 317) has been adopted and submitted
to EPA and because the contingency measures have already been
implemented.
    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #1: We recognize that SCAQMD Rule
317 has already been adopted by the District and submitted to EPA by
CARB as a revision to the California SIP. As is true for the
corresponding SJVUAPCD rule, SCAQMD Rule 317 does not condition
applicability on EPA making a determination of failure to attain the
one-hour ozone standard (by the applicable attainment date), and thus,
the rule is in effect regardless of EPA's determination herein. EPA has
not yet acted to approve this SIP revision.
    Furthermore, prior to today's action, there has been no final
determination of the area's failure to attain, which is what
establishes the requirement to implement a rule developed to comply
with section 185. Without a dispositive determination that
implementation is required, it would be difficult if not impossible to
clearly establish and enforce the obligation, and to assess when it may
cease. Moreover, because EPA has not yet taken final action to approve
SCAQMD Rule 317, and if we were to disapprove the rule, or if we were
to approve SCAQMD Rule 317, but find that the SCAQMD is not
administering and enforcing the rule, EPA could be under an obligation
to implement the fee program required under section 185 [see CAA
section 185(d)]. Thus, in order to comply with the process set forth in
section 185, and to provide a legal basis for the State and/or EPA as
appropriate to collect fees, EPA must ensure that the necessary
determination for application of section 185 has been made. Thus, EPA
concludes that, in the circumstances presented, the agency must make
the determination that triggers the obligation to implement section
185, and we do so today in this document.
    Moreover, the Agency has grounds to make today's determination
other than for purposes of implementing contingency measures. EPA's
determination is also linked to implementation of anti-backsliding
requirements under section 185. Thus, today's action is not aimed
solely at one-hour ozone contingency measures.
    SCAQMD Comment #2: Even if it were necessary for EPA to have a
``trigger mechanism'' to cause an area to implement its section 185
fee, or to implement contingency measures, the SCAQMD believes it is
not necessary to use a formal determination of failure to attain. The
SCAQMD states that there is nothing in the South Coast case that
indicated that a formal determination of failure to attain is necessary
and that, as a result, EPA could simply send the affected districts a
letter informing them that those obligations had been triggered based
on submitted monitoring data.
    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #2: EPA's established practice for
making a determination whether an area has attained, or failed to
attain, the NAAQS is to conduct a rulemaking under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), not to issue a letter, a list or some other
informal document. In other words, if there has not been a rulemaking
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, there has not been an
attainment determination. EPA's longstanding practice in this regard
was explicitly recognized and upheld more than a decade ago by the
United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The Court rejected
the Sierra Club's arguments that means other than rulemaking were
sufficient for this purpose, especially when a determination results in
additional obligations for an area. See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285
F.3d 63, at 66 (DC Cir. 2002). In determining through notice and
comment rulemaking that the South Coast failed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, EPA is acting
consistently with its established practice and applicable
administrative procedure law in making such determinations.
    SCAQMD Comment #3: The SCAQMD asserts that the CAA does not
authorize EPA to make the proposed determinations. In support of this
assertion, the SCAQMD argues that:
     While CAA sections 179(c) and 179(d) require EPA to
determine whether an area attained the standard by the applicable
attainment date and that a new attainment demonstration requirement is
triggered by a determination of failure to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date under those provisions, the one-hour ozone
standard has been revoked and, as a result, the one-hour ozone standard
is no longer a ``standard'' for the purposes of section 179(c) and
section 179(d);
     EPA's past statements, such as those from EPA's April 30,
2004 Phase 1 Rule, indicate that areas would no longer have the
obligation to demonstrate attainment of the revoked one-hour ozone
standard if the area had an approved one-hour ozone attainment
demonstration; and
     The recent decision published by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit (Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632
F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011) that appears to require EPA to assure that
California demonstrate attainment of the one-hour ozone standard for
the South Coast was rendered without consideration of the fact that the
plan in issue there was aimed at attaining the one-hour ozone standard,
which had been revoked by the time EPA acted on the plan, and that the
decision is pending appeal and not yet final.

    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #3: In making today's final
determinations, we are not acting pursuant to section 179(c) nor
triggering the related requirements under section 179(d). Neither of
these provisions was retained as a 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding
requirement, and the relevant provisions of the anti-backsliding rule
in this respect were not challenged. As explained in our September 14,
2011 proposed rule, we are acting here in accordance with our
obligation to enforce specific one-hour ozone anti-backsliding
requirements, and the DC Circuit's instruction to us in the South Coast
case that we determine the process necessary for that purpose. Thus, as
explained in our proposal and elsewhere in this notice, we are acting
here pursuant to our general authority in section 301(a) and the
relevant portion of section 181(b)(2) concerning attainment
determinations (i.e., not the portion concerning reclassifications,
which the commenter correctly notes was not retained for anti-
backsliding purposes), and for the purpose of effectuating the two
anti-backsliding provisions that are triggered by a determination of
failure to meet the attainment deadline--contingency measures and
section 185 fees.
    EPA believes that the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Association
of Irritated Residents (AIR) case cited by SCAQMD has no bearing on the
question raised in this rulemaking regarding whether EPA must invoke
section 179 when it seeks to make a determination regarding 1-hour
ozone contingency and fee anti-backsliding measures. The AIR case
centers on EPA's duties under section 110(l) of the CAA when it reviews
a SIP revision, particularly, a SIP revision that includes an
attainment demonstration. It does not pertain to the issue raised in
this rulemaking--whether section 179, though not preserved in EPA's
anti-backsliding provisions, should nonetheless be tacked on for the
first time here as an additional anti-backsliding requirement to impose
yet further planning for a revoked standard. In contrast to AIR, which
considers EPA's duty at the time it reviews a plan, the question raised
in this rulemaking is not whether the plan's faults were known at the
time of plan review. The question here regarding section 179(c)
concerns only whether that section's provision, which was not preserved
as an anti-backsliding requirement, can be applied to extract an
additional round of planning based on a subsequent failure to attain.
As EPA explains elsewhere in this notice, the answer is that it cannot.
Section 179's requirement for additional planning was not included in
the anti-backsliding measures that were exhaustively litigated,
reviewed and dispositively determined by the DC Circuit. As noted, the
exclusion of section 179, and in particular the additional planning
requirements in section 179(d), from the list of applicable
requirements that continue to apply for anti-backsliding purposes was
not challenged and remains the current law. Above all, sections 179(c)
and (d) are not necessary to the enforcement of any of the anti-
backsliding requirements which are included.
    SCAQMD Comment #4: SCAQMD acknowledges that EPA's proposal
described the consequences of the determinations only in terms of
section 185 fees and contingency measures, but is concerned that if EPA
finalizes the proposed action, it will be used in an effort to compel
SCAQMD to submit a plan to attain the revoked one-hour standard.
