Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10817 

Review of the 2008–2010 ozone 

monitoring data in the nonattainment 

area shows that all sites were attaining 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during 

this period. Therefore, based on the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality assured ozone monitoring data, 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard has been 

attained in the St. Louis (MO-IL) 

metropolitan ozone nonattainment area. 

III. What is the effect of this action? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the St. Louis metropolitan 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area consisting of both 

the Missouri and Illinois portions of the 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, 

if EPA finalizes this determination, 

certain attainment demonstration 

requirements and associated reasonably 

available control measures, reasonable 

further progress plans, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIP 

requirements related to attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be 

suspended as to the St. Louis 

nonattainment area. Under 40 CFR 

51.918, a final determination that the 

area has met the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard suspends the State’s obligation 

to submit requirements related to 

attainment, for so long as the area 

continues to attain the standard. This 

action does not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3), because Missouri and 

Illinois do not have approved 

maintenance plans as required under 

section 175A of the CAA, nor has EPA 

made a determination that the area has 

met the other requirements for 

redesignation. The ozone classification 

and designation status of the area 

remains moderate nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such 

time as a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan are submitted to EPA 

and EPA determines that it meets the 

CAA requirements for redesignation to 

attainment. 

If EPA subsequently determines, after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking in the 

Federal Register, that the area has 

violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, the basis for the suspension of 

these requirements would no longer 

exist, and the area would thereafter have 

to address the pertinent requirements. 

IV. EPA’s proposed action? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 1997 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

based on three years of complete, 

quality assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data for Missouri and 

Illinois for the 2008–2010 ozone 

seasons. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, 

if EPA finalizes this determination, the 

requirements for Missouri and Illinois to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated reasonably available 

control measures, a reasonable further 

progress plan, and contingency 

measures under section 172(c)(9), and 

any other planning SIP related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the St. Louis Metropolitan 

area would be suspended. This 

suspension of requirements would be 

effective as long as the area continues to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

This action addresses only the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, and 

does not address any subsequent 

revisions to the standard. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination based on air quality data, 

and would, if finalized, result in the 

suspension of certain Federal 

Requirements. Accordingly, this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. Therefore, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 8-hour 

ozone clean NAAQS data determination 

for the St. Louis (MO–IL) metropolitan 

area does not have Tribal implications 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 

because the SIP is not approved to apply 

in Indian country located in the State, 

and EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

Dated: February 16, 2011. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4382 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0995; FRL–9271–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Nevada; PM–10; Determinations 

Regarding Attainment for the Truckee 

Meadows Nonattainment Area and 

Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two 

separate and independent 

determinations regarding attainment for 

the Truckee Meadows PM–10 

nonattainment area in Washoe County, 

Nevada (Truckee Meadows area). First, 

EPA is proposing to determine that, 

based on complete and quality-assured 

air monitoring data for 1999–2001, the 

Truckee Meadows area did not attain 

the 24-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (‘‘NAAQS’’) for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10818 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA sets two types of NAAQS: ‘‘primary’’ 

NAAQS requisite to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety, and ‘‘secondary’’ NAAQS 

requisite to protect public welfare, e.g., protection 

against visibility impairment and damage to 

animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. See CAA 

109(b). 

2We generally refer in this action to the primary 

and secondary 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS together in 

the singular (i.e., as ‘‘standard’’). 

3The Truckee Meadows PM–10 nonattainment 

area, also known as the ‘‘Reno planning area,’’ is 

geographically identified in 40 CFR 81.329 as 

‘‘hydrographic area 87.’’ 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers (‘‘PM–10’’) by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2001. Second, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Truckee Meadows 

area is currently attaining the PM–10 

NAAQS, based upon complete, qualityassured PM–10 air quality monitoring 

data during the years 2007–2009. 

Preliminary data through June 2010 

contained in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(‘‘AQS’’) show that no exceedances of 

the 24-hour NAAQS have been recorded 

in the Truckee Meadows area. Because 

the Truckee Meadows area is currently 

attaining the PM–10 NAAQS, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

obligation to make submissions to meet 

certain Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the 

Act’’) requirements related to attainment 

are not applicable for as long as the area 

continues to attain the PM–10 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0995, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: Karina O’Connor at 

oconnor.karina@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: Karina O’Connor, Planning 

Office (AIR–2), at fax number (415) 947– 

3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Karina O’Connor, 

Air Planning Office, (AIR–2), U.S. EPA 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. Hand 

or courier deliveries are accepted only 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. 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: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2010–0995. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports) and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(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: 

Karina O’Connor, Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105– 

3901, telephone (775) 434–8176; fax 

(415) 947–3579; e-mail address 

oconnor.karina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This 

supplementary information is organized 

as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The NAAQS for PM–10 

B. Designation, Classification and Air 

Quality Planning for PM–10 for Truckee 

Meadows 

C. Attainment Determinations 

II. Proposed Determination of Failure to 

Attain the Standard by the Applicable 

Attainment Date 

III. Proposed Determination of Attainment 

Based on Current Air Monitoring Data 

A. Proposed Determination of Attainment 

B. Clean Data Policy: Applicability of 

Clean Air Act Planning Requirements 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The NAAQS for PM–10 

Particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to 10 micrometers (‘‘PM–10’’) is 

the subject of this proposed action. The 

NAAQS are limits for certain ambient 

air pollutants set by EPA to protect 

public health and welfare. PM–10 is 

among the ambient air pollutants for 

which EPA has established a healthbased standard. 

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA 

revised the particulate matter (‘‘PM’’) 

NAAQS to replace Total Suspended 

Particulate (‘‘TSP’’) with PM–10 as the 

PM indicator. The 24-hour primary PM– 

10 standard was set at 150 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3) with no more 

than one expected exceedance per year. 

