Determination of Attainment for the Sacramento Nonattainment Area for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements, 65346-65351 [2012-26417]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65346
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: October 12, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012–26384 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:27 Oct 25, 2012
Jkt 229001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0799; FRL–9747–3]
Determination of Attainment for the
Sacramento Nonattainment Area for
the 2006 Fine Particle Standard;
California; Determination Regarding
Applicability of Clean Air Act
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to
determine that the Sacramento
nonattainment area in California has
attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). This proposed
determination is based upon complete,
quality-assured, and certified ambient
air monitoring data showing that this
area has monitored attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on
the 2009–2011 monitoring period. EPA
is further proposing that, if EPA
finalizes this determination of
attainment, the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment
demonstration, together with reasonably
available control measures (RACM), a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan,
and contingency measures for failure to
meet RFP and attainment deadlines
shall be suspended for so long as the
area continues to attain the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 26,
2012.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0799 by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at
www.regulations.gov, please follow the
on-line instructions;
2. Email to ungvarsky.john@epa.gov;
or
3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky,
Air Planning Office, AIR–2, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted
through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action 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 at
either location (e.g., CBI). 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: John
Ungvarsky, (415) 972–3963, or by email
at ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean
EPA. We are providing the following
outline to aid in locating information in
this proposal.
Table of Contents
I. What determination is EPA making?
II. What is the background for this action?
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas
C. How does EPA make attainment
determinations?
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air
quality data?
A. Monitoring Network and Data
Considerations
B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
IV. How does EPA’s Clean Data Policy apply
to this action?
A. Application of EPA’s Clean Data Policy
to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS
B. History and Basis of EPA’s Clean Data
Policy
V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for
Public Comment
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What determination is EPA making?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Sacramento nonattainment area has
clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS
for fine particles (generally referring to
particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers in diameter, PM2.5). This
determination is based upon complete,
quality-assured, and certified ambient
air monitoring data showing the area
has monitored attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2009–2011
monitoring data. Preliminary data in
EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) for
2012 indicate that the area continues to
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on
this determination, we are also
proposing to suspend the obligations on
the State of California to submit certain
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions related to attainment of this
standard for the Sacramento
nonattainment area for as long as the
area continues to attain the standard.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. What is the background for this
action?
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
Under section 109 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), EPA has
established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS or
‘‘standards’’) for certain pervasive air
pollutants (referred to as ‘‘criteria
pollutants’’) and conducts periodic
reviews of the NAAQS to determine
whether they should be revised or
whether new NAAQS should be
established.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the
NAAQS for particulate matter to add
new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as
the indicator for the pollutant. EPA
established primary and secondary 1
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5
(62 FR 38652). The annual standard was
set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter
(mg/m3), based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and
the 24-hour standard was set at 65 mg/
m3, based on the 3-year average of the
98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area.
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144),
EPA revised the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, based on a
3-year average of the 98th percentile of
1 For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ National
Ambient Air Quality Standards are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the
public health, and ‘‘secondary’’ standards are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the
public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of such
air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section
109(b).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:27 Oct 25, 2012
Jkt 229001
24-hour concentrations. EPA also
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard
at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations,
but with tighter constraints on the
spatial averaging criteria.
B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas
Effective December 14, 2009, EPA
established the initial air quality
designations for most areas in the
United States for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November
13, 2009). Among the various areas
designated in 2009, EPA designated the
Sacramento 2 area in California as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.3 The boundaries for this
area are described in 40 CFR 81.305.
Within three years of the effective
date of designations, states with areas
designated as nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are required to
submit SIP revisions that, among other
elements, provide for implementation of
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress
(RFP), attainment of the standard as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than five years from the nonattainment
designation (in this instance, no later
than December 14, 2014), as well as
contingency measures. See CAA section
172(a)(2), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and
172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for
submittal of these SIP revisions, the
State of California requested that EPA
make determinations that the
Sacramento 4 nonattainment area has
attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and
that attainment-related SIP submittal
requirements are not applicable for as
long as the area continues to attain the
standard. Today’s proposal responds to
the State’s request.
C. How does EPA make attainment
determinations?
A determination of whether an area’s
air quality currently meets the PM2.5
NAAQS is generally based upon the
most recent three years of complete,
quality-assured data gathered at
established State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a
2 The Sacramento PM
2.5 nonattainment area
includes Sacramento County, the western portions
of El Dorado and Placer counties, and the eastern
portions of Solano and Yolo counties. Other than
the El Dorado County portion of the nonattainment
area, the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area lies
within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.