    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #4: EPA's final determinations in
this rulemaking are intended to effectuate only those 1-hour anti-
backsliding requirements that have been specifically retained, and
which are activated by a finding of failure to attain. For the reasons
set forth at length elsewhere in these responses, EPA is not acting
pursuant to section 179, and does not believe that section's provisions
can be invoked to require additional rounds of planning for the revoked
1-hour standard. EPA and the states are implementing the one-hour
standard, which has been revoked, by means of the specified one-hour
anti-backsliding requirements. While EPA agrees that it must continue
to make determinations of attainment or failure to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, it is for the sole
purpose of ensuring implementation of those one-hour ozone anti-
backsliding requirements (section 185 fees and contingency measures)
and not to trigger new attainment demonstration plans or
reclassifications for the revoked one-hour ozone standard. EPA's
reasoning is elaborated further in its responses below to the comments
of Earthjustice.
    SCAQMD Comment #5: SCAQMD states that it has recently initiated the
2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) development process. SCAQMD
anticipates that the 2012 AQMP will be submitted to EPA by the end of
2012 and will include a demonstration of attainment of the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard and an update to the ``black box'' commitment
under CAA section 182(e)(5) for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. SCAQMD asserts that this plan will necessarily include all
feasible measures and believes that it is doubtful that additional
measures could be identified solely for the purposes of addressing the
revoked one-hour ozone standard. SCAQMD also asserts that the
strategies for emissions reductions would essentially be the same for
both the one and eight-hour ozone standards. SCAQMD argues that no
separate additional plan for the revoked one-hour ozone standard should
be required, since the 2012 plan for the eight-hour standard will
evaluate future one-hour ozone design values and, all feasible measures
are being taken, and the additional resource needed to prepare such a
demonstration would divert resources away from the effort to
demonstrate attainment with the current NAAQS. Thus, SCAQMD believes
that requiring a new attainment demonstration for the one-hour ozone
standard is not necessary and is overly burdensome given the upcoming
2012 AQMP.
    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #5: As stated above, EPA believes
that the anti-backsliding requirements applicable for the revoked 1-
hour ozone standard are limited to those specified in EPA's regulations
and the South Coast decision, and do not and should not compel
additional planning for the one-hour standard here. We agree that
requiring a new attainment demonstration for the one-hour ozone
standard for the South Coast is not necessary or required by a final
determination today that the South Coast failed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by the applicable attainment date. As set forth in our
September 14, 2011 proposed rule and elsewhere in this document, we are
making today's determination pursuant to our authority under CAA
section 301(a) and also under the relevant portion of section
181(b)(2), in order to ensure implementation of only those measures
specifically identified as one-hour ozone anti-backsliding
requirements--in this case--contingency measures and section 185 fees.
    SCAQMD Comment #6: SCAQMD requests that EPA clarify that a final
determination of failure to attain does not trigger any obligation to
submit an attainment demonstration for the revoked one-hour ozone
standard.
    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #6: In this final rule, EPA explains
and responds to comments concerning the statutory basis and rationale
set forth in our September 14, 2011 proposed rule for the determination
of failure to attain the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable
attainment date. EPA is taking this action under its authority to

ensure implementation of one-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements
under CAA section 301(a) and the relevant portion of section 181(b)(2).
Thus, EPA is stating plainly that today's determination does not
trigger any requirement for the State of California to prepare and
submit a new attainment demonstration for the one-hour ozone standard
under section 179(c) and (d) for any of the three subject California
nonattainment areas. As EPA has stated elsewhere, a new additional
attainment demonstration triggered by a failure to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by the attainment date is not an ``applicable
requirement'' for the purposes of anti-backsliding in 40 CFR 51.905 and
40 CFR 51.900(f).
    SCAQMD Comment #7: The SCAQMD requests that EPA separate the
Coachella Valley from the remainder of the Southeast Desert Air Basin
and determine that the Coachella Valley has attained the one-hour ozone
standard. SCAQMD acknowledges that the Coachella Valley still exceeded
the revoked one-hour ozone standard in the three-year period before
2007, but believes that Coachella Valley can now show it has attained
the revoked one-hour standard based on data from the 2008-2010 period.
    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #7: The air quality determinations
that are the subject of this rulemaking focus solely on whether the
areas attained the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment
dates. Whether an area is currently attaining the standard is not
relevant to these determinations. In the case of the South Coast and
the San Joaquin Valley, the applicable attainment date was November 15,
2010, and the determination of whether the areas attained by the
applicable attainment date is based on data from 2008-2010. For the
Southeast Desert, the determination of whether the area met its
attainment date is based on data for 2005-2007. As a Severe-17 area,
the area's applicable attainment date for the one-hour ozone standard
was November 15, 2007.
    In today's rulemaking, EPA is not addressing current attainment of
the one-hour ozone standard in these areas or making a determination
regarding current attainment of any area. Should the SCAQMD wish to
seek a revision of the boundary of the Southeast Desert one-hour ozone
nonattainment area in order to establish a separate Coachella Valley
one-hour ozone nonattainment area and a determination by EPA that this
area is currently attaining the one-hour ozone standard, the SCAQMD
should work with CARB to prepare and submit a request for a boundary
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) and for a related
attainment determination. EPA would then consider such requests in a
separate rulemaking.
    SCAQMD Comment #8: SCAQMD states that it believes that, for the
sake of consistency and to avoid future litigation, EPA should make
determinations similar to today's determinations for all areas in the
United States that failed to attain the revoked ozone standard by their
applicable attainment dates.
    EPA Response to SCAQMD Comment #8: By mid-2012, EPA intends to make
a determination of attainment or failure to attain the one-hour ozone
standard for approximately 20 areas throughout the country, consisting
of almost every one-hour ozone nonattainment area that was classified
as Moderate or above on June 15, 2005 (the date of revocation of the
one-hour ozone standard) and that is currently designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The only two
exceptions, Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, New Hampshire and Providence,
Rhode Island were classified as ``Serious'' for the one-hour ozone
standard, and thus not subject to section 185 fee requirements, and EPA
has determined through rulemaking that they are attaining the 1997
eight-hour ozone standard. See 75 FR 64949 (October 21,
2010)(Providence, RI); and 76 FR 14805 (March 18, 2011) (Portsmouth-
Dover-Rochester, NH).