The annual primary PM–10 standard 

was set at 50 μg/m3 as an annual 

arithmetic mean. The secondary PM–10 

standards were identical to the primary 

standards.1

On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the 

primary PM–10 standards by revoking 

the annual standard of 50 μg/m3 but 

retained the 24-hour standard of 150 μg/ 

m3. EPA also revoked the annual 

secondary PM–10 standard. The revised 

PM–10 NAAQS became effective on 

December 18, 2006. See 71 FR 61144 

and 40 CFR 50.6. Thus, for PM–10, the 

level of both the primary and secondary 

24-hour NAAQS 2 is 150 μg/m3. 40 CFR 

50.6(a). 

B. Designation, Classification and Air 

Quality Planning for PM–10 in Truckee 

Meadows 

The Truckee Meadows PM–10 

nonattainment area 3 lies in the far 

southern part of Washoe County, which 

is located in the northwestern portion of 

Nevada and is bordered by the State of 

California to the west and the State of 

Oregon to the north. Within the State of 

Nevada, the counties of Humboldt, 

Pershing, Storey, Churchill, Lyon, and 

the city of Carson City border Washoe 

County to the east and south. Located at 

an average elevation of 4,500 feet above 

sea level, Truckee Meadows 

encompasses a land area of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10819 

4Because the annual PM–10 NAAQS was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144, October 

17, 2006), we do not address the annual standard 

in this action. 

5An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 μg/ 

m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up). 

Thus, a recorded value of 154 μg/m3 would not be 

an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 μg/ 

m3 whereas a recorded value of 155 μg/m3 would 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 

μg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0. 

6The comparison with the allowable expected 

exceedance rate of one per year is made in terms 

of a number rounded to the nearest tenth (fractional 

values equal to or greater than 0.05 are to be 

rounded up; e.g., an exceedance rate of 1.05 would 

be rounded to 1.1, which is the lowest rate for 

nonattainment). See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, 

section 2.1(b). 

7The four SLAMS operating in Truckee Meadows 

during the 1999–2001 period were the ‘‘Reno3,’’ 

‘‘South Reno,’’ ‘‘Galletti,’’ and ‘‘Sparks’’ monitoring 

sites. As noted in the discussion in section III, 

below, two additional monitoring sites in Truckee 

Meadows, ‘‘Toll’’ and ‘‘Plumb-Kit,’’ became 

operational as SLAMS in 2002 and 2006, 

respectively. See 2009 Monitoring Network Plan at 

21, 36, and U.S. EPA Monitor Description Report, 

Monitor ID: 32–031–0025–81102–1, dated Nov. 1, 

2010. 

8Because the PM–10 sampling schedule in the 

Truckee Meadows area was once every six days 

during the 1999–2001 period, each of the 

exceedances measured in 1999 resulted in at least 

six expected exceedances for that calendar year. See 

U.S. EPA AQS Database and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, section 3.0. Thus, the expected number 

of days per year with levels exceeding the standard 

for the 1999–2001 period (averaged over that threeyear period) was more than one, which is a 

violation of the PM–10 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.6. 

approximately 200 square miles and is 

surrounded by mountain ranges, which 

can lead to persistent wintertime 

temperature inversions where a layer of 

cold air is trapped in the valley. Warmer 

air above the inversion acts as a lid, 

containing and concentrating air 

pollutants at ground level. 

Much of Washoe County’s urban 

population lives in the Truckee 

Meadows PM–10 nonattainment area. 

Anthropogenic activities, such as 

automobile use and residential wood 

combustion, are also concentrated here. 

In the last quarter of the twentieth 

century, Truckee Meadows experienced 

rapid growth in population, increasing 

from approximately 150,000 in 1980 to 

approximately 330,000 in 2009, an 

increase of 120 percent over that 29-year 

period. The two major cities in the area 

are Reno and Sparks. 

EPA initially designated the Truckee 

Meadows area as nonattainment for the 

TSP NAAQS in 1978. See 43 FR 8962, 

9012 (March 3, 1978). Following EPA’s 

1987 revisions to the PM NAAQS to 

replace TSP with PM–10 as the PM 

indicator, Truckee Meadows was 

designated and classified by operation 

of law under the CAA Amendments of 

1990 as a moderate nonattainment area 

for the PM–10 NAAQS. See 56 FR 11101 

(March 15, 1991); 56 FR 56694 

(November 6, 1991). Effective February 

7, 2001, EPA determined that the area 

had failed to attain both the annual and 

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS 4 by the 

CAA mandated attainment date for 

moderate nonattainment areas of 

December 31, 1994, and reclassified the 

area under CAA 188(b)(2) by operation 

of law as a serious nonattainment area 

for the PM–10 NAAQS. See 66 FR 1268 

(January 8, 2001). 

Air quality planning and monitoring 

in Truckee Meadows is the 

responsibility of the Washoe County 

District Board of Health (‘‘District’’), 

which administers air quality programs 

in Washoe County through the District 

Health Department’s Air Quality 

Management Division (‘‘WCAQMD’’). 

C. Attainment Determinations 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality meets the PM–10 NAAQS is 

generally based upon the most recent 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

data gathered at established National 

Air Monitoring Stations (‘‘NAMS’’) or 

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations 

(‘‘SLAMS’’) in the nonattainment area 

and entered into the EPA Air Quality 

System (‘‘AQS’’) database. Data from air 

monitors operated by State/local 

agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to the EPA AQS database. 

