+(,121/,1(

Citation: 75 Fed. Reg. 13710 2010 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu May 20 12:39:09 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 55/Tuesday, March 23, 2010/Proposed Rules

Security Management Directive 023-01

and Commandant Instruction

M16475.1D, which guide the Coast

Guard in complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and

have made a preliminary determination

that this action is one of a category of

actions that do not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on

the human environment. A preliminary

environmental analysis checklist

supporting this preliminary

determination is available in the docket

where indicated under ADDRESSES. This

proposed rule is categorically excluded,

under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the

Instruction. This proposed rule amends

permanent safety zones established in

the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan

Zone to protect the public from the

hazards associated during annual

events. We seek any comments or

information that may lead to the

discovery of a significant environmental

impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;

33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;

Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Amend § 165.929 to revise

(a)(15)(i), (a)(52)(i), and (a)(65)(i); and to

add paragraphs (a)(82) and (a)(83) to

read as follows:

§ 165.929 Safety Zones; Annual events

requiring safety zones in the Captain of the

Port Lake Michigan zone.

(a) * * *

(15) Taste of Chicago Fireworks;

Chicago, IL.

(i) Location. All waters of Monroe

Harbor and all waters of Lake Michigan

bounded by a line drawn from 41'53'24"

N, 087o35'59" W; then east to 41o53'15"

N, 087o35'26" W; then south to

41o52'49" N, 087o35'26" W; then

southwest to 41o52'27" N, 087o36'37" W;

then north to 41o53'15" N, 087o36'33"

W; then east returning to the point of

origin. (NAD 83) * * * * *

(52) Gary Air and Water Show; Gary,

IN.

(i) Location. All waters of Lake

Michigan bounded by a line drawn from

41o37'42" N, 087o16'38" W; then east to

41o37'54" N, 087o14'00" W; then south

to 41o37'30" N, 087o13'56" W; then west

to 41o37"17" N, 087o16'36" W; then

north returning to the point of origin.

(NAD 83) * * * * *

(65) Venetian Night Fireworks;

Chicago, IL.

(i) Location. All waters of Monroe

Harbor and all waters of Lake Michigan

bounded by a line drawn from 41o53'03"

N, 087o36'36" W; then east to 41o53'03"

N, 087o36'21" W; then south to

41o52'27" N, 087o36'21" W; then west to

41o52'27" N, 087o36'37" W; then north

returning to the point of origin. (NAD

83)

* * * * *

(82) Cochrane Cup; Blue Island, IL.

(i) Location. All waters of the Calumet

Sag Channel from the South Halstead

Street Bridge at 41o39'27" N, 087o38'29 "

W; to the Crawford Avenue Bridge at

41o39'05" N, 087o43'08" W; and the

Little Calumet River from the Ashland

Avenue Bridge at 41o39'7" N, 087o39'38 "

W; to the junction of the Calumet Sag

Channel at 41o39'23" N, 087o39 ' W

(NAD 83).

(ii) Enforcement date and time. The

first Saturday of May; 6:30 a.m. to

5 p.m.

* * * * *

(83) World War II Beach Invasion Reenactment; St. Joseph, MI.

(i) Location. All waters of Lake

Michigan in the vicinity of Tiscornia

Park in St. Joseph, MI beginning at

42°06.55N, 086°29.23W; then west/

northwest along the north breakwater to

42°06.59 N, 086029.41 W; the northwest

100 yards to 42°07.01 N, 086029.44 W;

then northeast 2,243 yards to 42°0 7.50N,

086028.43 W; the southeast to the

shoreline at 42°0 7.39N, 086028.27 W;

then southwest along the shoreline to

the point of origin (NAD 83).

(ii) Enforcement date and time. The

third Saturday of June; 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. * * * * *

Dated: March 8, 2010.

L. Barndt,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port Lake Michigan.

[FR Doe. 2010-6294 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0172; FRL-9129-3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Designation of

Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of California; PM-10;

Determination of Attainment for the

Coso Junction Nonattainment Area;

Determination Regarding Applicability

of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to

determine that the Coso Junction

nonattainment area (CJNA) in California

has attained the 24-hour National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10).