3 With respect to the annual PM
2.5 NAAQS, this
area is designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’
4 On May 2, 2012, James Goldstene, Executive
Officer of the California Air Resources Board,
submitted a request to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the
Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65347
nonattainment area and entered into the
AQS database. Data from air monitors
operated by state/local agencies in
compliance with EPA monitoring
requirements must be submitted to
AQS. Monitoring agencies annually
certify that these data are accurate to the
best of their knowledge. Accordingly,
EPA relies primarily on data in AQS
when determining the attainment status
of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part
50, appendix L; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR
part 58, and 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 N.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part
50, section 50.13 and in accordance
with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard is met when the design
value is less than or equal to 35 mg/m3
(based on the rounding convention in 40
CFR part 50, appendix N) at each
monitoring site within the area.5 The
PM2.5 24-hour average is considered
valid when 75 percent of the hourly
averages for the 24-hour period are
available. Data completeness
requirements for a given year are met
when at least 75 percent of the
scheduled sampling days for each
quarter have valid data.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the
relevant air quality data?
A. Monitoring Network and Data
Considerations
In the Sacramento PM2.5
nonattainment area, the agencies
responsible for assuring that the area
meets air quality monitoring
requirements include CARB,
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD), Placer
County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD). Both
CARB and SMAQMD submit annual
monitoring network plans to EPA.
SMAQMD network plans describe the
monitoring network operated by
SMAQMD and CARB in Sacramento
County, and CARB’s network plans
describe the monitoring sites CARB
operates, in addition to monitoring sites
operated by smaller air districts,
namely, PCAPCD and YSAQMD. These
plans discuss the status of the air
monitoring network, as required under
40 CFR 58.10.
5 The PM
2.5 24-hour standard design value is the
3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour
average values recorded at each monitoring site [see
40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 1.0(c)], and the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24-hour
standard design value at each monitoring site is less
than or equal to 35 mg/m3.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
65348
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews
these annual plans for compliance with
the applicable reporting requirements in
40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM2.5,
EPA has found that the areas’ network
plans, submitted by CARB and
SMAQMD, meet the applicable
requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See
EPA letters to CARB and SMAQMD
approving their annual network plans
for years 2009, 2010, and 2011.6 7 EPA
also concluded 8 from its Technical
System Audit of the CARB Primary
Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO)
(conducted during the summer of 2007),
that the combined ambient air
monitoring network operated by CARB
and the local air districts in their PQAO
(which includes SMAQMD, PCAPCD,
and YSAQMD) currently meets or
exceeds the requirements for the
minimum number of SLAMS for PM2.5
in the Sacramento nonattainment area.
CARB annually certifies that the data it
submits to AQS are complete and
quality-assured.9
There were five PM2.5 SLAMS located
throughout the Sacramento PM2.5
nonattainment area in calendar years
2009, 2010, and 2011. EPA defines
specific monitoring site types and
spatial scales of representativeness to
characterize the nature and location of
required monitors. For the five sites, the
spatial scale is neighborhood scale, and
monitoring objective is population
exposure. In addition, the SacramentoDel Paso Manor site has a monitoring
objective of highest concentration.10
Consistent with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has
reviewed the quality-assured, and
certified PM2.5 ambient air monitoring
data as recorded in AQS for the
applicable monitoring period collected
at the monitoring sites in the
Sacramento nonattainment area and
determined that the data are complete.
has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS is based on our review of the
monitoring data and takes into account
the adequacy 11 of the PM2.5 monitoring
network in the nonattainment area and
the reliability of the data collected by
the network as discussed in the
previous section of this document.
Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design values
for the Sacramento nonattainment area
monitors based on ambient air quality
monitoring data for the most recent
complete three-year period (2009–2011).
The data show that the design value for
the 2009–2011 period was equal to or
less than 35 mg/m3 at the monitors.
Therefore, we are proposing to
determine, based on the complete,
quality-assured data for 2009–2011, that
the Sacramento area has attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
Preliminary data available in AQS for
2012 indicate that the area continues to
attain the standard.
B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
EPA’s evaluation of whether the
Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area
TABLE 1—2009–2011 24-HOUR PM2.5 MONITORING SITES AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SACRAMENTO NONATTAINMENT
AREA
98th Percentile (μg/m3)
AQS site
identification No.
Monitoring site
Roseville ........................................................................................
Sacramento-Del Paso Manor ........................................................
Sacramento-1309 T Street ............................................................