Heads of monitoring agencies annually 

certify that these data are accurate to the 

best of their knowledge. Accordingly, 

EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS 

database when determining the 

attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR 

50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 

CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices 

A, C, D and E. All data are reviewed to 

determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

The 24-hour PM–10 standard is 

attained when the expected number of 

days per calendar year with a 24-hour 

concentration in excess of the standard 

(referred to herein as ‘‘exceedance’’ 5), as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less 

than one.6 See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K. Three consecutive 

years of complete air quality data are 

necessary to show attainment of the 24- 

hour standard for PM–10. See 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K. A complete year of 

air quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, includes all four 

calendar quarters with each quarter 

containing data from at least 75 percent 

of the scheduled sampling days. Id. 

II. Proposed Determination of Failure 

To Attain the Standard by the 

Applicable Attainment Date 

Sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the 

Act require for any PM–10 

nonattainment area that EPA determine, 

within 6 months following the 

applicable attainment date, whether the 

area attained the standard by that date. 

Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the 

latest applicable attainment date for a 

serious PM–10 nonattainment area that 

was initially designated as 

nonattainment by operation of law 

under the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

such as the Truckee Meadows area, was 

December 31, 2001. 

To determine whether the Truckee 

Meadows area attained the PM–10 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date, we reviewed AQS monitoring data 

from the 1999–2001 period. The AQS 

database contains three consecutive 

years of complete, quality-assured and 

certified PM–10 data for the 1999–2001 

period from the four monitors then 

operating in Truckee Meadows.7 We 

have reviewed the monitoring data for 

this period and found that the Truckee 

Meadows area experienced two 

exceedances of the PM–10 standard in 

1999 which resulted in an average 

expected exceedance rate of more than 

one during the 1999–2001 period, 

thereby violating the PM–10 standard 

during that period.8

Table 1 provides the highest 

measured PM–10 concentrations and 

the number of expected exceedances in 

Truckee Meadows during the 1999– 

2001 period. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10820 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—MONITORED PM–10 CONCENTRATIONS AND EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES

[1999–2001] 

Monitoring site name and AQS number 

Maximum 

24-hour 

(μg/m3) 

Expected 

exceedances 

(calendar year) 

Expected 

exceedances 

(3-year 

average) 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 

Reno3 (32–031–0016) ........................................................................................ 197 109 92 6 0 0 2.0

South Reno (32–031–0020) ............................................................................... 90 84 112 0 0 0 0 

Galletti (32–031–0022) ....................................................................................... 215 100 113 6.4 0 0 2.1 

Sparks (32–031–1005) ....................................................................................... 114 68 78 0 0 0 0 

Source: U.S. EPA AQS database. 

Thus, based on complete, qualityassured and certified monitoring data 

from the 1999–2001 period, we propose 

to determine under sections 179(c)(1) 

and 188(b)(2) of the Act that the Truckee 

Meadows serious PM–10 nonattainment 

area failed to attain the PM–10 standard 

by the applicable attainment date of 

December 31, 2001. 

III. Proposed Determination of 

Attainment Based on Current Air 

Monitoring Data 

The WCAQMD currently operates six 

SLAMS in the Truckee Meadows PM–10 

nonattainment area. See Washoe County 

Air Quality Management Division, 

‘‘2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Network 

Plan, Submitted to EPA Region IX July 

1, 2010’’ (‘‘2009 Monitoring Network 

Plan’’). The six PM–10 monitors in 

Truckee Meadows are located as 

follows. In the City of Reno, the ‘‘Reno3’’ 

and ‘‘Galetti’’ monitoring sites are 

located at the corners of paved parking 

lots, in downtown Reno and just south 

of Interstate 80, respectively; the 

‘‘Plumb-Kit’’ site is in a graveled area 

close to residences, about half a mile 

west of Interstate 580 and the RenoTahoe International Airport; and the 

‘‘Toll’’ site is located along State Route 

341, at the corner of the Washoe County 

School District parking lot. In South 

Reno, the ‘‘South Reno’’ monitoring site 

is located in an unpaved, vegetated area 

at the northeast corner of the Nevada 

Energy campus. Finally, in the City of 

Sparks, the ‘‘Sparks’’ monitoring site is 

located along a paved parking lot about 

half a mile north of Interstate 80. See 

generally 2009 Monitoring Network 

Plan. All of these PM–10 monitor sites 

are operated on a one-in-six day 

schedule, except that at the Reno3 site 

the sampling frequency was recently 

increased to one-in-three days. Id. at 6. 

PM–10 data from these six monitors 

are quality-assured and reported by the 

WCAQMD to the EPA AQS database. Id. 

at 3. EPA has approved the WCAQMD’s 

monitoring network as satisfying the 

network design and data adequacy 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. See 

letter dated September 29, 2009, from 

Joseph Lapka, Acting Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9, 

to Andrew Goodrich, Director, Washoe 

County District Health Department, 

Washoe County AQMD. The WCAQMD 

annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are complete and 

quality-assured. See, e.g., letter dated 

April 23, 2010, from Craig Petersen, 

Senior Air Quality Specialist, 

WCAQMD, to David Lutz, Data 

Certification Contact, EPA, ‘‘Re: CY2009 

Ambient Air Monitoring Data 

Certification.’’ 

A. Proposed Determination of 

Attainment 

The AQS database contains three 

consecutive years of complete, qualityassured and certified PM–10 data for the 

2007–2009 period, the most recent 

three-year period of such data for 

Truckee Meadows. We have reviewed 

the monitoring data for this period and 

found that no exceedances of the PM– 

10 NAAQS were recorded in the 

Truckee Meadows area during this time. 

The expected exceedance rate for this 

period was less than one, which means 

that the area attained the 24-hour PM– 

10 standard during this time. 

Table 2 provides the highest 

measured PM–10 concentrations and 

the number of expected exceedances in 

Truckee Meadows during the 2007– 

2009 period. 