This proposed determination is based

upon monitored air quality data for the

PM-10 NAAQS during the years 2006-

2008. In addition, data for 2009

contained in EPA's Air Quality System

(AQS) shows the CJNA continued to

attain the PM-10 NAAQS through 2009,

and preliminary data for 2010 available

to date show no exceedances of the 24-

hour NAAQS have been recorded at the

CJNA monitoring site. EPA is also

proposing to determine that, because the

CJNA has attained the PM-10 NAAQS,

the obligation to make submissions to

meet certain Clean Air Act (CAA or the

Act) requirements is not applicable for

as long as the CJNA continues to attain

the PM-10 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before April 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments,

identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2010-0172, by one of the

following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking portal:

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

on-line instructions.

(2) E-mail: mahdavi.sarvy@epa.gov.

(3) Mail or deliver: Sarvy Mahdavi

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

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

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Information that

13710

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13710 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 55/Tuesday, March 23, 2010/Proposed Rules

you consider CBI or otherwise protected

should be clearly identified as such and

should not be submitted through the

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://www.regulations.gov is an

anonymous access system, and EPA will

not know your identity or contact

information unless you provide it in the

body of your comment. If you send

e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail

address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the public

comment. 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.

Docket: The index to the docket for

this action is available electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California. While

all documents in the docket are listed in

the index, some information may be

publicly available only at the hard copy

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and

some may not be publicly available in

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the

hard copy materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed directly

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarvy Mahdavi, EPA Region IX, (415)

972-3173, mahdavi.sarvy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever

"we," "us," or "our" are used, we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. The NAAQS for PM-10

B. Designation, Classification and Air

Quality Planning for PM-10 for the CJNA

C. Attainment Determinations

II. Proposed Attainment Determination for

the CJNA

I1. Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning

Requirements

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The NAAQS for PM-IO

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 NAAQS for particulate

matter with an indicator that includes

only those particles with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers. The 24-

hour primary PM-10 standard was set at

150 micrograms per cubic meter (Itg/m 3)

with no more than one expected

exceedance per year. The annual

primary PM-10 standard was set at 50

pg/m 3 as an annual arithmetic mean.

The secondary PM-10 standards,

promulgated to protect against adverse

welfare effects, were identical to the

primary standards.

On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the

primary PM-10 standards by revoking

the annual standard of 50 ptg/m 3 , but

retained the 24-hour standard of 150 jig/

M 3 . EPA also revised the secondary PM10 standards to be the same as the

primary standards. The revised PM-10

NAAQS became effective on December

18, 2006. See 71 FR 61144 and 40 CFR

50.6.

B. Designation, Classification and Air

Quality Planning for PM-1 0 for the

CJNA

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean

Air Act to address, among other things,

continued nonattainment of the PM-10

NAAQS. On the date of enactment of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,

PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications

of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended

Act were designated nonattainment by

operation of law. See 56 FR 11101

(March 15, 1991). At that time, the CJNA

was within the boundaries of the Searles

Valley planning area and EPA codified

the boundaries of the Searles Valley

planning area at 40 CFR 81.305;

however, EPA subsequently changed the

boundaries of the Searles Valley area by

dividing it into three separate

nonattainment areas: The CJNA, Indian

Wells and Trona planning areas. 67 FR

50805 (August 6, 2002).

Once an area is designated

nonattainment for PM-10, section 188

of the CAA outlines the process for

classifying the area and establishes the

area's initial attainment deadline. In

accordance with section 188(a), at the

time of designation, all PM-10

nonattainment areas, such as the Searles

Valley, were initially classified as

moderate nonattainment. When EPA

changed the boundaries of the Searles

Valley area, the Agency also classified

the newly created CJNA, Indian Wells

and Trona planning areas as moderate.

In the same action, EPA determined that

the Trona planning area had attained

the PM-10 NAAQS by the statutory

attainment deadline. 67 FR 50805. EPA

redesignated the Indian Wells planning

area to attainment for the PM-10

NAAQS on December 17, 2002. 67 FR

77196. This proposed action concerns

only the moderate CJNA.