    The areas for which EPA has made determinations regarding
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard, or for which EPA is
committed to make determinations, are: South Coast (CA); San Joaquin
Valley (CA); Southeast Desert (CA); Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-IN);
Houston-Galveston (TX); Milwaukee-Racine (WI); New York-N. New Jersey-
Long Island (NY-NJ-CT); Baltimore (MD); Baton Rouge (LA); Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD); Sacramento Metro (CA); Ventura County
(CA); Metropolitan Washington (DC-MD-VA); Beaumont-Port Arthur (TX);
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (MA-NH); Dallas-Fort Worth (TX); El Paso
(TX); Greater Connecticut (CT); Springfield (Western MA); Atlantic City
(NJ); and Poughkeepsie (NY).

Earthjustice--Comments and Responses

    Earthjustice Comment #1: Earthjustice states that it assumes that
EPA's failure to cite the relevant sections of the CAA and fully
explain the implications of a failure to attain is an oversight because
it contends that the requirements in CAA sections 179(c) and 181(b)(2)
plainly mandate EPA to determine whether a nonattainment area attained
the standard by the applicable attainment date.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #1: For a number of reasons,
EPA does not agree that it is compelled to act under the authority of
CAA sections 179(c) and 181(b)(2) when making determinations for the
revoked one-hour ozone standard. CAA section 179(c) requires, in
relevant part, that EPA determine, based on the area's air quality as
of the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that
date. CAA section 179(c) applies to all of the NAAQS whereas CAA
section 181(b)(2), in relevant part, largely mirrors section 179(c) and
applies specifically to the ozone standard.
    Both section 179(c) and 181(b)(2) refer to the ``standard,'' which
doubtless applies to the NAAQS, but which does not clearly apply to a
revoked standard, such as the one-hour ozone standard, which was
revoked after promulgation of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, one
year after the effective date of designations for the 1997 ozone
standard. See 40 CFR 50.9(b). Based on an effective date of June 15,
2004 for designations for the eight-hour ozone standard (see 69 FR
23951, April 30, 2004), the date for revocation of the one-hour ozone
standard was June 15, 2005. Because we are well past that date, the
revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS no longer constitutes a ``standard'' for
the purposes of sections 179(c) or 181(b)(2).
    Moreover, not all CAA provisions that applied prior to revocation
of the one-hour standard were preserved as anti-backsliding
requirements. Only specified requirements were identified and retained
as applicable requirements. While EPA's identification of these
requirements was challenged in the South Coast litigation, the DC
Circuit's decisions in that case disposed of those challenges and
closed the door on the issue of what constitutes an anti-backsliding
requirement. The provisions of the rule indicating that EPA would not
be obligated to make determinations under section 179(c) for purposes
of future planning or section 181(b)(2) for purposes of
reclassifications were not challenged and stand as promulgated. Even
more significantly, the consequences of determinations set forth in
portions of those provisions--reclassification and additional one-hour
planning--were not retained as anti-backsliding requirements. This
aspect of the anti-backsliding regime was not challenged by litigants
or addressed by the South Coast Court. The court vacated only those
portions of EPA's implementation rule that it addressed in

its South Coast decision. In accordance with EPA's Phase 1 Ozone
Implementation Rule, EPA is no longer obligated, after revocation of
the one-hour ozone standard, to determine pursuant to section 179(c) or
section 181(b)(2) of the CAA whether an area attained the one-hour
ozone standard by that area's attainment date for the one-hour ozone
standard. See 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2). While EPA remains obligated to
ensure implementation of those one-hour ozone anti-backsliding measures
that were retained as applicable requirements, EPA is not obligated to,
and has elected not to apply section 179(c) to make determinations
whether an area attained the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable
attainment date. EPA is undertaking these determinations expressly and
solely to give effect to the anti-backsliding requirements for
contingency measures and section 185 fees that have been retained as
applicable requirements and which are linked to such determinations,
under our authority under CAA section 301(a) and the relevant portion
of section 181(b)(2) consistent with the South Coast decision. The only
anti-backsliding requirements related to attainment planning for the
one-hour ozone standard are contained in EPA's regulation 40 CFR
51.905(a), which does not include any obligations for subsequent
planning rounds under section 179(d). Section 179(d) prescribes
consequences that were not retained for purposes of anti-backsliding
after revocation of the one-hour ozone standard.
    Earthjustice Comment #2: Earthjustice states its belief that the
consequences of a failure to attain are plainly enumerated in the Act--
a new plan meeting the requirements of section 110 and 172 [see section
179(d)], contingency measures approved under section 172(c)(9) and
section 185 fees.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #2: As stated on page 56700 of
our September 14, 2011 proposed rule, we agree that a final
determination that a Severe or Extreme area failed to attain by its
one-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date triggers a State's obligation to
implement one-hour contingency measures for failure to attain under
section 172(c)(9) and fee programs under sections 182(d)(3), 182(f),
and 185. Because the South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and Southeast
Desert areas are classified as Extreme (or Severe in the case of the
Southeast Desert) for the one-hour ozone standard, today's final
determinations of failure to attain by the applicable attainment date
trigger the obligation to implement such one-hour contingency measures
and fee programs.
    We do not agree, however, that these determinations re-activate a
requirement to prepare and submit an additional round of one-hour
attainment planning pursuant to CAA section 179(d). Section 179(d) was
not retained as an anti-backsliding requirement, and as explained in
Response to Comment 1, above, EPA is not applying section 179
in order to make the determinations of failure to attain for the three
subject California areas under section 179(c). For these and other
reasons set forth elsewhere in this notice, the additional plan
requirements under section 179(d) are not triggered.
    Earthjustice Comment #3: Earthjustice cites the decision by the
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in the South Coast Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA case (472 F.3d 882, 903-904 (DC Cir. 2007) in
asserting that EPA unsuccessfully attempted to delete certain statutory
requirements (i.e., new plan under section 179(d), contingency measures
under section 172(c), and section 185 fees) in the Agency's 2004 Phase
1 Rule.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #3: We agree that the South
Coast case, cited above, vacated the provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule
that excluded section 172(c)(9) contingency measures and section 185
fees from the list of applicable requirements for purposes of anti-
backsliding after revocation of the one-hour ozone standard. We
disagree, however, that the South Coast decision preserves EPA's
obligations under CAA section 179(c) or the related State obligations
under CAA section 179(d) after revocation of the one-hour ozone
standard. EPA's authority to revoke the one-hour ozone standard was
specifically challenged in the South Coast case but upheld by the DC
Circuit. See South Coast, 472 F.3d 882, at 899 (``Therefore, EPA
retains the authority to revoke the one-hour standard so long as
adequate anti-backsliding provisions are introduced.'') As we have
noted, the claim that all the specific requirements of sections 179(c)
and (d) and 181(b)(2) should be retained and imposed as anti-
backsliding measures was not raised in the South Coast case and cannot
be resurrected at this time. Because the one-hour ozone standard has
been revoked, it is no longer a ``standard'' for the purposes of CAA
section 179(c) and thus the statutory requirements of section 179(d)
also no longer apply. While EPA is obliged to make those determinations
necessary to effectuate the contingency measure and fee anti-
backsliding requirements, there is nothing that requires EPA to make
those determinations under section 179 or 181, or that dictates the
imposition of the consequences formerly imposed by those sections
before revocation, i.e., reclassification, second-round attainment
planning. These were not retained as anti-backsliding requirements and
40 CFR 51.905(e)(2) made that explicit, was never challenged, and was
not vacated by the South Coast decision. Commenters are conflating
EPA's obligation to determine whether an area attained by its one-hour
ozone attainment date with the terms of section 179, which exceed the
limits of, and are not necessary for purposes of anti-backsliding
requirements.