TABLE 2—MONITORED PM–10 CONCENTRATIONS AND EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES

[2007–2009] 

Monitoring site name and AQS number 

Maximum 

24-hour 

(μg/m3) 

Expected 

exceedances 

(calendar year) 

Expected 

exceedances 

(3-year 

average) 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 

Reno3 (32–031–0016) ........................................................................................ 69 92 78 0 0 0 0 

South Reno (32–031–0020) ............................................................................... 75 111 59 0 0 0 0 

Galletti (32–031–0022) ....................................................................................... 130 87 91 0 0 0 0 

Toll (32–031–0025) ............................................................................................. 43 64 46 0 0 0 0

Plumb-Kit (32–031–0030) ................................................................................... 108 86 93 0 0 0 0 

Sparks (32–031–1005) ....................................................................................... 76 101 67 0 0 0 0 

Source: U.S. EPA AQS database. 

Thus, based on complete, qualityassured and certified monitoring data 

from the 2007–2009 period, we propose 

to find that the Truckee Meadows PM– 

10 nonattainment area is currently 

attaining the PM–10 NAAQS. 

Preliminary data available to date for 

calendar year 2010 also indicate that no 

monitor in the area has measured an 

exceedance of the PM–10 standard 

during 2010. See Table 3. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10821 

9Although the regular PM–10 sampling schedule 

at the Galletti monitor is once every six days, the 

single exceedance measured in 2005 did not 

constitute a violation because the WCAQMD 

subsequently initiated every-day sampling at that 

monitor consistent with section 3.1 of 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix K. See U.S. EPA AQS Database; see 

also ‘‘Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 

for the Truckee Meadows 24-Hour PM10 NonAttainment Area,’’ May 28, 2009, at 4, 5. Thus, the 

2005 exceedance resulted in an average expected 

number of exceedances of 0.3 for each three-year 

period that includes 2005. For all other three-year 

periods between 2000 and 2006, the expected 

number of exceedances was 0. 

10 ‘‘General Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 

57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), as supplemented at 

57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

TABLE 3—MONITORED PM–10 

CONCENTRATIONS

[Preliminary data through June 2010] 

Monitoring site name and AQS 

number 

Maximum 

24-hour 

(μg/m3) 

Reno3 (32–031–0016) .................. 142 

South Reno (32–031–0020) ......... 52 

Galletti (32–031–0022) ................. 87 

Toll (32–031–0025) ...................... 33 

Plumb-Kit (32–031–0030) ............. 77 

TABLE 3—MONITORED PM–10 

CONCENTRATIONS—Continued 

[Preliminary data through June 2010] 

Monitoring site name and AQS 

number 

Maximum 

24-hour 

(μg/m3) 

Sparks (32–031–1005) ................. 48 

Source: U.S. EPA AQS database. These 

data have not yet been certified as meeting 

EPA’s quality-assurance or data completeness 

requirements. 

Moreover, historical data show 

consistent attainment in the Truckee 

Meadows area for each three-year period 

since 2000–2002. According to these 

data, Truckee Meadows experienced 

only one measured exceedance (not 

constituting a violation) of the PM–10 

standard during the ten years since 

2000, in 2005. No violations have 

occurred during this time period. EPA’s 

review of quality-assured AQS data 

since 2000 thus confirms that the area 

attained the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS in 

2002 and has continued in attainment 

since then.9 See Table 4, below and 

Tables 2 and 3, above. 

TABLE 4—MONITORED PM–10 CONCENTRATIONS

[2000–2006] 

Monitoring site name and AQS number 

Maximum 24-hour (μg/m3) 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Reno3 (32–031–0016) ................................................................................................... 109 92 85 69 83 79 91 

South Reno (32–031–0020) .......................................................................................... 84 112 45 61 54 71 52 

Galletti (32–031–0022) .................................................................................................. 100 113 97 108 126 172 118 

Toll (32–031–0025) ........................................................................................................ * * 57 37 64 75 47 

Plumb-Kit (32–031–0030) .............................................................................................. * * * * * * 91 

Sparks (32–031–1005) .................................................................................................. 68 78 76 85 90 73 76 

Source: U.S. EPA AQS database. 

* Data not available in AQS because SLAMS not yet established. 

Thus, the area’s monitoring history 

over the past ten years shows that the 

Truckee Meadows area has consistently 

met the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS, and 

the most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured data show that the area 

continues to attain the PM–10 standard. 

B. Clean Data Policy: Applicability of 

Clean Air Act Planning Requirements 

The air quality planning requirements 

for serious PM–10 nonattainment areas, 

such as Truckee Meadows, are set out in 

part D, subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the 

Act. EPA has issued guidance in a 

General Preamble 10 describing how we 

will review State implementation plans 

(SIPs) and SIP revisions submitted 

under title I of the Act, including those 

containing serious PM–10 

nonattainment area SIP provisions. 

The subpart 1 requirements include, 

among other things, provisions for 

reasonably available control measures 

(‘‘RACM’’), reasonable further progress 

(‘‘RFP’’), emissions inventories, a permit 

program for construction and operation 

of new or modified major stationary 

sources in the nonattainment area 

(‘‘NSR’’), contingency measures, 

conformity, and additional SIP revisions 

providing for attainment where EPA 

determines that the area has failed to 

attain the standard by the applicable 

attainment date. 

