Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Call for Attainment Plan Revision for the Yuma, AZ 1987 PM10, 29219-29222 [2021-11395]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–0380. (2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Mail Stop: Room 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228–7330; email andrea.jimenez@faa.gov. Issued on May 21, 2021. Lance T. Gant, Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2021–11187 Filed 5–28–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0249; FRL–10022– 26–Region 9] Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Call for Attainment Plan Revision for the Yuma, AZ 1987 PM10 Moderate Nonattainment Area Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to rescind its previously issued clean data determination for the Yuma, Arizona ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment area for the 1987 24-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) because recent complete, quality-assured monitoring data show that the area has subsequently violated this NAAQS. We are also proposing to find that the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the PM10 standard and to call for Arizona to revise the SIP to address this inadequacy. DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 1, 2021. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2021–0249 at https:// www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4151, kelly.johnj@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background A. The 1987 PM10 NAAQS B. Designation and Classification of the Yuma PM10 Nonattainment Area C. The Clean Data Policy and the 2006 Clean Data Determination II. Current Monitoring Data III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. The 1987 PM10 NAAQS The EPA sets NAAQS for certain ambient air pollutants at levels required to protect human health and the environment. The primary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined are requisite to protect public health, including an adequate margin of safety. The secondary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined are requisite to protect public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. PM10 is one of these ambient air pollutants for which the PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 29219 EPA has established NAAQS. On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated two primary standards for PM10: A 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ m3) and an annual PM10 standard of 50 mg/m3. The EPA also promulgated secondary PM10 standards that were identical to the primary standards.1 Effective December 18, 2006, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS but retained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.2 Because they are identical, we refer to the primary and secondary 24-hour standards using the single term, NAAQS. The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is attained when the expected number of exceedances, averaged over a three-year period, is less than or equal to one. The expected number of exceedances averaged over a three-year period at any given monitor is known as the PM10 design value for that site. The PM10 design value for the nonattainment area is the highest design value from a monitor within that area. The methodologies for calculating expected exceedances for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS are found in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, Section 2.1(a). B. Designation and Classification of the Yuma PM10 Nonattainment Area Upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), the Act itself designated specific areas as nonattainment by operation of law, and classified these areas as Moderate.3 These areas included all former Group I PM10 planning areas identified in Federal Register documents published on August 7, 1987,4 and October 31, 1990,5 and any other areas violating the 1987 PM10 NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989. The EPA published a Federal Register document announcing the areas designated nonattainment for PM10 upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, known as ‘‘initial’’ PM10 nonattainment areas, on March 15, 1991.6 The EPA published a subsequent Federal Register document correcting some of these areas on August 8, 1991.7 These nonattainment designations and Moderate area classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 on November 6, 1991.8 The EPA designated as ‘‘unclassifiable’’ all other areas in the Nation not designated nonattainment 1 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). 3 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(4)(B), 7513(a). 4 52 FR 29383. 5 55 FR 45799. 6 56 FR 11101. 7 56 FR 37654. 8 56 FR 56694. 2 71 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 29220 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments.9 The Yuma PM10 nonattainment area (‘‘Yuma NAA’’) was one of the areas specified by Congress and designated by the 1990 CAA Amendments. Specifically, the Yuma NAA was designated nonattainment by section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the Act and classified as Moderate because it had been previously categorized as a Group I area.10 The EPA announced the Yuma NAA designation, as required by section 107(d)(2) of the Act, on March 15, 1991.11 In accordance with CAA section 189(a)(2), Arizona was required to submit a SIP revision meeting applicable nonattainment plan requirements by November 15, 1991, demonstrating attainment of the 1987 p.m.10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA by December 31, 1994.12 C. The Clean Data Policy and the 2006 Clean Data Determination In nonattainment areas where monitored data demonstrate that the NAAQS has been attained, the EPA interprets certain requirements of the Act as no longer being applicable for so long as air quality continues to meet the NAAQS in the area. This interpretation is known as the ‘‘clean data policy,’’ and EPA findings issued under this policy are known as ‘‘clean data determinations.’’ On March 14, 2006, the EPA issued a clean data determination for the Yuma NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, based on complete, quality-assured and certified PM10 monitoring data for 2002–2004.13 Because the data from 2002–2004 were complete and showed no exceedances of the relevant NAAQS, and because preliminary data for 2005 also indicated no such exceedances, the EPA concluded that the Yuma NAA was in attainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.14 Based on this finding, the EPA determined that certain nonattainment plan requirements in the Yuma NAA were not applicable for so long as the Yuma NAA continued to 9 See CAA section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii). FR 29383 (August 7, 1987). 11 56 FR 11101. 12 Arizona submitted a Moderate area plan for the Yuma NAA on November 14, 1991. The EPA found this plan to be incomplete on May 14, 1992. Arizona submitted a revised plan for the Yuma NAA on July 12, 1994, but withdrew this plan in 2006, following the EPA’s issuance of a clean data determination for the Yuma NAA. 13 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 2006). 14 The clean data determination also applied to the annual PM10 NAAQS, but that NAAQS was revoked later that year. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 10 52 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 monitor attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10 and annual NAAQS.15 II. Current Monitoring Data In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendices J and K, a finding of whether an area has attained or is currently attaining the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS must generally be based upon certified, complete, qualityassured data gathered at monitoring sites in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database. For the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, appendix K provides that all data produced by state and local air monitoring sites (SLAMS) and other sites submitted to the EPA in accordance with the part 58 requirements be used for evaluating attainment.16 In order to assess whether an area is currently attaining the NAAQS, the PM10 ambient air quality monitoring data collected by the state within the area for the three-year period must meet data completeness criteria, or otherwise unambiguously establish nonattainment according to 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirements are met when quarterly data capture rates for all four quarters in a calendar year over a three-year period are at least 75 percent. For purposes of this proposal, we reviewed the data for the 2017–2019 period for completeness and determined that the PM10 data met the completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at the Yuma Supersite PM10 monitoring site in the Yuma NAA.17 The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the governmental agency with the authority and responsibilities under the State’s laws for collecting ambient air quality data for the Yuma NAA. ADEQ submits annual monitoring network plans to the EPA.18 These plans discuss the status of the ambient air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58. The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With respect to PM10, the EPA has 15 In the same Federal Register document, the EPA also determined pursuant to CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) that the Yuma NAA had attained the NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 1994. Because that determination was tied to that specific attainment date, it would not be affected by the rescission of the clean data determination proposed in this action. 16 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(a). 17 EPA, AQS ‘‘Design Value Report,’’ dated March 31, 2021. This report is included in the docket. 18 See, e.g., ‘‘State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2020.’’ Copies of Arizona’s Annual Network Plans for 2018–2020 are included in the docket. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 found that the 2018–2020 annual network plans submitted by ADEQ, which reflect the network during the 2017–2019 design value period, met the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58.19 Furthermore, we concluded from our 2018 technical systems audit of ADEQ’s ambient air quality monitoring program that the ambient air monitoring network currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS for PM10 in the Yuma NAA.20 ADEQ certifies annually that the data it submits to AQS are quality-assured and has done so for each year relevant to our proposed action, 2017–2019.21 Table 1 provides the 2019 p.m.10 design value for the Yuma Supersite, the sole regulatory monitoring site measuring ambient PM10 within the Yuma NAA, expressed as a single value representing the average expected annual exceedances over the three-year period, 2017–2019. The PM10 data show that the design value is greater than 1.0 estimated annual average exceedances of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Consequently, the EPA proposes to determine, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured and certified data from 2017–2019, that the Yuma NAA is no longer attaining the 1987 24hour PM10 NAAQS. TABLE 1—2017–2019 DESIGN VALUE FOR THE 1987 24-HOUR PM10 NAAQS FOR THE YUMA NAA Monitoring site AQS identification No. Design value Yuma Supersite ....... 04–027–8011 5.7 Source: EPA, AQS ‘‘Design Value Report,’’ dated March 31, 2021, 15. We have also reviewed preliminary 2020 data, which indicate that the Yuma NAA had a 2018–2020 design value of 5.4.22 This preliminary design value 19 See, e.g., letter dated November 8, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office, to Daniel Czecholinksi, Acting Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ. Copies of EPA letters responding to Arizona’s Annual Network Plans for 2018–2020 are included in the docket. 