C. Attainment Determinations

We generally determine whether an

area's air quality meets the PM-10

NAAQS for purposes of sections

179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) based upon data

gathered at established 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. We

will also consider air quality data from

other air monitoring stations in the

nonattainment area regardless of

whether they have been entered into the

EPA AQS database if the stations meet

the federal monitoring requirements for

SLAMS. See 40 CFR 58.20 and August

22, 1997 Memorandum "Agency Policy

on the Use of Special Purpose

Monitoring Data," from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, to the Regional Air

Directors. All data are reviewed to

determine the area's air quality status in

accordance with our guidance at 40 CFR

part 50, appendix K.

Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10

standard is determined by calculating

the expected number of days in a year

with PM-10 concentrations greater than

150 ptg/m 3. The 24-hour standard is

attained when the expected number of

days per year with levels above 150 pg/

m 3 (averaged over a three-year period) is

less than or equal to one. Three

consecutive years of 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.

II. Proposed Attainment Determination

for the CJNA

The CJNA has one SLAMS site

operated by the Great Basin Unified Air

Pollution Control District (District or

GBUAPCD). This monitoring site is

located in the Rose Valley of Coso

Junction at the southern end of Inyo

County and currently has a continuous

13711

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13711 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 55/Tuesday, March 23, 2010/Proposed Rules

PM-10 analyzer which records PM-10 three consecutive years of complete, measured in the CJNA during the 2006-

concentrations on an hourly basis.1 quality-assured and certified data for 2008 period. This table also summarizes

PM-10 data collected in the CJNA is 2006-2008 for CJNA. Table 1 data for 2009 that are contained in the

reported by the GBUAPCD to the EPA summarizes the exceedances of the 24- AQS database but not yet certified.

AQS database. The database contains hour PM-10 NAAQS of 150 pg/m 3

TABLE 1-CJNA 24-HOUR PM-10 EXCEEDANCES, 2006-2009

Number of Number of

Date of Maximum expected expected Monitoring site exceedance (gg/m 3

) exceedances exceedances

2006-2008 2007-2009

C oso Ju nctio n .................................................................................. 12/8/0 6 29 5 1

6/5/07 217

12/6/07 283

*12/22/09 *168

Source: EPA AQS Database. *The 2009 data have been submitted to the AQS database but are not yet certified.

As noted above, the 24-hour PM-10

standard is attained when the expected

number of days per year with levels

above 150 plg/m 3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one.

As can be seen from Table 1, there were

three exceedances of the 24-hour PM-10

NAAQS for both the 2006-2008 and

2007-2009 periods; therefore the

expected number of days per year with

levels above 150 pg/m 3 (averaged over

that three-year period) for both of these

periods is one. 2 3 EPA is not aware of

any exceedances to date during the year

2010. Thus, based on quality-assured

and certified data for the period 2006-

2008 and data in AQS for the period

2007-2009 that show the area continues

to attain, we propose to find that the

CJNA has attained the 24-hour PM-10

NAAQS. Before EPA finalizes its

rulemaking on a determination of

attainment for CJNA, the Agency will

consider the most current data available

at that time.

III. Applicability of Clean Air Act

Planning Requirements

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas, such as the CJNA, are set out in

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

Act. EPA has issued guidance in a

General Preamble 4 describing how we

will review state implementation plans

(SIPs) and SIP revisions submitted

under title I of the Act, including those

1 The Federal Reference Method (FRM) for PM10 monitoring sites is a manual sampler operated

on a once every six day schedule. These samplers

draw ambient air through a quartz fiber filter which

is weighed before and after sampling in order to

determine the mass of PM-10 that is collected after

the 24-hour run period. The GBUAPCD was

operating two FRMs at the CJNA monitoring site on

a staggered once every six day schedule that

enabled the District to collect a 24-hour PM-10

sample every three days until June 30, 2006 when

the FRMs were terminated. See EPA AQS Database,

containing moderate PM-10

nonattainment area SIP provisions.

In nonattainment areas where

monitored data demonstrate that the

NAAQS have already been achieved,

EPA has determined that certain

requirements of part D, subparts 1 and

2 of the Act do not apply. Therefore, we

do not require certain submissions for

an area that has attained the NAAQS.