Subpart 4 requirements in CAA 

section 189 apply specifically to PM–10 

nonattainment areas. The requirements 

for serious PM–10 nonattainment areas 

include: (1) An NSR program defining 

‘‘major source’’ or ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ to include any source that emits 

or has the potential to emit at least 70 

tons per year of PM–10; (2) an 

attainment demonstration; (3) 

provisions for RACM; (4) provisions for 

Best Available Control Measures 

(‘‘BACM’’); (5) quantitative milestones 

demonstrating RFP toward attainment 

by the applicable attainment date; (6) in 

the case of a serious nonattainment area 

that fails to attain by the applicable 

attainment date, plan revisions 

providing for attainment and for annual 

reductions in PM–10 or PM–10 

precursor emissions within the area of 

not less than five percent of the amount 

of such emissions as reported in the 

most recent inventory (‘‘189(d) plans’’); 

and (7) provisions to ensure that the 

control requirements applicable to 

major stationary sources of PM–10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM–10 precursors except where the 

Administrator has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM–10 levels which exceed the 

NAAQS in the area. 

For nonattainment areas where EPA 

determines that monitored data show 

that the NAAQS have already been 

achieved, EPA’s interpretation, upheld 

by the Courts, is that the obligation to 

submit certain requirements of part D, 

subparts 1, 2 and 4 of the Act are 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain. These include 

requirements for attainment 

demonstrations, RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures, because these 

provisions have the purpose of helping 

achieve attainment of the NAAQS. 

Certain other obligations for PM–10 

nonattainment areas, however, are not 

suspended, such as the NSR and BACM 

requirements. 

This interpretation of the CAA is 

known as the Clean Data Policy. It is the 

subject of several EPA memoranda and 

regulations, and numerous rulemakings 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10822 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

that have been published in the Federal 

Register over more than fifteen years. 

EPA finalized the statutory 

interpretation set forth in the policy in 

its final 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of its ‘‘Final 

Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2’’ (Phase 2 Final 

Rule). See discussion in the preamble to 

the rule at 70 FR 71612, 71645–46 

(November 29, 2005). The DC Circuit 

upheld this Clean Data regulation as a 

valid interpretation of the CAA. NRDC 

v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009). 

EPA also finalized its interpretation in 

an implementation rule for the NAAQS 

for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or 

less (PM2.5). 40 CFR 51.1004(c). Thus, 

EPA has codified the policy when it 

established final rules governing 

implementation of new or revised 

NAAQS for the pollutants. 70 FR 71612, 

71644–46 (November 29, 2005); 72 FR 

20585, 20665 (April 25, 2007) (PM2.5

Implementation Rule). Otherwise, EPA 

applies the policy in individual 

rulemakings related to specific 

nonattainment areas. See, e.g., 75 FR 

27944 (May 19, 2010) (determination of 

attainment of the PM–10 standard in 

Coso Junction, California); 75 FR 6571 

(February 10, 2010) (determination of 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

in Baton Rouge, Louisiana). 

In its many applications of the Clean 

Data Policy interpretation to PM–10, 

EPA has explained that the legal bases 

set forth in detail in our Phase 2 Final 

rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum 

from John S. Seitz, entitled ‘‘Reasonable 

Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ our 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule, and our 

December 14, 2004 memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page entitled ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ are 

equally pertinent to the interpretation of 

provisions of subparts 1 and 4 

applicable to PM–10. See, e.g., 71 FR 

6352 (February 8, 2006) (Ajo, Arizona 

area); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 2006) 

(Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023 (July 

14, 2006) (Weirton, West Virginia area); 

71 FR 44920 (August 8, 2006) (Rillito, 

Arizona area); 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 

2006) (San Joaquin Valley, California 

area); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) 

(Miami, Arizona area); and 75 FR 27944 

(May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, 

California area). EPA’s interpretation 

that the obligation to submit an 

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP 

contingency measures, and other 

measures related to attainment under 

part D of title I of the CAA, pertains 

whether the standard is PM–10, ozone 

or PM–2.5. 

In our proposed and final rulemakings 

determining that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area attained the PM–10 

standard, EPA set forth at length our 

rationale for applying the Clean Data 

Policy to PM–10. The Ninth Circuit 

subsequently upheld this rulemaking, 

and specifically EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

in the context of the PM–10 standard. 

Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06– 

75831 and 08–71238 (9th Cir.), 

Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009. 

In rejecting petitioner’s challenge to the 

Clean Data Policy for PM–10, the Court 

stated: 

As the EPA rationally explained, if an area 

is in compliance with PM–10 standards, then 

further progress for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment is not necessary. 

EPA noted in its prior PM–10 

rulemakings that the reasons for 

relieving an area that has attained the 

relevant standard of certain obligations 

under part D, subparts 1 and 2, apply 

equally to part D, subpart 4, which 

contains specific attainment 

demonstration and RFP provisions for 

PM–10 nonattainment areas. In EPA’s 

Phase 2 8-Hour Ozone Final Rule and 

ozone and PM–2.5 Clean Data 

memoranda, EPA established that it is 

reasonable to interpret provisions 

regarding RFP and attainment 

demonstrations, along with related 

requirements, so as not to require SIP 

submissions if an area subject to those 

requirements is already attaining the 

NAAQS (i.e. attainment of the NAAQS 

is demonstrated with three consecutive 

years of complete, quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data). Every U.S. 

Circuit Court of Appeals that has 

considered the Clean Data Policy has 

upheld EPA rulemakings applying its 

interpretation, for both ozone and PM– 

10. 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, N. 04–73032 

(9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum 

opinion), Latino Issues Forum, supra. 

It has been EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation that the general 

provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the 

Act (sections 171 and 172) do not 

require the submission of SIP revisions 

concerning RFP for areas already 

attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the 

General Preamble, we stated: 

[R]equirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

57 FR at 13564. EPA’s prior 

determinations of attainment for PM–10, 

e.g., for the San Joaquin Valley and Coso 

Junction areas in California, make clear 

that the same reasoning applies to the 

PM–10 provision of part D, subpart 4. 