20 Letter dated April 25, 2019, from Elizabeth Adams, Director, EPA Region 9 Air Division to Timothy Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, enclosure titled ‘‘Technical Systems Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, April 2– April 6, 2018,’’ Network Requirements section, 8. 21 See, e.g., letter dated April 13, 2020, from Daniel Czecholinksi, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office. Copies of ADEQ certifications and their respective transmittal letters for years 2017–2019 are included in the docket. 22 EPA, AQS ‘‘Design Value Report,’’ dated March 3, 2021. E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules also does not show attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and is therefore consistent with the proposed determination. We also reviewed preliminary data from the Yuma Supersite monitor for 2021, which is not a full year of data.23 As of March 31, 2021, there were no exceedances in 2021. We note, however, that even with no exceedances in 2021, given the number of expected exceedances in the certified year 2019, plus those in the preliminary year 2020, the 2021 threeyear preliminary design value violates the NAAQS and is therefore also consistent with our proposed determination. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment Based on our proposed determination that the Yuma NAA is no longer attaining the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, we propose to rescind the clean data determination for the Yuma NAA and reinstate the requirements that were suspended under that determination. We anticipate that Arizona’s submission of a new, approvable Moderate nonattainment plan in response to the ‘‘SIP call’’ discussed below would satisfy these obligations. In addition, we propose to find, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), that the Arizona SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA. This proposed finding is based both on the most recent monitoring data discussed in section II of this document, as well as longer-term air quality trends in the Yuma NAA. In particular, we note that the Yuma NAA has had a violating design value for the 1987 24hour PM10 NAAQSs every year since issuance of the clean data determination in 2006.24 Collectively, these recent and longer term monitoring data indicate that the current Arizona SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA. In order to address this inadequacy, we propose to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), requiring the State to submit a SIP revision establishing that the Yuma NAA meets the applicable nonattainment plan requirements of the CAA for Moderate PM10 NAAs.25 These requirements 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 See CAA section 110(k)(5) (‘‘Any finding under this paragraph shall, to the extent the Administrator deems appropriate, subject the State to the requirements of this chapter to which the State was subject when it developed and submitted the plan for which such finding was made . . .’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 include: (i) An approved permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary sources; 26 (ii) a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by no later than the applicable Moderate area attainment date or a demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable; 27 (iii) provisions for the implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT); 28 (iv) quantitative milestones that will be used to evaluate compliance with the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); 29 (v) evaluation and regulation of PM10 precursors; 30 (vi) a description of the expected annual incremental reductions in emissions that will demonstrate RFP; 31 (vii) emissions inventories, as necessary; 32 (viii) other control measures besides RACM and RACT as may be needed for attainment; 33 (ix) contingency measures,34 and (x) a motor vehicle emissions budget for the purpose of determining the conformity of transportation programs and plans developed by state transportation agencies.35 The EPA’s longstanding guidance on these statutory requirements is embodied in the ‘‘The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments.’’ 36 We propose to require Arizona to submit this Moderate nonattainment plan SIP submission within 18 months of finalizing the SIP call, which is the maximum time permitted under CAA 110(k)(5). This is longer than the original Moderate nonattainment plan submittal deadline of one year from the date of the 1990 CAA Amendments under CAA 189(a)(2)(A), but is in line with the deadline specified in CAA 189(a)(2)(B) for other PM nonattainment 26 CAA section 189(a)(1)(A). section 189(a)(1)(B). 28 CAA section 189(a)(1)(C). 29 CAA section 189(c). 30 CAA section 189(e). 31 CAA section 172(c)(2). 32 CAA section 172(c)(3). 33 CAA section 172(c)(6). 34 CAA section 172(c)(9). 35 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1). Effective June 27, 2007 (see 72 FR 32295, June 12, 2007), the EPA found adequate for transportation conformity purposes the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Yuma PM10 Maintenance Plan (August 2006). However, if we take final action to withdraw the clean data determination and issue a SIP call, we expect also to reverse our previous finding to a finding of inadequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)(vi). Our inadequacy finding for the motor vehicle emissions budget would require transportation agencies to determine conformity using interim emission tests pursuant to 40 CFR 93.119, instead of the current practice of using the past maintenance plan motor vehicle emissions budgets as part of a budgets test. 36 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). 