    Earthjustice Comment #4: Earthjustice observes that EPA
promulgated, as part of the Agency's Phase 1 Rule, a provision that
states in essence that, after revocation, EPA is no longer obliged to
determine pursuant to section 179(c) or section 181(b)(2) whether an
area attained the one-hour ozone standard by that area's attainment
date for the one-hour ozone standard, but asserts that EPA has never
interpreted the statute or EPA's regulations as allowing EPA to avoid
making the required determinations under sections 179(c) or 181(b)(2)
when needed to fulfill the obligations of the CAA. In support of this
contention, Earthjustice points to the text found in EPA's one-hour
ozone attainment determinations for Washoe County [as citing both
179(c) and 181(b)(2)], Philadelphia and District of Columbia [as citing
section 181(b)(2)], Southern New Jersey [as citing section 181(b)(2)]
and Milwaukee [as citing section 181(b)(2)].
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #4: First, the only example
that Earthjustice claims as evidence that EPA has conceded that it
remains obligated after revocation of the one-hour ozone standard to
make attainment determinations for the one-hour ozone standard under
section 179(c), is an attainment determination that was made before the
one-hour ozone standard was revoked. EPA's one-hour ozone attainment
determination for Washoe County, Nevada was published on May 3, 2005
(70 FR 22803), the one-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15,
2005. Therefore, EPA's determination for Washoe County proves nothing
about EPA's obligation to make attainment determinations under section
179(c) of the Act after revocation. To the contrary, 40 CFR
51.905(e)(2) clearly provides: ``Upon revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS
for an area, EPA is no longer obligated (A) To determine pursuant to
section 181(b)(2)

or section 179(c) of the CAA whether an area attained * * *.''
    Second, although after revocation, on a number of occasions, EPA
has cited section 181(b)(2)--but never section 179--when determining
that areas attained the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable
deadline, all of these rulemakings were determinations of attainment
rather than determinations of failure to attain. Because the areas met
their attainment deadlines, EPA was not determining or imposing the
consequences of failure to attain. Moreover, when EPA invoked section
181(b)(2) in determining that areas had attained the one-hour ozone
deadline, EPA made clear in those actions that the only portion of
section 181(b)(2) applicable for purposes of the one-hour ozone anti-
backsliding requirements was the obligation to make the determination
itself, since the portions of the section prescribing the consequence
of reclassification had not been retained. 40 CFR 51.905(e).
    For example, in one of the determinations of attainment, EPA noted
that:

    ``EPA remains obligated under section 181(b)(2) to determine
whether an area attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment
date. However, after the revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA
is no longer obligated to reclassify an area to a higher
classification for the one-hour NAAQS based upon a determination
that the area failed to attain the one-hour NAAQS by the area's
attainment date for the one-hour NAAQS. (40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(B).)
Thus even if we make a finding that an area has failed to attain the
one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, the area would not be
reclassified to a higher classification.'' 73 FR 42727, at 42728
(July 23, 2008).

    As EPA has noted, after revocation, the only possible anti-
backsliding requirements triggered by a failure to attain the one-hour
ozone attainment deadline are the requirements of sections 172(c)(9)
(i.e., contingency measures) and 185 (i.e., fees). Thus, even if EPA
were to invoke section 181(b)(2) as the statutory basis under which EPA
is obligated to make determinations of attainment or failure to attain
the one-hour ozone standard in the South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and
Southeast Desert, no requirement for new plans would be triggered for
these areas. None of EPA's post-revocation determinations regarding
one-hour attainment deadlines cite section 179(c). All of the post-
revocation rulemakings determining attainment by the attainment
deadline that cite section 181(b)(2) do so only with respect to the
obligation to make the requisite air quality determination for the sole
purpose of the applicable one-hour anti-backsliding requirements linked
to such determinations, i.e., contingency measures and section 185
fees. An additional round of one-hour attainment planning is not one of
these ``applicable requirements.'' See 40 CFR 51.900(f) and
51.905(a)(1). One could also conclude that the requirement and
corresponding obligation to adopt and implement a new one-hour
attainment plan for failure to attain the one-hour ozone standard by
the applicable attainment date, in contrast to the obligation to adopt
and implement contingency measures and fees, could not be an
``applicable requirement'' for anti-backsliding purposes for the
purposes of 40 CFR 51.900(f) and 51.905(a)(1) in the South Coast, San
Joaquin Valley and Southeast Desert because the only applicable
attainment dates that could trigger new planning requirements for these
areas were well after June 15, 2004, the date of designation for the
eight-hour ozone standard and the date that determines which
``applicable requirements'' apply to any given eight-hour ozone
nonattainment area. As such, new planning requirements triggered by a
failure to attain by the applicable attainment date could not have been
a requirement on that date, and thus could not be an ``applicable
requirement'' for the purposes of anti-backsliding.
    Earthjustice Comment #5: Earthjustice contends that, between the
plain language of the CAA and EPA's consistent interpretation of these
provisions, there is no question that section 179(c) or section
181(b)(2) is the appropriate authority for making the determinations
that the South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and Southeast Desert one-hour
ozone nonattainment areas have failed to attain the applicable
attainment dates but notes that EPA cites neither one, but instead
cites section 301(a) as providing the authority for EPA's
determination. Earthjustice faults the September 14, 2011 proposed rule
for failing to explain how or why section 301(a) provides the
appropriate authority for the action, what regulations are being
``prescribed'' under section 301(a), and why such regulations are
``necessary'' given the statutory and regulatory commands.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #5: Section 301(a)(1) of the
CAA, in relevant part, provides that: ``The Administrator is authorized
to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his
functions under this chapter.'' Today's final rule is a regulation that
included EPA review and evaluation of air quality information in
relation to a standard and that followed the procedural requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act, including publication of a proposed
rule and the consideration of public comments.