See 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642 

(proposed and final determination of 

attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 

FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944 (proposed 

and final determination of attainment 

for Coso Junction). 

With respect to RFP, section 171(1) 

states that, for purposes of part D of title 

I, RFP ‘‘means 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, 

whether dealing with the general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2), the 

ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific 

RFP requirements for PM–10 areas of 

part D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the 

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date. Section 189(c)(1) states that: 

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment 

submitted to the Administrator for approval 

under this subpart shall contain quantitative 

milestones which are to be achieved every 3 

years until the area is redesignated 

attainment and which demonstrate 

reasonable further progress, as defined in 

section 7501(1) of this title, toward 

attainment by the applicable date. 

Although this section states that 

revisions shall contain milestones 

which are to be achieved until the area 

is redesignated to attainment, such 

milestones are designed to show 

reasonable further progress ‘‘toward 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date,’’ as defined by section 171. Thus, 

it is clear that once the area has attained 

the standard, no further milestones are 

necessary or meaningful. This 

interpretation is supported by language 

in section 189(c)(3), which mandates 

that a State that fails to achieve a 

milestone must submit a plan that 

assures that the State will achieve the 

next milestone or attain the NAAQS if 

there is no next milestone. Section 

189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement 

to submit and achieve milestones does 

not continue after attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

In the General Preamble, we noted 

with respect to section 189(c) that the 

purpose of the milestone requirement 

‘‘is ‘to provide for emission reductions 

adequate to achieve the standards by the 

applicable attainment date’ (H.R. Rep. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10823 

11Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without 

a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP 

requirement as one to be achieved until an area is 

‘‘redesignated attainment,’’ as opposed to section 

172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the 

requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment 

area RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 

182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as 

applying until the ‘‘attainment date,’’ since section 

189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) 

of the Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, 

as with the general RFP requirements in section 

172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of 

section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific 

requirements may only be required ‘‘for the purpose 

of ensuring attainment of the applicable national 

ambient air quality standard by the applicable 

date.’’ 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in the 

text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP 

requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in 

section 171(1), and incorporated in section 

189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies 

once the standard has been attained. 

12The EPA’s interpretation that the statute only 

requires implementation of 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 DC Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 

162–163 (DC Cir. 2002)). 

13EPA does not, however, interpret the BACM 

requirement in section 189(b)(1)(B) of the CAA as 

being suspended upon a determination of 

attainment. We note that we have approved several 

PM–10 control measures into the Truckee Meadows 

portion of the Nevada SIP as satisfying BACM 

control requirements. See 71 FR 14386 (March 22, 

2006), 72 FR 25969 (May 8, 2007), and 72 FR 33397 

(June 18, 2007). 

No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 

(1990)).’’ 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992). 

If an area has in fact attained the 

standard, the stated purpose of the RFP 

requirement will have already been 

fulfilled.11 EPA took this position with 

respect to the general RFP requirement 

of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble and also in the May 

10, 1995 memorandum with respect to 

the requirements of sections 182(b) and 

(c). In our prior applications of the 

Clean Data Policy to PM–10, we have 

extended that interpretation to the 

specific provisions of part D, subpart 4. 

See, e.g., 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642 

(proposed and final determination of 

attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 

FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944 (proposed 

and final determination of attainment 

for Coso Junction). 

In the General Preamble, we stated, in 

the context of a discussion of the 

requirements applicable to the 

evaluation of requests to redesignate 

nonattainment areas to attainment, that 

the ‘‘requirements for RFP will not apply 

in evaluating a request for redesignation 

to attainment since, at a minimum, the 

air quality data for the area must show 

that the area has already attained. 

Showing that the State will make RFP 

towards attainment will, therefore, have 

no meaning at that point.’’ 57 FR 13564. 

See also our September 4, 1992 

memorandum from John Calcagni, 

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment’’ (Calcagni memo), p. 6. 

Similarly, the requirements of section 

189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no 

longer apply so long as an area has 

attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) 

provides in relevant part that: 

Not later than 90 days after the date on 

which a milestone applicable to the area 

occurs, each State in which all or part of such 

area is located shall submit to the 

Administrator a demonstration * * * that 

the milestone has been met. 

Where the area has attained the 

standard and there are no further 

milestones, there is no further 

requirement to make a submission 

showing that such milestones have been 

met. As noted above, this is consistent 

with the position that EPA took with 

respect to the general RFP requirement 

of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble and also in the May 

10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with 

respect to the requirements of section 

182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz 

memorandum, EPA also noted that 

section 182(g), the milestone 

requirement of subpart 2, which is 

analogous to provisions in section 

189(c), is suspended upon a 

determination that an area has attained. 

The memorandum, also citing 

additional provisions related to 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements, stated: 

Inasmuch as each of these requirements is 

linked with the attainment demonstration or 

RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 

182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the 

requirement to submit the underlying 

attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it 

need not submit the related SIP submission 

either. 

1995 Seitz memorandum at 5. 

With respect to the attainment 

demonstration requirements of section 

189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale 

leads to the same result. Section 

189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan 

provide for ‘‘a demonstration (including 

air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will 

provide for attainment by the applicable 

attainment date * * *.’’ As with the RFP 

requirements, if an area is already 

monitoring attainment of the standard, 

EPA believes there is no need for an 

area to make a further submission 

containing additional measures to 

achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the 

section 172(c) requirements provided by 

EPA in the General Preamble, the Page 

memo, and the section 182(b) and (c) 

requirements set forth in the Seitz 

memo. As EPA stated in the General 

Preamble, no other measures to provide 

for attainment would be needed by areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment 

since ‘‘attainment will have been 

reached.’’ 57 FR at 13564. 