29221 areas.37 Similarly, because the original maximum attainment date for this area was December 31, 1994 (approximately four years from the original designation),38 we propose, pursuant to CAA 110(k)(5), that the new attainment date shall be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2025.39 In line with this proposed attainment date, we propose to require implementation of RACM/RACT by no later than January 1, 2025.40 Lastly, in the event we finalize the above proposals, we propose to reverse our previous budget adequacy finding to a finding of inadequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)(vi). The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until the date listed in the DATES section above. We will consider these comments before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This action proposes a determination that the Yuma NAA is no longer attaining the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, based on the EPA’s review of air quality data, and a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. Upon a finding that a SIP is deficient, section 110(k)(5) of the CAA directs the Agency to require the state to correct the deficiency. Therefore, this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those required by the CAA itself. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions 27 CAA PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 37 CAA section 189(a)(2). section 188(c)(1). 39 CAA section 110(k)(5), ‘‘the Administrator may adjust any dates applicable under such requirements as appropriate (except that the Administrator may not adjust any attainment date prescribed under part D of this subchapter, unless such date has elapsed).’’ 40 Given that exceedances of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA are often associated with high wind that could potentially qualify for treatment as ‘‘natural events’’ under the EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule, we recommend RACM/RACT be fully implemented as early as January 1, 2023, so that anthropogenic sources would be reasonably controlled during the threeyear period preceding the proposed attainment date. See, e.g., 40 CFR 50.14(b)(5)(ii) (‘‘The Administrator will consider high wind dust events to be natural events in cases where windblown dust is entirely from natural undisturbed lands in the area or where all anthropogenic sources are reasonably controlled . . .’’). 38 CAA E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 29222 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 the 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. Nonetheless, the EPA intends to notify the Cocopah and Fort Yuma (Quechan) tribes, which have lands within the Yuma NAA. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Pollution. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 24, 2021. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2021–11395 Filed 5–28–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 May 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0017; FRL–10023– 69–Region 3] Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Baltimore Area Base Year Inventory for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision consists of the base year inventory for the Baltimore, Maryland marginal nonattainment area (Baltimore Area) for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2021. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– OAR–2021–0017 at https:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to David.Talley@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serena Nichols, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814–2053. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at Nichols.Serena@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 30, 2020, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), on behalf of the State of Maryland, submitted a revision to the Maryland SIP entitled, ‘‘2015 8Hour Ozone NAAQS (0.070 ppm) Marginal Area State Implementation Plan for the Baltimore, MD Nonattainment Area, SIP #20–08.’’ This SIP revision, referred to in this rulemaking action as the ‘‘Baltimore base year inventory SIP,’’ addresses the base year inventory requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. I. Background On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, lowering the level of the NAAQS from 0.075 ppm parts per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Effective August 3, 2018, EPA designated the Baltimore Area, consisting of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties and the City of Baltimore, all in Maryland, as marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). CAA section 182(a)(1) requires ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all emissions sources in the nonattainment area, known as a ‘‘base year inventory.’’ The Baltimore base year inventory SIP addresses a base year inventory requirement for the Baltimore Area. II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis A. EPA’s Evaluation of the Baltimore Base Year Inventory SIP EPA’s review of Maryland’s base year inventory SIP for the Baltimore Area indicates that it meets the base year inventory requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As required by 40 CFR 51.1315(a), MDE selected 2017 for the base year inventory, which is consistent with the baseline year for the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan because it is the year of the most recent triennial inventory. MDE included actual ozone season emissions, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1315(c). EPA prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) in support of this rulemaking. In that TSD, EPA reviewed the results, procedures, and E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29219-29222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11395]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0249; FRL-10022-26-Region 9]


Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Call for Attainment 
Plan Revision for the Yuma, AZ 1987 PM10 Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
rescind its previously issued clean data determination for the Yuma, 
Arizona ``Moderate'' nonattainment area for the 1987 24-hour national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 
(PM10) because recent complete, quality-assured monitoring 
data show that the area has subsequently violated this NAAQS. We are 
also proposing to find that the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the PM10 
standard and to call for Arizona to revise the SIP to address this 
inadequacy.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0249 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish 
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if 
you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation 
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4151, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The 1987 PM10 NAAQS
    B. Designation and Classification of the Yuma PM10 
Nonattainment Area
    C. The Clean Data Policy and the 2006 Clean Data Determination
II. Current Monitoring Data
III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The 1987 PM10 NAAQS

    The EPA sets NAAQS for certain ambient air pollutants at levels 
required to protect human health and the environment. The primary NAAQS 
represent ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance 
of which the EPA has determined are requisite to protect public health, 
including an adequate margin of safety. The secondary NAAQS represent 
ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which 
the EPA has determined are requisite to protect public welfare from any 
known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of 
such air pollutant in the ambient air. PM10 is one of these 
ambient air pollutants for which the EPA has established NAAQS. On July 
1, 1987, the EPA promulgated two primary standards for PM10: 
A 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and 
an annual PM10 standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA also 
promulgated secondary PM10 standards that were identical to 
the primary standards.\1\ Effective December 18, 2006, the EPA revoked 
the annual PM10 NAAQS but retained the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS.\2\ Because they are identical, we refer to the 
primary and secondary 24-hour standards using the single term, NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987).
    \2\ 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is attained when the expected 
number of exceedances, averaged over a three-year period, is less than 
or equal to one. The expected number of exceedances averaged over a 
three-year period at any given monitor is known as the PM10 
design value for that site. The PM10 design value for the 
nonattainment area is the highest design value from a monitor within 
that area. The methodologies for calculating expected exceedances for 
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS are found in 40 CFR part 50, appendix 
K, Section 2.1(a).