Sacramento Health Dept—Stockton Blvd ......................................
Woodland .......................................................................................
2009
06–061–0006
06–067–0006
06–067–0010
06–067–4001
06–113–1003
2010
21.3
38.7
27.2
34.9
27.4
20.3
27.0
27.3
26.5
18.6
2011
23.0
39.8
45.1
44.8
25.8
2009–2011
Design
values
(μg/m3)
22
35a
33
35a
24
a The average of the 98th percentile values for 2009–2011 equals 35.2 and 35.4 at the Del Paso Manor and Stockton Blvd. sites, respectively,
but consistent with applicable rounding conventions in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.3, 24-hour standard design values are rounded to
the nearest 1 μg/m3 (decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to
the nearest whole number).
Source: Design Value Report, August 31, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action).
IV. How does EPA’s Clean Data Policy
apply to this action?
In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5
Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5
standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007).
In March, 2012, EPA published
implementation guidance for the 2006
PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from
Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards,
‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)’’ (March 2, 2012). In that
guidance, EPA stated its view ‘‘that the
overall framework and policy approach
of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule
continues to provide effective and
6 Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to
Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch,
Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB
(November 24, 2009) (approving CARB’s ‘‘2009
Annual Monitoring Network Report for Small
Districts in California’’); Letter from Matthew Lakin,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA
Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support
Division, CARB (October 29, 2010) (approving
CARB’s ‘‘2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for
the Small Districts in California’’); Letter from
Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano,
Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and
Technical Support Division, CARB (November 1,
2011) (approving CARB’s ‘‘2011 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan for the Small Districts in California’’).
7 Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to
Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer,
SMAQMD (September 29, 2009) (approving the
2009 Air Monitoring Network Plan for the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to
Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer,
SMAQMD (November 1, 2010) (approving the
‘‘Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District’s 2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan’’);
Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry
Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD
(October 31, 2011) (approving the ‘‘Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s
2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan’’).
8 See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air
Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene,
Executive Officer, CARB, transmitting ‘‘Technical
System Audit of the California Environmental
Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,’’
with enclosure, August 18, 2008.
9 See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air
Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical
Support Division, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX,
certifying calendar year 2011 ambient air quality
data and quality assurance data, May 1, 2012.
10 See CARB’s 2011 Annual Monitoring Network
Report for Small Districts in California and
SMAQMD’s 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan;
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description
Report, September 14, 2012.
11 Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Application of EPA’s Clean Data
Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:27 Oct 25, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
appropriate guidance on the EPA’s
interpretation of the general statutory
requirements that states should address
in their SIPs. In general, the EPA
believes that the interpretations of the
statute in the framework of the 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule are relevant
to the statutory requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS * * *’’ Id.,
page 1. With respect to the statutory
provisions applicable to 2006 PM2.5
implementation, the guidance
emphasized that ‘‘EPA outlined its
interpretation of many of these
provisions in the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule. In addition to
regulatory provisions, the EPA provided
substantial general guidance for
attainment plans for PM2.5 in the
preamble to the final the [sic] 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.’’ Id., page 2.
In keeping with the principles set forth
in the guidance, and with respect to the
effect of a determination of attainment
for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, EPA is
applying the same interpretation with
respect to the implications of clean data
determinations that it set forth in the
preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard
and in the regulation that embodies this
interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).12
EPA has long applied this interpretation
in regulations and individual
rulemakings for the 1-hour ozone and
1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM–
10 standard, and the lead standard.
B. History and Basis of EPA’s Clean
Data Policy
Following enactment of the CAA
Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for
implementing the NAAQS in the
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General
Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the
interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General
Preamble, EPA set forth what has
become known as its ‘‘Clean Data
Policy’’ for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, ‘‘Reasonable Further
Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard’’ (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA
indicated its intention to extend the
Clean Data Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS.
See Memorandum from Steve Page,
12 While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c)
does not itself expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5
standard, the statutory interpretation that it
embodies is identical and is applicable to both the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:27 Oct 25, 2012
Jkt 229001
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ‘‘Clean Data
Policy for the Fine Particle National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’
(December 14, 2004).
Since 1995, EPA has applied its
interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in many rulemakings,
suspending certain attainment-related
planning requirements for individual
areas, based on a determination of
attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18,
1995) (Salt Lake and Davis Counties,
Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May
7, 1996) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio,
1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21,
1996) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour
ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000)
(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky,
1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094 (October 19,
2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania, 1-hour ozone); 68 FR
25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis,
Missouri-Illinois, 1-hour ozone); 69 FR
21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco
Bay Area, California, 1-hour ozone); 75
FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR
27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction,
California, PM10).