Other SIP submission requirements 

are linked with these attainment 

demonstration and RFP requirements, 

and similar reasoning applies to them. 

These requirements include the 

contingency measure requirements of 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We 

have interpreted the contingency 

measure requirements of sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer 

applying when an area has attained the 

standard because those ‘‘contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’ 

57 FR at 13564; Seitz memo, pp. 5–6. 

Both sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C) require ‘‘provisions to 

assure that reasonably available control 

measures’’ (i.e., RACM) are implemented 

in a nonattainment area. The General 

Preamble, 57 FR at 13560 (April 16, 

1992), states that EPA interprets section 

172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements 

are a ‘‘component’’ of an area’s 

attainment demonstration. Thus, for the 

same reason the attainment 

demonstration no longer applies by its 

own terms, the requirement for RACM 

no longer applies. EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of potential RACM 

measures that could contribute to 

reasonable further progress or to 

attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR at 

13498. Thus, where an area is already 

attaining the standard, no additional 

RACM measures are required.12 EPA is 

interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) 

consistent with its interpretation of 

section 172(c)(1).13

Finally, in the case of a serious PM– 

10 nonattainment area that does not 

attain the PM–10 standard by the 

applicable attainment date, sections 

189(d) and section 179(d) require the 

State to submit additional SIP revisions 

providing for attainment of the 

standard. Section 189(d), which applies 

to any serious PM–10 nonattainment 

area that fails to attain by the applicable 

attainment date, requires the State to 

submit ‘‘plan revisions which provide 

for attainment of the PM–10 air quality 

standard and, from the date of such 

submission until attainment, for an 

annual reduction in PM–10 or PM–10 

precursor emissions within the area of 

not less than 5 percent’’ of inventoried 

PM–10 and PM–10 precursor emissions. 

Section 179(d), which applies to any 

nonattainment area for which EPA has 

made a determination under section 

179(c) of failure to attain by the 

applicable attainment date, requires the 

State to submit plan revisions meeting 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10824 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

14Truckee Meadows experienced two 

exceedances of the PM–10 NAAQS in 1999 which 

resulted in an expected number of days per year 

with levels above 150 μg/m3 for the 1999–2001 

period (averaged over that three-year period) of 

more than one, thereby violating the PM–10 

standard during that period. See U.S. EPA AQS 

Database; 40 CFR 50.6. 

15We note that our application of the Clean Data 

Policy to Truckee Meadows is consistent with 

actions we have taken for other PM–10 

nonattainment areas that we also determined were 

attaining the standard. See 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 

2006) (Ajo, Arizona area); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 

2006) (Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023 (July 14, 

2006) (Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 

(August 8, 2006) (Rillito, Arizona area); 71 FR 

63642 (October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin Valley, 

California area); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) 

(Miami, Arizona area); and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 

2010) (Coso Junction, California). 

the requirements of CAA sections 110 

and 172 and ‘‘such additional measures 

as the Administrator may reasonably 

prescribe’’ including measures that can 

be feasibly implemented in the area. 

As discussed above in section II of 

this document, the Truckee Meadows is 

a serious nonattainment area that did 

not attain the PM–10 standard by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2001. See CAA 188(c)(2).14

However, as discussed in section III.A of 

this document, the area did attain the 

PM–10 standard beginning in 2002, and 

has continued in attainment during the 

decade that followed. As explained at 

length in the memoranda and 

rulemakings cited above, the obligations 

to submit SIPs for RFP, attainment 

demonstrations, and certain related SIP 

submissions are suspended once EPA 

determines an area has attained the 

standard, since their purpose, to achieve 

attainment, will already have been 

fulfilled. Section 189(d) requires 

submittal of plan revisions ‘‘which 

provide for attainment of the PM–10 air 

quality standard’’ and annual emission 

reductions of at least five percent ‘‘until 

attainment.’’ Similarly, section 179(d) 

requires submittal of plan revisions 

meeting the requirements of section 110 

and section 172, which requires 

generally that submitted plan provisions 

‘‘provide for attainment of the national 

primary ambient air quality standards.’’ 

Because these requirements apply to 

nonattainment areas that have failed to 

attain a standard by the applicable 

attainment date and are directed at 

achieving attainment, we believe that 

the obligations to submit plans under 

these requirements are suspended when 

EPA determines that the area has 

attained the standard, for as long as the 

area continues to attain. Thus, based on 

our proposed determination that the 

Truckee Meadows area is now attaining 

the PM–10 NAAQS in section III.A 

above, we propose to suspend the 

requirement for additional SIP 

submittals under sections 189(d) and 

179(d). 

We emphasize that the suspension of 

the obligation to submit SIP revisions 

concerning these RFP, attainment 

demonstration, RACM, and other related 

requirements exists only for as long as 

the Truckee Meadows area continues to 

monitor attainment of the standard. If 

EPA determines, after notice-andcomment rulemaking, that the area has 

monitored a violation of the NAAQS, 

the basis for the requirements being 

suspended would no longer exist. In 

that case, the area would again be 

subject to a requirement to submit the 

pertinent SIP revision or revisions and 

would need to address those 

requirements. Thus, a final 

determination that the area need not 

submit one of the pertinent SIP 

submittals amounts to no more than a 

suspension of the requirements for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. Only if and when EPA 

redesignates the area to attainment 

would the area be relieved of these 

submission obligations. Attainment 

determinations under the Clean Data 

policy do not shield an area from 

obligations unrelated to attainment in 

the area, such as provisions to address 

pollution transport. 