B. Designation and Classification of the Yuma PM10 Nonattainment Area

    Upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
``Act''), the Act itself designated specific areas as nonattainment by 
operation of law, and classified these areas as Moderate.\3\ These 
areas included all former Group I PM10 planning areas 
identified in Federal Register documents published on August 7, 
1987,\4\ and October 31, 1990,\5\ and any other areas violating the 
1987 PM10 NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989. The EPA published 
a Federal Register document announcing the areas designated 
nonattainment for PM10 upon enactment of the 1990 CAA 
Amendments, known as ``initial'' PM10 nonattainment areas, 
on March 15, 1991.\6\ The EPA published a subsequent Federal Register 
document correcting some of these areas on August 8, 1991.\7\ These 
nonattainment designations and Moderate area classifications were 
codified in 40 CFR part 81 on November 6, 1991.\8\ The EPA designated 
as ``unclassifiable'' all other areas in the Nation not designated 
nonattainment

[[Page 29220]]

upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(4)(B), 7513(a).
    \4\ 52 FR 29383.
    \5\ 55 FR 45799.
    \6\ 56 FR 11101.
    \7\ 56 FR 37654.
    \8\ 56 FR 56694.
    \9\ See CAA section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Yuma PM10 nonattainment area (``Yuma NAA'') was one 
of the areas specified by Congress and designated by the 1990 CAA 
Amendments. Specifically, the Yuma NAA was designated nonattainment by 
section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the Act and classified as Moderate because 
it had been previously categorized as a Group I area.\10\ The EPA 
announced the Yuma NAA designation, as required by section 107(d)(2) of 
the Act, on March 15, 1991.\11\ In accordance with CAA section 
189(a)(2), Arizona was required to submit a SIP revision meeting 
applicable nonattainment plan requirements by November 15, 1991, 
demonstrating attainment of the 1987 p.m.10 NAAQS in the 
Yuma NAA by December 31, 1994.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987).
    \11\ 56 FR 11101.
    \12\ Arizona submitted a Moderate area plan for the Yuma NAA on 
November 14, 1991. The EPA found this plan to be incomplete on May 
14, 1992. Arizona submitted a revised plan for the Yuma NAA on July 
12, 1994, but withdrew this plan in 2006, following the EPA's 
issuance of a clean data determination for the Yuma NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Clean Data Policy and the 2006 Clean Data Determination