These include reasonable further

progress (RFP) requirements, attainment

demonstrations, reasonably available

control measures (RACM), and

contingency measures, because these

provisions have the purpose of helping

achieve attainment of the NAAQS.

This interpretation of the CAA is

known as the Clean Data Policy and is

the subject of two EPA memoranda. EPA

also finalized the statutory

interpretation set forth in the policy in

its final 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 D.C. Circuit

upheld this Clean Data regulation as a

valid interpretation of the Clean Air Act

NRDCv. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir.

2009). EPA also finalized its

interpretation in a regulation that was

part of its Implementation Rulemaking

for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 40 CFR

51.1004(c). Thus, EPA has codified the

policy when it established final rules

Monitor Description Report. Prior to terminating the

FRMS, the GBUAPCD added a tapered element

oscillating microbalance (TEOM) analyzer on May

11, 2006. Id. The TEOM analyzer, which records

PM-10 levels continuously, is not a FRM but has

been designated a Federal equivalent method (FEM)

by EPA. All exceedances monitored from 2006 to

date were recorded by this TEOM.

21Based on data from the EPA AQS database.

3We note that the GBUAPCD has reported the 4th

quarter data for 2009 before the deadline. Under 40

governing implementation of new or

revised NAAQS for the pollutants. 70

FR 71612, 71644-46 (November 29,

2005) (ozone); 72 FR 20585, 20665

(April 25, 2007) (PM-2.5). Otherwise, it

applies the policy in individual

rulemakings related to specific

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

6571 (February 10, 2010). EPA believes

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

PM-2.5 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. Our interpretation

that an area that is attaining the

standards is relieved of obligations to

demonstrate RFP and to provide an

attainment demonstration, RACM and

contingency measures pursuant to part

D of the CAA, pertains whether the

standard is PM-10, ozone or PM-2.5.

In our recent 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

CFR 58.16(b), quarterly data are not required to be

reported in the AQS database until 90 days after the

quarter; thus the data for the 4th quarter of 2009

must be reported by no later than March 31, 2010.

The AQS data for the year 2009 must be certified

by May 1, 2010. See 40 CFR 58.15.

4"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).

13712

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13712 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 55/Tuesday, March 23, 2010/Proposed Rules

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.

The reasons for relieving an area that

has attained the relevant standard of

certain part D, subparts 1 and 2

obligations, applies equally to part D,

subpart 4, which contains specific

attainment demonstration and RFP

provisions for PM-10 nonattainment

areas. As we have explained in the

Phase 2 Final Rule and our ozone and

PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, EPA

believes 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, qualityassured 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 believes the same

reasoning applies to the PM-10

provision of part D, subpart 4.

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() 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.

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. 5 EPA took this position with

5 Thus, 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

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). We are extending that interpretation

to the specific provisions of part D,

subpart 4. 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

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.

13713

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13713 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 55/Tuesday, March 23, 2010/Proposed Rules

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.6 EPA is

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

consistent with its interpretation of

section 172(c)(1).

Here, as in both our Phase 2 Final

Rule and ozone and PM-2.5 clean data

memoranda, we emphasize that the

suspension of a requirement to submit

SIP revisions concerning these RFP,

attainment demonstration, RACM, and

other related requirements exists only

for as long as a nonattainment area

continues to monitor attainment of the

standard. If such an area experiences a

violation of the NAAQS, the basis for

the requirements being suspended

would no longer exist. Therefore, 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

determination that an area need not

submit one of the SIP submittals

amounts to no more than a suspension

of the requirements for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard.

However, once EPA ultimately

redesignates the area to attainment, the

area will be entirely relieved of these

requirements to the extent the

maintenance plan for the area does not

rely on them.

Should EPA at some future time

determine that an area that has attained

the standard, but which has not yet been

redesignated as attainment for a

NAAQS, has violated the relevant

standard, the area would again be

required to submit the pertinent SIP

requirements for the area. Attainment

determinations under the policy do not

shield an area from other required

actions, such as provisions to address

pollution transport.