EPA also incorporated its
interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in several implementation rules.
See Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586
(April 25, 2007); Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
The Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld
EPA’s rule embodying the Clean Data
Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245
(D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have
reviewed and considered individual
rulemakings applying EPA’s Clean Data
Policy, and have consistently upheld
them in every case. Sierra Club v. EPA,
99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); Our Children’s Earth Foundation
v. EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28,
2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino
Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06–75831
and 08–71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009
(Memorandum Opinion)).
EPA sets forth below a brief
explanation of the statutory
interpretations in the Clean Data Policy.
EPA also incorporates the discussions of
its interpretation set forth in prior
rulemakings, including the 1997 PM2.5
implementation rulemaking. See 72 FR
20586, at 20603–20605 (April 25, 2007).
See also 75 FR 31288 (June 3, 2010)
(Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 75 FR 62470 (October 12, 2010)
(Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65349
ozone); 75 FR 53219 (August 31, 2010)
(Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 75 FR 54778 (September 9,
2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8hour ozone); 75 FR 64949 (October 21,
2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997
8-hour ozone); 76 FR 11080 (March 1,
2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and
Sheboygan Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8hour ozone); 76 FR 31237 (May 31,
2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76
FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis,
Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour ozone);
76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011)
(Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 77 FR 31496 (May 29, 2012)
(Boston-Lawrence-Worchester,
Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone). See
also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010)
(Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point,
North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 75 FR 230
(January 5, 2010) (Hickory-MorgantonLenoir, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 76
FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville,
Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
18650 (April 5, 2011) (Rome, Georgia,
1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31239 (May 31,
2011) (Chattanooga, Tennessee-GeorgiaAlabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31858
(June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997
PM2.5); 76 FR 36873 (June 23, 2011)
(Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham,
Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 55542
(September 7, 2011) (HuntingtonAshland, West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio,
1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 60373 (September
29, 2011) (Cincinnati, Ohio-KentuckyIndiana, 1997 PM2.5); 77 FR 18922
(March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-LebanonCarlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown
and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1997
PM2.5).
The Clean Data Policy represents
EPA’s interpretation that certain
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of
the Act are by their terms not applicable
to areas that are currently attaining the
NAAQS.13 As explained below, the
specific requirements that are
inapplicable to an area attaining the
standard are the requirements to submit
a SIP that provides for: attainment of the
NAAQS; implementation of all
reasonably available control measures;
reasonable further progress (RFP); and
implementation of contingency
measures for failure to meet deadlines
for RFP and attainment.
CAA section 172(c)(1), the
requirement for an attainment
demonstration, provides in relevant part
that SIPs ‘‘shall provide for attainment
13 This discussion refers to subpart 1 because
subpart 1 contains the requirements relating to
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65350
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of the [NAAQS].’’ EPA has interpreted
this requirement as not applying to
areas that have already attained the
standard. If an area has attained the
standard, there is no need to submit a
plan demonstrating how the area will
reach attainment. In the General
Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that
no other measures to provide for
attainment would be needed by areas
seeking redesignation to attainment
since ‘‘attainment will have been
reached.’’ See also Memorandum from
John Calcagni, ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ (September 4,
1992), at page 6.
A component of the attainment plan
specified under section 172(c)(1) is the
requirement to provide for ‘‘the
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable’’ (RACM).
Since RACM is an element of the
attainment demonstration, see General
Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same
reason the attainment demonstration no
longer applies by its own terms, RACM
also no longer applies to areas that EPA
has determined have clean air.
Furthermore, EPA has consistently
interpreted this provision to require
only implementation of such potential
RACM measures that could advance
attainment.14 Thus, where an area is
already attaining the standard, no
additional RACM measures are
required. EPA’s interpretation that the
statute requires only implementation of
the RACM measures that would advance
attainment was upheld by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d
735, 743–745, 5th Cir. 2002) and by the
United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294
F.3d 155, 162–163, D.C. Cir. 2002). See
also the final rulemakings for
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania,
66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) and St.
Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418
(May 12, 2003).
CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that
SIP provisions in nonattainment areas
must require ‘‘reasonable further
progress.’’ The term ‘‘reasonable further
progress’’ is defined in section 171(1) as
‘‘such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable
14 This interpretation was adopted in the General
Preamble, see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld
as applied to the Clean Data Policy, as well as to
nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA,
294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:27 Oct 25, 2012
Jkt 229001
NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ Thus,
by definition, the ‘‘reasonable further
progress’’ provision under subpart 1
requires only such reductions in
emissions as are necessary to attain the
NAAQS. If an area has attained the
NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP
requirement has been fulfilled, and
since the area has already attained,
showing that the State will make RFP
towards attainment ‘‘[has] no meaning
at that point.’’ General Preamble, 57 FR
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that
SIPs in nonattainment areas ‘‘shall
provide for the implementation of
specific measures to be undertaken if
the area fails to make reasonable further
progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by
the attainment date applicable under
this part. Such measures shall be
included in the plan revision as
contingency measures to take effect in
any such case without further action by
the State or [EPA].’’ This contingency
measure requirement is inextricably tied
to the reasonable further progress and
attainment demonstration requirements.
Contingency measures are implemented
if reasonable further progress targets are
not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where
an area has already achieved attainment,
it has no need to rely on contingency
measures to come into attainment or to
make further progress to attainment. As
EPA stated in the General Preamble:
‘‘The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date.’’ See 57 FR 13564. Thus
these requirements no longer apply
when an area has attained the standard.
It is important to note that should an
area attain the 2006 PM2.5 standard
based on three years of data, its
obligation to submit an attainment
demonstration and related planning
submissions is suspended only for so
long as the area continues to attain the
standard. If EPA subsequently
determines, after notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that the area has violated
the NAAQS, the requirements for the
State to submit a SIP to meet the
previously suspended requirements
would be reinstated. It is likewise
important to note that the area remains
designated nonattainment pending a
further redesignation action.
V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request
for Public Comment
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Sacramento nonattainment area in
California has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard based on the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured,
and certified data for 2009–2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Preliminary data available in AQS for
2012 show that the area continues to
attain the standard.
EPA further proposes that, if its
proposed determination of attainment is
made final, the requirements for the
Sacramento nonattainment area to
submit an attainment demonstration
and associated RACM, a RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other
planning SIPs related to attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the area
continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA’s proposal is consistent
and in keeping with its long-held
interpretation of CAA requirements, as
well as with EPA’s regulations for
similar determinations for ozone (see 40
CFR 51.918) and the 1997 fine
particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR
51.1004(c)). As described below, any
such determination would not be
equivalent to the redesignation of the
area to attainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Any final action resulting from this
proposal would not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under CAA
section 107(d)(3) because we have not
yet approved a maintenance plan for the
Sacramento nonattainment area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A of the CAA or determined that the
area has met the other CAA
requirements for redesignation. The
classification and designation status in
40 CFR part 81 would remain
nonattainment for the area until such
time as EPA determines that California
has met the CAA requirements for
redesignating the Sacramento
nonattainment area to attainment.
If the Sacramento nonattainment area
continues to monitor attainment of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that
the requirements for the area to submit
an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other
planning requirements related to
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
will remain suspended. If this proposed
rulemaking is finalized and EPA
subsequently determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking in the Federal
Register, that the area has violated the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the
suspension of these attainment planning
requirements for the Sacramento
nonattainment area would no longer
exist, and the area would thereafter have
to address such requirements.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document or
on other relevant matters. We will
accept comments from the public on
this proposal for the next 30 days. We
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
will consider these comments before
taking final action.
oxides, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Email address:
fellner.christian@epa.gov.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action proposes to make a
determination of attainment based on
air quality and to suspend certain
federal requirements, and thus, would
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does
not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
the SIP obligations discussed herein do
not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this
proposed action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
Dated: October 15, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
65351
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:27 Oct 25, 2012
Jkt 229001
[FR Doc. 2012–26417 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0490; FRL–9743–9]
RIN 2060–AQ29
Extension of the Comment Period for
the Proposed Standards of
Performance for Stationary Gas
Turbines; Standards of Performance
for Stationary Combustion Turbines
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice. Announcement of
extension of public comment period.
AGENCY:
The EPA is announcing that
the period for providing public
comments on the August 29, 2012,
proposed rule titled, ‘‘Standards of
Performance for Stationary Gas
Turbines; Standards of Performance for
Stationary Combustion Turbines’’ is
being extended for 60 days.
DATES: The public comment period for
these actions is being extended for 60
days to December 28, 2012, in order to
provide the public additional time to
submit comments and supporting
information.
SUMMARY:
Written comments on the
proposed rule may be submitted to the
EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile
or through hand delivery/courier. Please
refer to the proposal for the addresses
and detailed instructions. Publicly
available documents relevant to this
action are available for public
inspection either electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243–01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; Telephone number: (919) 541–
4003; Fax number: (919) 541–5450;
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comment Period
The proposed rule was published in
the Federal Register on August 29,
2012, and a copy of the proposed rule
is available in the docket (77 FR 52554).
Due to requests we have received from
the public to extend the public
comment period for the August 29,
2012, proposed Standards of
Performance for Stationary Gas
Turbines; Standards of Performance for
Stationary Combustion Turbines, the
public comment period is being
extended for 60 days. Therefore, the
public comment period will end on
December 28, 2012, rather than October
29, 2012.
How can I get copies of this document
and other related information?
The EPA has established the official
public docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0490, available at www.regulations.gov.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 17, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–26206 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R07–RCRA–2012–0719; FRL–9744–3]
Missouri: Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Missouri has applied to EPA
for final authorization for the changes to
its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final
authorization to Missouri.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received in writing by
November 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
RCRA–2012–0719 by one of the
following methods:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65346-65351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26417]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0799; FRL-9747-3]
Determination of Attainment for the Sacramento Nonattainment Area
for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination
Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Sacramento
nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this
area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. EPA is further
proposing that, if EPA finalizes this determination of attainment, the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
together with reasonably available control measures (RACM), a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for
failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so
long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 26,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0799 by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov, please
follow the on-line instructions;
2. Email to ungvarsky.john@epa.gov; or
3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR-2,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action 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 at either location (e.g., CBI).
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: John Ungvarsky, (415) 972-3963, or by
email at ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following
outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.
Table of Contents
I. What determination is EPA making?
II. What is the background for this action?
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?
A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006
p.m.2.5 NAAQS
B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy
V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
[[Page 65347]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What determination is EPA making?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Sacramento nonattainment
area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles
(generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
in diameter, PM2.5). This determination is based upon
complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS based on 2009-2011 monitoring data. Preliminary data in EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) for 2012 indicate that the area continues to
attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on this determination, we
are also proposing to suspend the obligations on the State of
California to submit certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
related to attainment of this standard for the Sacramento nonattainment
area for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.
II. What is the background for this action?
A. PM2.5 NAAQS
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to
add new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as the
indicator for the pollutant. EPA established primary and secondary \1\
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The
annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor
within an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' National Ambient Air
Quality Standards are those determined by EPA as requisite to
protect the public health, and ``secondary'' standards are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the
presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section
109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, but with
tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.
B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air
quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November 13, 2009).
Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the
Sacramento \2\ area in California as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ The boundaries for this area are described
in 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area includes
Sacramento County, the western portions of El Dorado and Placer
counties, and the eastern portions of Solano and Yolo counties.
Other than the El Dorado County portion of the nonattainment area,
the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area lies within the
Sacramento Valley Air Basin.
\3\ With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this area
is designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within three years of the effective date of designations, states
with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are required to submit SIP revisions that, among other elements,
provide for implementation of reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment of the standard
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years from the
nonattainment designation (in this instance, no later than December 14,
2014), as well as contingency measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2),
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for
submittal of these SIP revisions, the State of California requested
that EPA make determinations that the Sacramento \4\ nonattainment area
has attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment-
related SIP submittal requirements are not applicable for as long as
the area continues to attain the standard. Today's proposal responds to
the State's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ On May 2, 2012, James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the
California Air Resources Board, submitted a request to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the
Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets
the PM2.5 NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area
and entered into the AQS database. Data from air monitors operated by
state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements
must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that
these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly,
EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment
status of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 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 N.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in
accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at
each monitoring site within the area.\5\ The PM2.5 24-hour
average is considered valid when 75 percent of the hourly averages for
the 24-hour period are available. Data completeness requirements for a
given year are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling
days for each quarter have valid data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The PM2.5 24-hour standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values
recorded at each monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 1.0(c)], and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when
the 24-hour standard design value at each monitoring site is less
than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
In the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area, the agencies
responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring
requirements include CARB, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD), Placer County Air Pollution Control
District (PCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
(YSAQMD). Both CARB and SMAQMD submit annual monitoring network plans
to EPA. SMAQMD network plans describe the monitoring network operated
by SMAQMD and CARB in Sacramento County, and CARB's network plans
describe the monitoring sites CARB operates, in addition to monitoring
sites operated by smaller air districts, namely, PCAPCD and YSAQMD.
These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as
required under 40 CFR 58.10.
[[Page 65348]]
Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews these annual plans for compliance
with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With
respect to PM2.5, EPA has found that the areas' network
plans, submitted by CARB and SMAQMD, meet the applicable requirements
under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB and SMAQMD approving
their annual network plans for years 2009, 2010, and
2011.6 7 EPA also concluded \8\ from its Technical System
Audit of the CARB Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO)
(conducted during the summer of 2007), that the combined ambient air
monitoring network operated by CARB and the local air districts in
their PQAO (which includes SMAQMD, PCAPCD, and YSAQMD) currently meets
or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for
PM2.5 in the Sacramento nonattainment area. CARB annually
certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-
assured.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB (November
24, 2009) (approving CARB's ``2009 Annual Monitoring Network Report
for Small Districts in California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen
Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical
Support Division, CARB (October 29, 2010) (approving CARB's ``2010
Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small Districts in
California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air
Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB
(November 1, 2011) (approving CARB's ``2011 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan for the Small Districts in California'').
\7\ Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control
Officer, SMAQMD (September 29, 2009) (approving the 2009 Air
Monitoring Network Plan for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry Greene, Air
Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD (November 1, 2010) (approving the
``Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's 2010
Annual Monitoring Network Plan''); Letter from Matthew Lakin,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry
Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD (October 31, 2011)
(approving the ``Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District's 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan'').
\8\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S.
EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
transmitting ``Technical System Audit of the California
Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,'' with
enclosure, August 18, 2008.
\9\ See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying
calendar year 2011 ambient air quality data and quality assurance
data, May 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were five PM2.5 SLAMS located throughout the
Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area in calendar years 2009,
2010, and 2011. EPA defines specific monitoring site types and spatial
scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and location of
required monitors. For the five sites, the spatial scale is
neighborhood scale, and monitoring objective is population exposure. In
addition, the Sacramento-Del Paso Manor site has a monitoring objective
of highest concentration.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See CARB's 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Report for Small
Districts in California and SMAQMD's 2011 Annual Monitoring Network
Plan; U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description Report,
September 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA
has reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM2.5
ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS for the applicable
monitoring period collected at the monitoring sites in the Sacramento
nonattainment area and determined that the data are complete.
B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
EPA's evaluation of whether the Sacramento PM2.5
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
is based on our review of the monitoring data and takes into account
the adequacy \11\ of the PM2.5 monitoring network in the
nonattainment area and the reliability of the data collected by the
network as discussed in the previous section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design values for the Sacramento
nonattainment area monitors based on ambient air quality monitoring
data for the most recent complete three-year period (2009-2011). The
data show that the design value for the 2009-2011 period was equal to
or less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at the monitors. Therefore, we are proposing
to determine, based on the complete, quality-assured data for 2009-
2011, that the Sacramento area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012
indicate that the area continues to attain the standard.
Table 1--2009-2011 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Sites and Design Values for the Sacramento Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th Percentile ([mu]g/m\3\) 2009-2011
AQS site --------------------------------------- Design
Monitoring site identification values
No. 2009 2010 2011 ([mu]g/
m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roseville................................ 06-061-0006 21.3 20.3 23.0 22
Sacramento-Del Paso Manor................ 06-067-0006 38.7 27.0 39.8 35\a\
Sacramento-1309 T Street................. 06-067-0010 27.2 27.3 45.1 33
Sacramento Health Dept--Stockton Blvd.... 06-067-4001 34.9 26.5 44.8 35\a\
Woodland................................. 06-113-1003 27.4 18.6 25.8 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The average of the 98th percentile values for 2009-2011 equals 35.2 and 35.4 at the Del Paso Manor and
Stockton Blvd. sites, respectively, but consistent with applicable rounding conventions in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, section 4.3, 24-hour standard design values are rounded to the nearest 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (decimals 0.5
and greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the
nearest whole number).
Source: Design Value Report, August 31, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action).
IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?
A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5 Implementation Rule
for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007).
In March, 2012, EPA published implementation guidance for the 2006
PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(March 2, 2012). In that guidance, EPA stated its view ``that the
overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule continues to provide effective and
[[Page 65349]]
appropriate guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general
statutory requirements that states should address in their SIPs. In
general, the EPA believes that the interpretations of the statute in
the framework of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule are
relevant to the statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS * * *'' Id., page 1. With respect to the
statutory provisions applicable to 2006 PM2.5
implementation, the guidance emphasized that ``EPA outlined its
interpretation of many of these provisions in the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule. In addition to regulatory provisions, the EPA
provided substantial general guidance for attainment plans for
PM2.5 in the preamble to the final the [sic] 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.'' Id., page 2. In keeping with
the principles set forth in the guidance, and with respect to the
effect of a determination of attainment for the 2006 PM2.5
standard, EPA is applying the same interpretation with respect to the
implications of clean data determinations that it set forth in the
preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard and in the regulation
that embodies this interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).\12\ EPA has long
applied this interpretation in regulations and individual rulemakings
for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM-10
standard, and the lead standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) does not itself
expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the statutory
interpretation that it embodies is identical and is applicable to
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy
Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has
become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10,
1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data
Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean
Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (December 14, 2004).
Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related
planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of
attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21, 1996) (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000)
(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1-hour
ozone); 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1-
hour ozone); 69 FR 21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco Bay Area,
California, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction,
California, PM10).
EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in several implementation rules. See Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld EPA's rule embodying
the Clean Data Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have reviewed and
considered individual rulemakings applying EPA's Clean Data Policy, and
have consistently upheld them in every case. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99
F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.
June 28, 2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).
EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory
interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the
discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings,
including the 1997 PM2.5 implementation rulemaking. See 72
FR 20586, at 20603-20605 (April 25, 2007). See also 75 FR 31288 (June
3, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR 62470
(October 12, 2010) (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR
53219 (August 31, 2010) (Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour ozone);
75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 75 FR 64949 (October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997
8-hour ozone); 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and
Sheboygan Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76 FR 31237 (May 31,
2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76
FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011) (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone); 77 FR 31496 (May 29,
2012) (Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone).
See also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High
Point, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 75 FR 230 (January 5,
2010) (Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina, 1997
PM2.5); 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville, Kentucky-
Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 18650 (April 5, 2011) (Rome,
Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011)
(Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia-Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
31858 (June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
36873 (June 23, 2011) (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76
FR 55542 (September 7, 2011) (Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-
Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 60373 (September 29, 2011)
(Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 77 FR 18922
(March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown,
Johnstown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1997 PM2.5).
The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not
applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.\13\ As
explained below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an
area attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that
provides for: attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all reasonably
available control measures; reasonable further progress (RFP); and
implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet deadlines
for RFP and attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subpart 1
contains the requirements relating to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment
demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs ``shall provide for
attainment
[[Page 65350]]
of the [NAAQS].'' EPA has interpreted this requirement as not applying
to areas that have already attained the standard. If an area has
attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating
how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR
13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment
would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since
``attainment will have been reached.'' See also Memorandum from John
Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992), at page 6.
A component of the attainment plan specified under section
172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for ``the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable''
(RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration, see
General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment
demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, RACM also no longer
applies to areas that EPA has determined have clean air. Furthermore,
EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only
implementation of such potential RACM measures that could advance
attainment.\14\ Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard,
no additional RACM measures are required. EPA's interpretation that the
statute requires only implementation of the RACM measures that would
advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745, 5th Cir.
2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163, D.C. Cir. 2002). See also
the final rulemakings for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR
53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418
(May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble,
see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data
Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d
155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment
areas must require ``reasonable further progress.'' The term
``reasonable further progress'' is defined in section 171(1) as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus, by definition, the
``reasonable further progress'' provision under subpart 1 requires only
such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If
an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has
been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that
the State will make RFP towards attainment ``[has] no meaning at that
point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable
further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved
attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into
attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in
the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard.
It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006
PM2.5 standard based on three years of data, its obligation
to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions
is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that the area has violated the NAAQS, the requirements for
the State to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements
would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area
remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation
action.
V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
EPA is proposing to determine that the Sacramento nonattainment
area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-
assured, and certified data for 2009-2011. Preliminary data available
in AQS for 2012 show that the area continues to attain the standard.
EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of
attainment is made final, the requirements for the Sacramento
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping
with its long-held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with
EPA's regulations for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR
51.918) and the 1997 fine particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR
51.1004(c)). As described below, any such determination would not be
equivalent to the redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute
a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we
have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the Sacramento
nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 would remain nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA
determines that California has met the CAA requirements for
redesignating the Sacramento nonattainment area to attainment.
If the Sacramento nonattainment area continues to monitor
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that the
requirements for the area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning requirements related to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended. If this proposed
rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after notice-
and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the area has
violated the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension
of these attainment planning requirements for the Sacramento
nonattainment area would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter
have to address such requirements.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We
[[Page 65351]]
will consider these comments before taking final action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus,
would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to 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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 15, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-26417 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