    In nonattainment areas where monitored data demonstrate that the 
NAAQS has been attained, the EPA interprets certain requirements of the 
Act as no longer being applicable for so long as air quality continues 
to meet the NAAQS in the area. This interpretation is known as the 
``clean data policy,'' and EPA findings issued under this policy are 
known as ``clean data determinations.'' On March 14, 2006, the EPA 
issued a clean data determination for the Yuma NAA for the 1987 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS, based on complete, quality-assured and certified 
PM10 monitoring data for 2002-2004.\13\ Because the data 
from 2002-2004 were complete and showed no exceedances of the relevant 
NAAQS, and because preliminary data for 2005 also indicated no such 
exceedances, the EPA concluded that the Yuma NAA was in attainment for 
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.\14\ Based on this finding, the 
EPA determined that certain nonattainment plan requirements in the Yuma 
NAA were not applicable for so long as the Yuma NAA continued to 
monitor attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10 and annual 
NAAQS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 2006).
    \14\ The clean data determination also applied to the annual 
PM10 NAAQS, but that NAAQS was revoked later that year. 
See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
    \15\ In the same Federal Register document, the EPA also 
determined pursuant to CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) that the 
Yuma NAA had attained the NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date 
of December 31, 1994. Because that determination was tied to that 
specific attainment date, it would not be affected by the rescission 
of the clean data determination proposed in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Current Monitoring Data

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendices J and K, a finding of 
whether an area has attained or is currently attaining the 1987 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS must generally be based upon certified, complete, 
quality-assured data gathered at monitoring sites in the nonattainment 
area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. For 
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, appendix K provides that all 
data produced by state and local air monitoring sites (SLAMS) and other 
sites submitted to the EPA in accordance with the part 58 requirements 
be used for evaluating attainment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to assess whether an area is currently attaining the 
NAAQS, the PM10 ambient air quality monitoring data 
collected by the state within the area for the three-year period must 
meet data completeness criteria, or otherwise unambiguously establish 
nonattainment according to 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3. The 
ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirements are met 
when quarterly data capture rates for all four quarters in a calendar 
year over a three-year period are at least 75 percent. For purposes of 
this proposal, we reviewed the data for the 2017-2019 period for 
completeness and determined that the PM10 data met the 
completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at the Yuma Supersite 
PM10 monitoring site in the Yuma NAA.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA, AQS ``Design Value Report,'' dated March 31, 2021. 
This report is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the 
governmental agency with the authority and responsibilities under the 
State's laws for collecting ambient air quality data for the Yuma NAA. 
ADEQ submits annual monitoring network plans to the EPA.\18\ These 
plans discuss the status of the ambient air monitoring network, as 
required under 40 CFR part 58. The EPA reviews these annual network 
plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 
CFR 58.10. With respect to PM10, the EPA has found that the 
2018-2020 annual network plans submitted by ADEQ, which reflect the 
network during the 2017-2019 design value period, met the applicable 
requirements under 40 CFR part 58.\19\ Furthermore, we concluded from 
our 2018 technical systems audit of ADEQ's ambient air quality 
monitoring program that the ambient air monitoring network currently 
meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of monitoring 
sites designated as SLAMS for PM10 in the Yuma NAA.\20\ ADEQ 
certifies annually that the data it submits to AQS are quality-assured 
and has done so for each year relevant to our proposed action, 2017-
2019.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., ``State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan 
for the Year 2020.'' Copies of Arizona's Annual Network Plans for 
2018-2020 are included in the docket.
    \19\ See, e.g., letter dated November 8, 2019, from Gwen 
Yoshimura, Manager, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office, to 
Daniel Czecholinksi, Acting Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ. 
Copies of EPA letters responding to Arizona's Annual Network Plans 
for 2018-2020 are included in the docket.
    \20\ Letter dated April 25, 2019, from Elizabeth Adams, 
Director, EPA Region 9 Air Division to Timothy Franquist, Director, 
Air Quality Division, ADEQ, enclosure titled ``Technical Systems 
Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program: Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality, April 2-April 6, 2018,'' Network Requirements 
section, 8.
    \21\ See, e.g., letter dated April 13, 2020, from Daniel 
Czecholinksi, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Gwen 
Yoshimura, Manager, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office. 
Copies of ADEQ certifications and their respective transmittal 
letters for years 2017-2019 are included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides the 2019 p.m.10 design value for the 
Yuma Supersite, the sole regulatory monitoring site measuring ambient 
PM10 within the Yuma NAA, expressed as a single value 
representing the average expected annual exceedances over the three-
year period, 2017-2019. The PM10 data show that the design 
value is greater than 1.0 estimated annual average exceedances of the 
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Consequently, the EPA proposes to 
determine, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured and 
certified data from 2017-2019, that the Yuma NAA is no longer attaining 
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.