    EPA's invocation of section 301(a) is appropriate because the South
Coast Court required EPA to determine the procedures necessary to
enforce the contingency measures and section 185 fees requirements, but
did not specify those procedures. In the words of the South Coast
court: ``While EPA maintains that it would be impractical to enforce
[section 185 fees] because EPA will no longer make findings of
attainment * * *, section 172(e) does not condition its strict distaste
for backsliding on EPA's determinations of expediency; EPA must
determine its procedures after it has identified what findings must be
made under the Act.'' South Coast, 472 F.3d 882, at 903. The court's
decision in South Coast did not compel EPA to make determinations for
the one-hour ozone standard under any specific provision of the
statute, much less CAA sections 179(c) or 181(b)(2). Nor did the
Court's decision vacate 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2), which relieves EPA of the
obligation to make determinations under sections 181(b) and section
179. The South Coast decision simply required EPA to identify the
procedures to make the findings related to anti-backsliding measures.
    In response, EPA has identified a determination of attainment or
failure to attain the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable
attainment date, made through notice and comment rulemaking, as the
necessary and appropriate procedure to be followed to effectuate the
specific one-hour ozone anti-backsliding measures of sections 172(c)(9)
and 185. EPA believes that section 301(a) therefore provides
appropriate authority for EPA to promulgate the necessary procedures to
fulfill the objective of ensuring implementation of anti-backsliding
measures and be consistent with 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2). EPA also believes
that it would not bring about any different result were EPA instead to
invoke that portion of section 181(b)(2) that addresses such attainment
determinations. To this extent, EPA agrees with the suggestion of the
commenter that it may also rely on authority of section 181(b)(2) as a
basis for continuing to make determinations for the limited purpose of
effectuating one-hour ozone contingency measures and section 185 fees.
After revocation, the other portions of section 181(b)(2) regarding
consequences of these determinations, including

reclassifications, are no longer applicable under 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2).
Conversely, there is no need or justification for reliance on section
179(c), which has played no role with respect to the one-hour standard
since revocation of the standard. For the purpose of ensuring the
contingency measure and fee anti-backsliding measures, it is not
necessary for EPA to trigger the obsolete planning requirements of
section 179(d) with which section 179(c) was linked, nor is EPA
obligated to do so. In these circumstances, section 179 should not be
used to revive an additional one-hour planning obligation that has not
been preserved as an anti-backsliding requirement.
    We recognize that, subsequent to revocation of the one-hour ozone
standard, we have cited section 181(b)(2) as preserving an obligation
to make determinations of attainment for the one-hour ozone standard by
the applicable attainment date. As we have observed, however, we have
been careful in every instance to sever the attainment determination
itself from other portions of that section--notably, the obligation to
reclassify areas that fail to attain the one-hour ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date. EPA believes it is consistent with the
statute, the South Coast decision and EPA's Phase 1 Rule to proceed
either under section 301(a) or section 181(b)(2)'s provision for making
a determination, for the limited purpose of ensuring implementation of
anti-backsliding measures. In acting under either provision, EPA is
enforcing those specific requirements that are applicable for anti-
backsliding. In no way do EPA's determinations act to revive the
additional one-hour requirements that have not been retained for anti-
backsliding--one-hour planning requirements under section 179(d) and
reclassification.
    Earthjustice Comment #6: Earthjustice questions whether the action
to determine that the three subject California nonattainment areas
failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable
attainment dates is an authority that has been delegated to the
Regional Administrator from the EPA Administrator.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #6: Section 301(a)(1) of the
CAA, in relevant part, provides that: ``The Administrator may delegate
to any officer or employee of the Environmental Protection Agency such
of his powers and duties under this chapter, except the making of
regulations subject to section 7607(d) of this title, as he may deem
necessary or expedient.'' This rulemaking is not one of the regulations
subject to section 7607(d) (i.e., section 307(d)).
    Under the authority of CAA section 301(a)(1), the Administrator has
delegated numerous authorities under the Clean Air Act. As noted above,
EPA believes that it may also rely on authority of section 181(b)(2) as
a basis for continuing to make determinations for the limited purpose
of effectuating one-hour ozone contingency measures and section 185
fees, and with respect to section 181(b)(2), Delegation 7-110 in the
Delegations Manual provides authority for Regional Administrators to
make these determinations. Delegation 7-110 in relevant part delegates
authority to regional administrators: ``[t]o determine, based on the
number of exceedances, whether an area attained its ozone standard by
the date required (181(b)(2)).'' Therefore, the EPA Region IX Regional
Administrator is duly authorized to take the final action that he does
today through this document.
    In addition, under Delegation 7-10 (in Chapter 7 of EPA's
Delegations Manual), the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to
propose or take final action on any SIP under section 110 of the CAA to
the Regional Administrators. Among the references cited in Delegation
7-10 are section 110 and section 301(a) of the CAA. EPA's final
determinations of failure to attain the one-hour ozone standard by the
applicable attainment dates for South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and
Southeast Desert are not SIP actions themselves but are made herein
under CAA section 301(a) for the express purpose of ensuring
implementation of one-hour ozone SIP requirements, namely, contingency
measures and section 185 fees, that applied to these areas as Severe or
Extreme areas for the revoked one-hour ozone standard at the time of
designation of these areas for the eight-hour ozone standard. For these
reasons, EPA's final determinations made herein by the EPA Region IX
Regional Administrator are covered by both Delegation 7-110 and 7-10.
    Earthjustice Comment #7: Earthjustice contends that EPA's
invocation of section 301(a) is not adequate to prescribe new
regulatory requirements revising the well-established ``obligations''
to make findings under sections 179(c) and 181(b)(2) to implement the
requirements of the CAA. Earthjustice argues that EPA is attempting to
change its interpretation of its statutory requirements, and asks EPA
to explain its reasoning for this alleged change so as to allow
commenters to meaningfully comment on the Agency's rationale.
Earthjustice further states that such a change in the ozone
implementation rules must be made through national rulemaking signed by
the Administrator.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #7: EPA disagrees with
Earthjustice's characterization of EPA's actions here as somehow
prescribing new regulatory requirements. Rather, it is Earthjustice
that is seeking to use EPA's determinations here to impose additional
plan requirements that have not been retained for one-hour anti-
backsliding. EPA here is simply making the same air quality
determinations and applying the same notice and comment rulemaking
process that it used prior to revocation. The only difference is that,
after revocation of the one-hour standard, the purpose and consequences
of these determinations are no longer ``reclassification'' (section
181(b)(2)) or requiring additional rounds of SIP revisions (section
179(d)). The purpose is to ensure implementation of those one-hour
ozone requirements that EPA and the South Coast Court have taken pains
to identify with specificity. EPA is thus acting consistently with the
2004 Phase 1 Rule and with the directives of the Court in the South
Coast case. Simply because EPA acknowledges it now has an obligation to
make these determinations for purposes of legitimate anti-backsliding
requirements does not mean that these determinations call down all the
consequences that had been excluded from those identified by EPA and
the Court. See 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2). Earthjustice, not EPA, is
attempting to change the established rules of anti-backsliding by
reviving moribund portions of sections 179 under the guise of enforcing
EPA's obligation to make attainment determinations for quite different
purposes. It is Earthjustice that seeks improperly to add to the list
of anti-backsliding requirements by representing new requirements as
merely a procedural mechanism to enforce those that have been
legitimately recognized.