As set forth above, EPA finds that

because the CJNA is attaining the

PM-10 NAAQS, the requirements to

submit an attainment demonstration,

reasonable further progress, reasonably

available control measures and

contingency measures no longer apply

for so long as the area continues to

monitor attainment of the PM-10

NAAQS. 7 If in the future EPA

6 The 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 D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d

155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

7 We note that our application of the Clean Data

Policy to the CJNA 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

determines, after notice and comment

rulemaking, that the CJNA violates the

PM-10 NAAQS, the basis for the

attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM

and contingency measure 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 Action

Based on the most recent three years

of complete, quality-assured data

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part

50, appendix K, we propose to

determine that the CJNA has attained

the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.

Preliminary data indicate that the area

continues to attain the standard. 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 175(A) 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 moderate nonattainment

for this area until such time as

California meets the CAA requirements

for redesignation of the CJNA to

attainment.

EPA also finds that, because the CJNA

is attaining the NAAQS, the obligation

to submit the following CAA

requirements is not applicable for so

long as the CJNA 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

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

established by section 189(c)(1), and the

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP

and contingency measure provisions of

part D, subpart 1 contained in section

172 of the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

This action proposes to make a

determination of attainment based on

air quality, and would, if finalized;

result in the suspension of certain

Federal requirements, and would not

impose additional requirements beyond

those imposed by state law. For that

reason, this proposed action:

* Is not a "significant regulatory

action" subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under

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

area) and 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) (Miami,

Arizona area).

13714

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13714 2010
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 55/Tuesday, March 23, 2010/Proposed Rules

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 the requirements of

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

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

application of those requirements would

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;

and

* Does not provide EPA with the

discretionary authority to address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human

health or environmental effects, using

practicable and legally permissible

methods, under Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have

tribal implications as specified by

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is

not approved to apply in Indian country

located in the state, and EPA notes that

it will not impose substantial direct

costs on tribal governments or preempt

tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Parts 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 15, 2010.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doe. 2010-6338 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, and 15

[Docket No. USCG-2004-17914]

RIN 1625-AA16

Implementation of the 1995

Amendments to the International

Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking; next stage.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces

that it is revisiting the approach

proposed in the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) on the

Implementation of the 1995

Amendments to the International

Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978, as published in the

Federal Register on November 17, 2009.

DATES: The Coast Guard published its

NPRM on the Implementation of the

1995 Amendments to the International

Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978, in the Federal Register

on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59354).

Comments on the NPRM were due by

February 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this

rulemaking is available for inspection or

copying at the Docket Management

Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of

Transportation, West Building Ground

Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

You may also find this docket on the

Internet by going to http://

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG2004-17914 in the "Keyword" box, and

then clicking "Search."

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If

you have questions on this document,

call or e-mail Mayte Medina, U.S. Coast

Guard; telephone 202-372-1406, e-mail

Mayte.Medina2@uscg.mil. If you have

questions on viewing or submitting

material to the docket, call Renee V.

Wright, Program Manager, Docket

Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

The United States ratified the

International Convention on Standards

of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978

(STCW Convention), on June 10, 1991.

On November 17, 2009, the Coast Guard

published a NPRM on the

Implementation of the 1995

Amendments to the STCW Convention.

The Coast Guard held five public

meetings and received a large number of

comments to the rulemaking docket in

response to the NPRM.

The International Maritime

Organization (IMO) is currently

developing amendments to the STCW

Convention that are expected to be

adopted at a diplomatic conference in

June 2010. If adopted, these

amendments will change the minimum

training requirements for seafarers. They

are expected to enter into force in

accordance with Article XII of the

Convention on January 1, 2012 for all

countries that are party to the STCW

Convention.

In response to feedback we have

received and to the expected adoption

of the 2010 amendments to the

Convention under development at the

IMO, the Coast Guard is reviewing the

approach outlined in the NPRM. As

such, we are considering publishing a

Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) as a next

step. The SNPRM would describe any

proposed changes from the NPRM, and

seek comments from the public on those

proposed changes.

This document is issued under

authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

Dated: March 17, 2010.

F.J. Sturm,

Deputy Director, Office of Commercial

Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.

[FR Doe. 2010-6297 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085; MO

92210-0-0009]

RIN 1018-AW88

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Revised Designation of

Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the

Coterminous United States

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the

reopening of the comment period on the

proposed revision of critical habitat for

the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

13715

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13715 2010