 Table 1--2017-2019 Design Value for the 1987 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS for the
                                Yuma NAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  AQS
             Monitoring site                 identification     Design
                                                  No.            value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuma Supersite...........................       04-027-8011         5.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, AQS ``Design Value Report,'' dated March 31, 2021, 15.

    We have also reviewed preliminary 2020 data, which indicate that 
the Yuma NAA had a 2018-2020 design value of 5.4.\22\ This preliminary 
design value

[[Page 29221]]

also does not show attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
and is therefore consistent with the proposed determination. We also 
reviewed preliminary data from the Yuma Supersite monitor for 2021, 
which is not a full year of data.\23\ As of March 31, 2021, there were 
no exceedances in 2021. We note, however, that even with no exceedances 
in 2021, given the number of expected exceedances in the certified year 
2019, plus those in the preliminary year 2020, the 2021 three-year 
preliminary design value violates the NAAQS and is therefore also 
consistent with our proposed determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA, AQS ``Design Value Report,'' dated March 3, 2021.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Based on our proposed determination that the Yuma NAA is no longer 
attaining the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, we propose to rescind 
the clean data determination for the Yuma NAA and reinstate the 
requirements that were suspended under that determination. We 
anticipate that Arizona's submission of a new, approvable Moderate 
nonattainment plan in response to the ``SIP call'' discussed below 
would satisfy these obligations.
    In addition, we propose to find, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), 
that the Arizona SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain 
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA. This proposed 
finding is based both on the most recent monitoring data discussed in 
section II of this document, as well as longer-term air quality trends 
in the Yuma NAA. In particular, we note that the Yuma NAA has had a 
violating design value for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQSs 
every year since issuance of the clean data determination in 2006.\24\ 
Collectively, these recent and longer term monitoring data indicate 
that the current Arizona SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or 
maintain the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to address this inadequacy, we propose to issue a SIP call 
under CAA section 110(k)(5), requiring the State to submit a SIP 
revision establishing that the Yuma NAA meets the applicable 
nonattainment plan requirements of the CAA for Moderate PM10 
NAAs.\25\ These requirements include: (i) An approved permit program 
for construction of new and modified major stationary sources; \26\ 
(ii) a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by no later 
than the applicable Moderate area attainment date or a demonstration 
that attainment by that date is impracticable; \27\ (iii) provisions 
for the implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM) 
and reasonably available control technology (RACT); \28\ (iv) 
quantitative milestones that will be used to evaluate compliance with 
the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP); \29\ 
(v) evaluation and regulation of PM10 precursors; \30\ (vi) 
a description of the expected annual incremental reductions in 
emissions that will demonstrate RFP; \31\ (vii) emissions inventories, 
as necessary; \32\ (viii) other control measures besides RACM and RACT 
as may be needed for attainment; \33\ (ix) contingency measures,\34\ 
and (x) a motor vehicle emissions budget for the purpose of determining 
the conformity of transportation programs and plans developed by state 
transportation agencies.\35\ The EPA's longstanding guidance on these 
statutory requirements is embodied in the ``The General Preamble for 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CAA section 110(k)(5) (``Any finding under this 
paragraph shall, to the extent the Administrator deems appropriate, 
subject the State to the requirements of this chapter to which the 
State was subject when it developed and submitted the plan for which 
such finding was made . . .'').
    \26\ CAA section 189(a)(1)(A).
    \27\ CAA section 189(a)(1)(B).
    \28\ CAA section 189(a)(1)(C).
    \29\ CAA section 189(c).
    \30\ CAA section 189(e).
    \31\ CAA section 172(c)(2).
    \32\ CAA section 172(c)(3).
    \33\ CAA section 172(c)(6).
    \34\ CAA section 172(c)(9).
    \35\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1). Effective June 27, 2007 (see 72 FR 
32295, June 12, 2007), the EPA found adequate for transportation 
conformity purposes the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Yuma 
PM10 Maintenance Plan (August 2006). However, if we take 
final action to withdraw the clean data determination and issue a 
SIP call, we expect also to reverse our previous finding to a 
finding of inadequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)(vi). Our 
inadequacy finding for the motor vehicle emissions budget would 
require transportation agencies to determine conformity using 
interim emission tests pursuant to 40 CFR 93.119, instead of the 
current practice of using the past maintenance plan motor vehicle 
emissions budgets as part of a budgets test.
    \36\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to require Arizona to submit this Moderate nonattainment 
plan SIP submission within 18 months of finalizing the SIP call, which 
is the maximum time permitted under CAA 110(k)(5). This is longer than 
the original Moderate nonattainment plan submittal deadline of one year 
from the date of the 1990 CAA Amendments under CAA 189(a)(2)(A), but is 
in line with the deadline specified in CAA 189(a)(2)(B) for other PM 
nonattainment areas.\37\ Similarly, because the original maximum 
attainment date for this area was December 31, 1994 (approximately four 
years from the original designation),\38\ we propose, pursuant to CAA 
110(k)(5), that the new attainment date shall be as expeditious as 
practicable, but no later than December 31, 2025.\39\ In line with this 
proposed attainment date, we propose to require implementation of RACM/
RACT by no later than January 1, 2025.\40\ Lastly, in the event we 
finalize the above proposals, we propose to reverse our previous budget 
adequacy finding to a finding of inadequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 
93.118(f)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ CAA section 189(a)(2).
    \38\ CAA section 188(c)(1).
    \39\ CAA section 110(k)(5), ``the Administrator may adjust any 
dates applicable under such requirements as appropriate (except that 
the Administrator may not adjust any attainment date prescribed 
under part D of this subchapter, unless such date has elapsed).''
    \40\ Given that exceedances of the 1987 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS in the Yuma NAA are often associated with high wind that could 
potentially qualify for treatment as ``natural events'' under the 
EPA's Exceptional Events Rule, we recommend RACM/RACT be fully 
implemented as early as January 1, 2023, so that anthropogenic 
sources would be reasonably controlled during the three-year period 
preceding the proposed attainment date. See, e.g., 40 CFR 
50.14(b)(5)(ii) (``The Administrator will consider high wind dust 
events to be natural events in cases where windblown dust is 
entirely from natural undisturbed lands in the area or where all 
anthropogenic sources are reasonably controlled . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal 
until the date listed in the DATES section above. We will consider 
these comments before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes a determination that the Yuma NAA is no longer 
attaining the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, based on the EPA's review of 
air quality data, and a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. 
Upon a finding that a SIP is deficient, section 110(k)(5) of the CAA 
directs the Agency to require the state to correct the deficiency. 
Therefore, this action does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those required by the CAA itself. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions

[[Page 29222]]

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 the 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. Nonetheless, the EPA 
intends to notify the Cocopah and Fort Yuma (Quechan) tribes, which 
have lands within the Yuma NAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Pollution.

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

    Dated: May 24, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-11395 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.