    We strongly disagree with the commenter's claim that we are
changing our interpretation of the Agency's statutory obligations with
respect to the one-hour ozone standard. As explained above, since
revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, we have never cited section
179(c) as preserving an obligation on our part to determine whether an
area attained the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment
date. We certainly have never stated or implied, after revocation of
the one-hour standard that a determination of failure to attain by the
one-hour attainment deadline would

call for additional section 179(d) planning requirements. As pointed
out above, since revocation we have cited section 181(b)(2) only in the
context of making determinations of attainment that do not result in
any attendant requirements relating to additional planning or
reclassifications, but rather only to implement two specific anti-
backsliding measures.
    Lastly, contrary to Earthjustice's contention, we believe that, the
specific language in 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2) eliminating any compulsion for
EPA to make determinations under section 179(c) for the one-hour ozone
standard and the availability of other more appropriate procedures to
enforce anti-backsliding requirements, refute any argument for reliance
on that section. The only reason to involve section 179(c) would be the
illegitimate one of seeking, long after anti-backsliding requirements
have been debated and established, to add section 179(d) plans to the
list. It is disingenuous to argue the necessity of invoking the
authority of section 179(c) to enforce the only anti-backsliding
requirements in play, which clearly do not include additional one-hour
attainment demonstration plans under section 179(d). The South Coast
decision did not vacate 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2). It established only that,
notwithstanding that provision, EPA must continue to make
determinations of attainment for purposes other than those addressed by
that regulation. EPA today is complying with the directive of the
Court, and making through notice and comment rulemaking the requisite
determinations to implement the specific anti-backsliding measures of
contingency measures and section 185 fees.
    Earthjustice Comment #8: By relying on CAA section 301(a),
Earthjustice is concerned that EPA is attempting to invent new
procedures for determining attainment in order to avoid the obligation
under section 179(d) to prepare a new one-hour ozone plan. Waiving the
planning obligations would, in Earthjustice's view, violate the
statute.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #8: EPA is not waiving any
planning requirements under section 179(d), because they are not
applicable as one-hour anti-backsliding requirements. In accordance
with 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2), we are no longer obligated to make attainment
determinations under section 179(c) and there is nothing in the South
Coast case or in EPA's past statements to the contrary. In any event,
there is no provision for retaining further planning under section
179(d) with respect to the revoked one-hour ozone standard. See also
EPA Responses to Earthjustice Comments elsewhere in this final rule.
    Earthjustice Comment #9: Earthjustice contends that spikes in one-
hour ozone concentrations over 0.12 ppm are harmful to public health
and that EPA's decision to adopt an eight-hour ozone standard was not
based on any determination that these shorter-term exposures were no
longer of concern. Earthjustice cites EPA's 1997 final rule
establishing the eight-hour ozone standard as describing new evidence
that EPA had found of an array of adverse health effects associated
with short-term exposures (i.e., 1 to 3 hours) above the standard level
of 0.12 ppm.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #9: At root, Earthjustice
objects to EPA's decision in 1997 to replace the one-hour ozone
standard with the eight-hour ozone standard rather than retaining both
standards. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). This issue was raised many
years ago in the comments on EPA's proposal (61 FR 65716, December 13,
1996) to revise the ozone standard. A number of commenters on EPA's
1996 proposal urged EPA to maintain standards based on both one-hour
and eight-hour averaging times to provide protection from one- and
eight-hour exposures of concern. 62 FR 38856, at 38863 (column 1).
These commenters generally argued that an 8-hour standard alone could
still allow for unhealthful high one-hour exposures. While EPA
acknowledged the possibility that an eight-hour ozone standard alone
could allow for high one-hour exposures of concern, at and above 0.12
ppm, EPA concluded for the reasons set forth in the 1997 final rule
that replacing the one-hour ozone standard with an eight-hour ozone
standard, considering the level and form adopted, was appropriate to
provide adequate and more uniform protection of public health from both
short-term (1-3 hours) and prolonged (6 to 8 hours) exposure to ozone
in the ambient air. 62 FR 38856, at 38863 (column 2). The decision to
retain only the new eight-hour ozone standard included the result that,
apart from the specific requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(a) regarding one-
hour ozone plans, an attainment demonstration for the eight-hour
standard would provide requisite protection against violations of both
the one- and the eight-hour standards. EPA's decision to replace the
one-hour ozone standard with an eight-hour ozone standard has long been
settled, and EPA does not intend, and is not required to re-open that
issue in the context of today's determinations.
    Earthjustice Comment #10: Citing CAA section 181(a) and the South
Coast case, Earthjustice believes that Congress clearly intended the
most polluted ozone areas to address the harms caused by these peak
concentrations within 20 years of the 1990 CAA Amendments, and contends
that it would not make sense to decide that attainment of the one-hour
standard was no longer needed when the one-hour ozone problem is just
as serious as Congress believed it to be.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #10: This comment essentially
restates the objection to EPA's decision in 1997 to replace the one-
hour ozone standard with an eight-hour ozone standard and EPA's
decision in 2004 to revoke the one-hour ozone standard for all areas of
the country by a fixed date, rather than by the date when areas were
found to have attained the one-hour ozone standard. In response to the
proposed rule that culminated in our 2004 Phase 1 Rule, we received and
considered comments that EPA should retain the one-hour ozone standard
because it is necessary to protect public health. Comments submitted in
that rulemaking included the same assertion that the one-hour ozone
standard may be more protective of public health than the eight-hour
ozone standard in several areas such as the South Coast and Houston,
and the same assertion that revocation would be contrary to the CAA and
Congressional intent. In our 2004 Phase 1 Rule, we responded to these
comments, pointing out that the question whether the one-hour ozone
standard is necessary to protect public health is a standard-setting
issue that was resolved in EPA's 1997 final rule promulgating the
eight-hour ozone standard to replace the one-hour ozone standard. See
69 FR 23951, at 23970 (column 1) (April 30, 2004).
    Earthjustice's comment here regarding Congressional intent is the
same argument that was made in the South Coast case challenging EPA's
authority to revoke the one-hour standard. There, the environmental
petitioners contended that the one-hour ozone standard cannot be
withdrawn because Congress ``codified'' the one-hour ozone standard in
subpart 2, but the court recognized that, by establishing the periodic
NAAQS review process in section 109(d)(1) of the CAA, Congress clearly
contemplated the possibility that scientific advances would require
amendment of the national ambient air quality standard, and upheld
EPA's authority to revoke the one-hour ozone standard so long as
adequate anti-backsliding provisions were applied. South Coast, 472
F.3d 882, at 899.