As set forth above, based on our 

proposed determination that the 

Truckee Meadows area is currently 

attaining the PM–10 NAAQS (see 

section III.A above), we propose to find 

that the obligations to submit planning 

provisions to meet the requirements for 

an attainment demonstration, 

reasonable further progress plans, 

reasonably available control measures, 

contingency measures, and additional 

SIP revisions under sections 189(d) and 

179(d) no longer apply for so long as the 

area continues to monitor attainment of 

the PM–10 NAAQS.15 If in the future, 

EPA determines after notice-andcomment rulemaking that the area again 

violates the PM–10 NAAQS, the basis 

for the attainment demonstration, RFP, 

RACM, contingency measure, and 

additional section 189(d) and 179(d) 

plan requirements being suspended 

would no longer exist. In that event, we 

would notify the State that we have 

determined that the area is no longer 

attaining the PM–10 standard and 

provide notice to the public in the 

Federal Register. 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Actions 

Pursuant to CAA sections 188(b)(2) 

and 179(c)(1) and based on complete, 

quality-assured data for the 1999–2001 

period meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K, we propose to 

determine that the Truckee Meadows 

nonattainment area failed to attain the 

24-hour PM–10 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2001. Failure by a ‘‘serious’’ 

nonattainment area such as Truckee 

Meadows to attain the PM–10 NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date 

triggers a requirement for the State to 

submit additional plan revisions 

providing for attainment under CAA 

sections 189(d) and 179(d). 

Separately and independently of the 

determination proposed above, we also 

propose to determine, based on the most 

recent three years of complete, qualityassured data meeting the requirements 

of 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, that the 

Truckee Meadows area is currently 

attaining the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. In 

conjunction with and based upon our 

proposed determination that Truckee 

Meadows is currently attaining the 

standard, EPA proposes to determine 

that the obligation to submit the 

following CAA requirements is not 

applicable for so long as the area 

continues to attain the PM–10 standard: 

The part D, subpart 4 obligations to 

provide an attainment demonstration 

pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the 

RACM provisions of section 

189(a)(1)(C), the RFP provisions of 

section 189(c), the requirement for 

189(d) plans, the attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP and 

contingency measure provisions of part 

D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of 

the Act, and the requirement for 

additional plan revisions in section 

179(d) of the Act. 

This proposed action, if finalized, 

would not constitute a redesignation to 

attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) 

because we would not yet have 

approved a maintenance plan as 

required under 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 serious nonattainment for 

this area until such time as EPA 

determines that Nevada meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation of the 

Truckee Meadows area to attainment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make two 

separate determinations regarding 

attainment based on air quality, and 

would, if finalized, result in the 

suspension of certain Federal 

requirements, and/or would not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law or by the Clean 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10825 

Air Act. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

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 rule 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 will 

not impose substantial direct costs on 

Tribal governments or preempt Tribal 

law. 

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

Dated: February 17, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4376 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 5 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration, HHS. 

ACTION: Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice 

is hereby given of the following meeting 

of the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee on Designation of Medically 

Underserved Populations and Health 

Professional Shortage Areas. 

DATES: Meetings will be held on March 

8, 2011, 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; March 9, 

2011, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and March 10, 

2011, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the 

Radisson Hotel Reagan National Airport, 

2020 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202, (703) 920– 

8600. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more information, please contact Nicole 

Patterson, Office of Shortage 

Designation, Bureau of Health 

Professions, Health Resources and 

Services Administration, Room 9A–18, 

Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, 

Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone 

(301) 443–9027, E-mail: 

npatterson@hrsa.gov or visit http:// 

www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/ 

shortage/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Status: 

The meeting will be open to the public. 

Purpose: The purpose of the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas (Committee) is to 

establish criteria and a comprehensive 

methodology for Designation of 

Medically Underserved Populations and 

Primary Care Health Professional 

Shortage Areas, using a Negotiated 

Rulemaking (NR) process. It is hoped 

that use of the NR process will yield 

consensus among technical experts and 

stakeholders on a new rule for 

designation of medically underserved 

populations and primary care health 

professions shortage areas, which would 

be published as an Interim Final Rule in 

accordance with Section 5602 the 

Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111– 

148. 

Agenda: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, March 8; Wednesday, March 

9; and Thursday, March 10. It will 

include a discussion of various 

components of a possible methodology 

for identifying areas of shortage and 

underservice, based on the 

recommendations of the Committee in 

the previous meeting. The Thursday 

meeting will also include development 

of the agenda for the next meeting. 

Members of the public will have the 

opportunity to provide comments 

during the meeting on Thursday 

afternoon, March 10. 

Requests from the public to make oral 

comments or to provide written 

comments to the Committee should be 

sent to Nicole Patterson at the contact 

address above at least 10 days prior to 

the first day of the meeting, Wednesday, 

March 8. The meeting will be open to 

the public as indicated above, with 

attendance limited to space available. 

Individuals who plan to attend and 

need special assistance, such as sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

notify the contact person listed above at 

least 10 days prior to the meeting. 

The Committee is working to meet the 

requirement in the Affordable Care Act 

under tight timeframes. As work has 

progressed, it has been determined that 

more time will be needed to complete 

the assignment due to its complexity, 

resulting in the Committee’s decision to 

extend planned meetings. As a result, 

the logistical challenges encountered 

with extending planned meetings and 

scheduling additional meetings 

hindered an earlier publishing of the 

meeting notice. 

Dated: February 23, 2011. 

Reva Harris, 

Acting Director, Division of Policy and 

Information Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4388 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 6 

RIN 0906–AA77 

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 

Medical Malpractice Program 

Regulations: Clarification of FTCA 

Coverage for Services Provided to 

Non-Health Center Patients 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federally Supported 

Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992, 

as amended in 1995 (FSHCAA), 

provides for liability protection for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS