Determination of Attainment for the Chico Nonattainment Area for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements, 65651-65656 [2012-26629]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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. 2012–26681 Filed 10–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0800; FRL–9746–9]
Determination of Attainment for the
Chico 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 Chico 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, qualityassured, 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 29,
2012.
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Oct 29, 2012
Jkt 229001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0800 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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65651
‘‘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
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What determination is EPA making?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Chico 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
p.m.2.5 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 p.m.2.5 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 Chico 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
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
65652
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
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
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
Chico 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
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).
2 The Chico PM
2.5 nonattainment area includes
the southwestern two-thirds of Butte County,
California. Butte County lies in the central portion
of northern California’s Sacramento Valley Air
Basin, which stretches from Sacramento County in
the south to Shasta County in the north.
3 With respect to the annual PM
2.5 NAAQS, this
area is designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Oct 29, 2012
Jkt 229001
make determinations that the Chico 4
nonattainment area has attained the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainmentrelated 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
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.
4 On June 2, 2011, 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
Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the
relevant air quality data?
A. Monitoring Network and Data
Considerations
The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) and local Air Pollution Control
Districts and Air Quality Management
Districts (‘‘Districts’’) operate ambient
monitoring stations throughout the
State. CARB is the lead monitoring
agency in the Primary Quality
Assurance Organization 6 (PQAO) that
includes all the monitoring agencies in
the State with a few exceptions.7 CARB
is responsible for monitoring ambient
air quality within the Chico
nonattainment area. In addition, CARB
oversees the quality assurance of all
data collected within the CARB PQAO.
CARB submits annual monitoring
network plans to EPA that describe the
monitoring sites CARB operates. These
plans discuss the status of the air
monitoring network, as required under
40 CFR part 58.10.
Since 2007, EPA has regularly
reviewed these annual plans for
compliance with the applicable
reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With respect to PM2.5, EPA has
found that CARB’s network plans meet
the applicable requirements under 40
CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB
approving its annual network plans for
years 2009, 2010, and 2011.8 EPA also
concluded 9 from its Technical System
Audit of the CARB PQAO (conducted
during the summer of 2007) that the
6 Primary quality assurance organization means a
monitoring organization or other organization that
is responsible for a set of stations that monitor the
same pollutant and for which data quality
assessments can be pooled (40 CFR 58.1).
7 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District are
each designated as the PQAO for their respective
ambient air monitoring programs.
8 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’’).
9 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.
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
ambient air monitoring network
operated by CARB currently meets or
exceeds the requirements for the
minimum number of SLAMS for PM2.5
in the Chico nonattainment area. Also,
CARB annually certifies that the data it
submits to AQS are complete and
quality-assured.10
There was one PM2.5 SLAMS
operating during the 2009–2011 period
in the Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area.
The site is operated by CARB and has
been monitoring PM2.5 concentrations
since 1999. EPA defines specific
monitoring site types and spatial scales
of representativeness to characterize the
nature and location of required
monitors. With respect to the Chico site,
the spatial scale is neighborhood
scale,11 and the monitoring objectives
(site types) are population exposure and
highest concentration.12
Consistent with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50, we have
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 site in the Chico
nonattainment area and have found the
data to be complete. However, under
our monitoring regulations in 40 CFR
58.12(d)(1), at the Chico monitor, CARB
should be monitoring on a one-in-three
day schedule rather than on a one-in-six
day schedule. In addition, the 2009–
2011 design value (35 mg/m3) is within
5 percent of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
triggering a daily sampling frequency
required starting January 2013. See 40
CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii). In response, CARB
has agreed to increase the sampling
frequency.13 The increased number of
samples would provide sufficient
information to evaluate the area’s
continued attainment of the 2006 p.m.2.5
NAAQS if we finalize this proposed
determination of attainment for the
Chico nonattainment area.
B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
EPA’s evaluation of whether the
Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
65653
is based on our review of the monitoring
data and takes into account the
adequacy 14 of both 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 value
for the Chico nonattainment area
monitor 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 monitor.
Therefore, we are proposing to
determine, based on the complete,
quality-assured data for 2009–2011, that
the Chico area has attained the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard. Preliminary data
available in AQS for 2012 indicate that
the area continues to attain the
standard.15
TABLE 1—2009–2011 24-HOUR PM2.5 MONITORING SITE AND DESIGN VALUE FOR THE CHICO NONATTAINMENT AREA
98th Percentile(μg/m3)
AQS site
identification
No.
Monitoring site
Chico ................................................................................
2009
2010
2011
2009–2011
design value
(μg/m3)
06–007–0002
30.0
29.0
46.2
a 35
a The average of the 98th percentile values for 2009–2011 equals 35.1, 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).
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
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
10 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.
11 In this context, ‘‘neighborhood’’ spatial scale
defines concentrations within some extended area
of the city that has relatively uniform land use with
dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range. See
40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2.
12 See CARB’s 2011 Annual Network Plan Report
(June, 2011); U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor
Description Report, September 14, 2012.
13 In CARB’s August 15, 2012 letter to Matthew
Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA
Region IX, Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data
Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division
agreed to increase the monitoring frequency to onein-three day beginning on October 1, 2012 and to
daily sampling beginning January 1, 2013 at the
Chico monitoring site to ensure that the Chico area
continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
58.12(d)(1) for monitoring frequency.
14 Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
15 The Butte County Air Quality Management
District and Butte County Department of Public
Health issued Joint Air Quality Advisories on
August 2, 6, 10, and 14, 2012 because of high PM2.5
levels in the Butte County foothills region
apparently caused by smoke from a wildfire (i.e.,
Chips Fire). EPA’s proposed determination is based
on 2009–2011 data from the Federal Reference
Method (FRM) monitor at the Chico site. There is
a non-Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor
located in Paradise. Because the non-FEM monitor
in Paradise does not meet federal requirements in
40 CFR part 50, Appendix L or 40 CFR part 58, the
data from the Paradise monitor is not appropriate
for use in determining if the Chico nonattainment
area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
standard. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section
3.0(a).
IV. How does EPA’s Clean Data Policy
apply to this action?
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Application of EPA’s Clean Data
Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Oct 29, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
65654
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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).16
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,
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
16 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
13:18 Oct 29, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.17 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
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
17 This discussion refers to subpart 1 because
subpart 1 contains the requirements relating to
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.18 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
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
18 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
13:18 Oct 29, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 Chico 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
Chico 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65655
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
Chico 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
Chico nonattainment area to attainment.
If the Chico 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 Chico
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
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
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
65656
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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. 2012–26629 Filed 10–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0752; FRL–9746–8]
Determination of Attainment for the
Nogales Nonattainment Area for the
2006 Fine Particle Standard; Arizona;
Determination Regarding Applicability
of Clean Air Act Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to
determine that the Nogales
nonattainment area in Arizona has
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:18 Oct 29, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 the
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 the
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 29,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0752 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 PM2.5 NAAQS
B. History and Basis of EPA’s Clean Data
Policy
V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for
Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What determination is EPA making?
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Nogales 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
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65651-65656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26629]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0800; FRL-9746-9]
Determination of Attainment for the Chico 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 Chico 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 29,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0800 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
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What determination is EPA making?
EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico 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 p.m.2.5 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 p.m.2.5 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 Chico 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
[[Page 65652]]
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 Chico
\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 Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the
southwestern two-thirds of Butte County, California. Butte County
lies in the central portion of northern California's Sacramento
Valley Air Basin, which stretches from Sacramento County in the
south to Shasta County in the north.
\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 Chico \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 June 2, 2011, 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
Chico 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 [mu]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 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local Air Pollution
Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts (``Districts'')
operate ambient monitoring stations throughout the State. CARB is the
lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization
\6\ (PQAO) that includes all the monitoring agencies in the State with
a few exceptions.\7\ CARB is responsible for monitoring ambient air
quality within the Chico nonattainment area. In addition, CARB oversees
the quality assurance of all data collected within the CARB PQAO. CARB
submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA that describe the
monitoring sites CARB operates. These plans discuss the status of the
air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Primary quality assurance organization means a monitoring
organization or other organization that is responsible for a set of
stations that monitor the same pollutant and for which data quality
assessments can be pooled (40 CFR 58.1).
\7\ The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, and the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District are each designated as the PQAO for their
respective ambient air monitoring programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed these annual plans for
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With respect to PM2.5, EPA has found that CARB's network
plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA
letters to CARB approving its annual network plans for years 2009,
2010, and 2011.\8\ EPA also concluded \9\ from its Technical System
Audit of the CARB PQAO (conducted during the summer of 2007) that the
[[Page 65653]]
ambient air monitoring network operated by CARB currently meets or
exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for
PM2.5 in the Chico nonattainment area. Also, CARB annually
certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-
assured.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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'').
\9\ 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.
\10\ 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 was one PM2.5 SLAMS operating during the 2009-2011
period in the Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area. The site is
operated by CARB and has been monitoring PM2.5
concentrations since 1999. EPA defines specific monitoring site types
and spatial scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and
location of required monitors. With respect to the Chico site, the
spatial scale is neighborhood scale,\11\ and the monitoring objectives
(site types) are population exposure and highest concentration.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In this context, ``neighborhood'' spatial scale defines
concentrations within some extended area of the city that has
relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0
kilometers range. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2.
\12\ See CARB's 2011 Annual Network Plan Report (June, 2011);
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description Report, September
14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we
have 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 site in the Chico
nonattainment area and have found the data to be complete. However,
under our monitoring regulations in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1), at the Chico
monitor, CARB should be monitoring on a one-in-three day schedule
rather than on a one-in-six day schedule. In addition, the 2009-2011
design value (35 [mu]g/m\3\) is within 5 percent of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, triggering a daily sampling frequency required
starting January 2013. See 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii). In response, CARB
has agreed to increase the sampling frequency.\13\ The increased number
of samples would provide sufficient information to evaluate the area's
continued attainment of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS if we
finalize this proposed determination of attainment for the Chico
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In CARB's August 15, 2012 letter to Matthew Lakin, Manager,
Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, Karen Magliano, Chief,
Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division
agreed to increase the monitoring frequency to one-in-three day
beginning on October 1, 2012 and to daily sampling beginning January
1, 2013 at the Chico monitoring site to ensure that the Chico area
continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1) for
monitoring frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
EPA's evaluation of whether the Chico 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 \14\ of both 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design value for the Chico
nonattainment area monitor 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 monitor. Therefore, we are proposing to
determine, based on the complete, quality-assured data for 2009-2011,
that the Chico 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Butte County Air Quality Management District and Butte
County Department of Public Health issued Joint Air Quality
Advisories on August 2, 6, 10, and 14, 2012 because of high
PM2.5 levels in the Butte County foothills region
apparently caused by smoke from a wildfire (i.e., Chips Fire). EPA's
proposed determination is based on 2009-2011 data from the Federal
Reference Method (FRM) monitor at the Chico site. There is a non-
Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor located in Paradise. Because
the non-FEM monitor in Paradise does not meet federal requirements
in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L or 40 CFR part 58, the data from the
Paradise monitor is not appropriate for use in determining if the
Chico nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS standard. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 3.0(a).
Table 1--2009-2011 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Site and Design Value for the Chico Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQS site 98th Percentile([micro]g/m\3\) 2009-2011
Monitoring site identification --------------------------------------------------- design value
No. 2009 2010 2011 ([micro]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chico............................................................ 06-007-0002 30.0 29.0 46.2 \a\ 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The average of the 98th percentile values for 2009-2011 equals 35.1, 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 [micro]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 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
[[Page 65654]]
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).\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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 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
[[Page 65655]]
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.\18\
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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 Chico 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 Chico 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 Chico 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 Chico nonattainment area to attainment.
If the Chico 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 Chico 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 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
[[Page 65656]]
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. 2012-26629 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