    In our 2004 Phase 1 Rule, in response to comments on the scope of
its anti-backsliding requirements, EPA specifically addressed planning
requirements under the one-hour ozone standard: ``Where they are not
required by anti-backsliding provisions, EPA does not believe that the
additional burden States would undertake in planning to achieve both
the 1-hour and the 8-hour NAAQS is necessary to protect public
health.'' 69 FR 23951, at 23971 (April 30, 2004). The South Coast case
also disposed of the specific challenges raised as to the adequacy of
the anti-backsliding provisions in EPA's implementation rule, and
established specifically which measures were required to be retained.
As EPA has explained elsewhere in responses to comments, those
provisions do not include additional attainment plans under section
179. The provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2) relating to section 179(c)
were not challenged or vacated by the South Coast court. Contrary to
commenter's contention, today's determinations fully discharge EPA's
responsibility to address the only one-hour ozone anti-backsliding
measures (contingency measures and section 185 fees) activated by
determinations of failure to meet one-hour attainment deadlines. EPA
has struck the balance between preserving old one-hour ozone
requirements and allowing current planning and control requirements for
the newer standards to function on their behalf. It is long past the
time to challenge this balance and dispute the revocation of the one-
hour ozone standard and the established set of one-hour anti-
backsliding requirements, which do not include additional rounds of
one-hour ozone planning. We also note that California has submitted
attainment demonstration plans for all three subject California
nonattainment areas for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard; such plans
also serve to promote attainment of the revoked one-hour standard.
    Earthjustice's comment seeks to remind EPA that the DC Circuit
stated: ``The Act placed states onto a one-way street whose only outlet
is attainment.'' South Coast at 472 F.3d 882, at 900. In making today's
determinations to ensure implementation of one-hour ozone contingency
measures and section 185 fees, which the DC Circuit has resolved are
those required by anti-backsliding upon failure to attain the revoked
standard, EPA is heeding the DC Circuit's admonition in South Coast and
fulfilling the requirements of the Act.
    Earthjustice Comment #11: Earthjustice contends that EPA cannot
reasonably conclude that the South Coast, San Joaquin Valley and
Southeast Desert areas, now that they have failed to attain and their
attainment plans appear inadequate, can be relieved of this obligation
to demonstrate attainment. In support of this contention, Earthjustice
cites two Ninth Circuit decisions, Association of Irritated Residents
v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at 594 (9th Cir. 2011) (herein referred to as the
AIR case), and Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, at 1159 (9th Cir. 2001)
(herein referred to as the Hall case).
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #11: As explained elsewhere in
these responses, EPA evaluates the adequacy of a plan containing a
demonstration of attainment, and whether it meets all applicable
requirements, when EPA acts to approve or disapprove the plan and not
after the applicable attainment date. In the case of the three subject
California nonattainment areas, EPA approved the one-hour ozone plans
prior to the applicable attainment dates and thus, the determinations
that the areas did not actually attain the one-hour ozone standard by
the applicable attainment dates was not an issue under consideration at
that time and does not undermine the validity of EPA's prior approvals
of the plans at the time they were taken.
    The anti-backsliding requirements for one-hour ozone attainment
demonstrations are set forth in 40 CFR 51.900(f)(13) and
51.905(a)(1)(i). For the purposes of anti-backsliding, an eight-hour
ozone nonattainment area is obligated to have a fully-approved
attainment demonstration plan for the one-hour ozone standard based on
the area's ozone classification that the area had at the time of
designation for the eight-hour ozone standard. Thus, the State of
California is obligated to have a fully-approved ``Extreme'' area
attainment demonstration plan for the South Coast and the San Joaquin
Valley and a fully-approved ``Severe-17'' area attainment demonstration
plan for the Southeast Desert. EPA approved the relevant South Coast
plan in April 2000 (65 FR 18903, April 10, 2000), the relevant San
Joaquin Valley plan in March 2010 (75 FR 10420, March 8, 2010),\11\ and
the relevant Southeast Desert plan in January 1997 (62 FR 1150, January
8, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA's approval of the San Joaquin Valley ``Extreme'' area
one-hour ozone plan is the subject of ongoing litigation in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Sierra Club v. EPA (Nos. 10-71457,
10-71458).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did disapprove a revision to the attainment demonstration plan
for the South Coast in March 2009 (74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009) because
the measures upon which the revised attainment demonstration relied had
been withdrawn, but such disapproval does not necessarily undermine
EPA's prior approval of the attainment demonstration plan for the South
Coast. This will depend on the final decision in the AIR case, once all
appeals have been resolved. It is possible that EPA will need to
consider requiring California to prepare and submit a new one-hour
ozone attainment demonstration plan for the South Coast, but if EPA
were to do so, the Agency would be acting pursuant to a decision that
the State had not complied with the anti-backsliding requirement for a
one-hour ozone attainment demonstration under 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) for
the South Coast, and not because the area had failed to attain the one-
hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment date.
    Earthjustice cites the AIR case and Hall in support of its
contention that it is unreasonable for EPA to conclude that, in light
of the failure of the three subject California nonattainment areas to
attain the one-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment dates,
the areas can be relieved of the obligation to demonstrate attainment
of the one-hour ozone standard. This argument erroneously assumes that
there is an additional obligation to submit a revised one-hour
attainment plan even after valid approval of the State's plan as
required under 40 CFR 51.905(a). These two cases stand for the
principle that, under section 110(l) of the CAA, when EPA reviews a SIP
revision, EPA must evaluate the existing SIP and make a determination
as to whether the existing SIP, as modified by the SIP revision at
hand, would provide for attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards. In AIR, the specific SIP revision at issue was a revised
attainment demonstration plan for the one-hour ozone standard for the
South Coast. In Hall, the specific SIP revision at issue was a set of
revised new source review rules for Clark County, Nevada.
    Section 110(l) of the CAA applies to SIP revisions, and, unlike the
case in AIR, EPA is not acting today on any SIP revision and thus
section 110 and both the Hall and AIR cases are not relevant to this
action. After revocation of the one-hour standard, a State's obligation
with respect to attainment demonstration plans for the one-hour ozone
standard is defined in 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i). As stated above, because
California has submitted and EPA has approved the one-hour ozone plans
for San Joaquin Valley and the Southeast Desert, the State has
addressed its one-hour ozone attainment plan obligations

for these areas. For the South Coast, as explained above, whether the
State has satisfied this obligation may depend on the final resolution
and mandate by the Court in the AIR case, but does not depend on
today's determination. For all three subject areas, today's
determinations serve to ensure the implementation of one-hour ozone
contingency measures and section 185 fees, which, unlike further one-
hour attainment planning, are the measures required by the Court-
approved anti-backsliding provisions.
    Earthjustice Comment #12: Earthjustice demands that, in the final
rule, EPA clearly communicate that, for the South Coast, San Joaquin
Valley and Southeast Desert areas, new one-hour ozone plans complying
with the requirements of section 179(d) must be submitted to EPA within
one year of the date EPA publishes the final determinations.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #12: For the reasons set forth
elsewhere in EPA's response to comments, we disagree that the
determinations that we make in this document trigger a requirement
under CAA section 179(d) on the State of California to prepare and
submit SIP revisions including new demonstrations of attainment for the
one-hour ozone standard for the three subject California nonattainment
areas. A new section 179(d) ozone plan, triggered by section 179(c) is
not an applicable anti-backsliding requirement.
    With respect to anti-backsliding requirements, the South Coast
Court vacated the Phase 1 Rule only with respect to the measures
addressed. Here, the only pertinent anti-backsliding measures triggered
by a determination of failure to meet the one-hour deadline are one-
hour contingency measures for failure to attain and section 185 fees.
In the South Coast decision reviewing EPA's implementation rule,
neither 51.905(e)'s provisions regarding sections 179 and 181, nor the
exclusion of section 179(d) from one-hour anti-backsliding requirements
was challenged by the parties or addressed by the Court. Challenges
regarding anti-backsliding specifically addressed sections 172(c)(9)
and 185 and two other anti-backsliding provisions not relevant here
(NSR and conformity). To effectuate section 172(c)(9) and section 185
anti-backsliding provisions, EPA is determining that these three areas
failed to attain by their one-hour attainment dates. But EPA has
explained at length why these determinations do not reinstate the
additional planning requirements of section 179(d) that were not
retained as anti-backsliding measures.
    Earthjustice Comment #13: Earthjustice contends that the South
Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and Southeast Desert continue to exceed the
0.12 ppm one-hour ozone standard on a regular basis, that these spikes
have consequences. Earthjustice asserts that, after more than 20 years,
the residents of these areas have not been afforded the protections
needed and required by the Clean Air Act to meet even this standard.
    EPA Response to Earthjustice Comment #13: EPA recognizes that
exceedances of the one-hour ozone standard in the three subject
California nonattainment areas have occurred, and is making final
determinations that the three areas have failed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by their applicable attainment dates. However, EPA also
recognizes that significant progress has been made in lowering peak
hourly concentrations, frequency of exceedances, and the geographic
extent of exceedances in these areas. Since passage of the CAA
Amendments of 1990, one-hour ozone concentrations in these areas have
decreased, despite significant increases in population and vehicle
miles traveled. For example, CARB data indicates that the number of
days on which concentrations exceeded the one-hour ozone standard have
dropped from 131 in 1990 to only 9 in 2010 in the South Coast, from 45
in 1990 to only 7 in 2010 in San Joaquin Valley, and from 76 in 1990 to
only 3 in the Mojave Desert portion of the Southeast Desert. Moreover,
a comparison of CARB's one-hour ozone data from the three-year period
prior to revocation (2002-2004) with corresponding data from the three-
year period following revocation (2006-2008) shows a decrease in the
annual number of days on which the one-hour standard was exceeded from
46 to 27 in the South Coast, from 26 to 13 in San Joaquin Valley, and
from 11 to 4 in the Mojave Desert portion of the Southeast Desert.
While we acknowledge that even this significant progress has not yet
resulted in attainment, it does not bear the hallmark of backsliding.
    We disagree that the residents of these areas are not afforded the
protections needed and required by the Clean Air Act. Through today's
determinations, all applicable anti-backsliding requirements for the
revoked one-hour ozone standard must be implemented. One-hour anti-
backsliding measures, moreover, do not operate in a vacuum. State
planning efforts for attainment of the current, more protective eight-
hour ozone standard, and adoption and implementation of control
measures actively continue.\12\ These provide an ongoing regimen for
reducing ozone concentrations in terms of both the one- and the eight-
hour ozone standards. Thus, EPA believes that the residents of these
areas are being afforded the protections that are required in
accordance with EPA regulations and the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ On December 15, 2011, EPA took final actions to approve SIP
revisions for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley as meeting,
among other requirements, the requirement to demonstrate attainment
of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue
to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour anti-backsliding
requirements, see South Coast, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. Thus, pursuant to
EPA's obligation and authority under section 301(a) and the relevant
portion of section 181(b)(2) to ensure implementation of one-hour ozone
anti-backsliding requirements, and for the reasons given above and in
our September 14, 2011 proposed rule, EPA is taking final action to
determine that the South Coast, the San Joaquin Valley, and the
Southeast Desert failed to attain the one-hour ozone standard by the
applicable attainment dates. For South Coast and San Joaquin Valley,
quality-assured and certified data collected during 2008-2010 show that
these two ``Extreme'' one-hour ozone nonattainment areas failed to
attain the standard by November 15, 2010. For Southeast Desert, a
``Severe-17'' one-hour ozone nonattainment area, quality-assured and
certified data for 2005-2007 show that the area failed to attain the
standard by November 15, 2007.
    These determinations bear on the areas' obligations with respect to
the one-hour ozone standard anti-backsliding requirements whose
implementation is triggered by a failure to attain by the applicable
attainment date: section 172(c)(9) contingency measures for failure to
attain and sections 182(d)(3) and 185 major stationary source fee
programs.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions make determinations that certain areas did not attain
the applicable standard based on air quality, and do not impose any
requirements beyond those required by statute and regulation. For that
reason, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 28, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 16, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.282 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.282  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (d) Determinations that Certain Areas Did Not Attain the 1-Hour
Ozone NAAQS. EPA has determined that the Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin Area and the San Joaquin Valley Area extreme 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas did not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010 and that the Southeast
Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area severe-17 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area did not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of November 15, 2007. These determinations
bear on the areas' obligations with respect to the one-hour ozone
standard anti-backsliding requirements whose implementation is
triggered by a determination of failure to attain by the applicable
attainment date: section 172(c)(9) contingency measures for failure to
attain and sections 182(d)(3) and 185 major stationary source fee
programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-33475 Filed 12-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P