# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofa 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) ofthe Instruction. This proposed rule amends permanent safety zones established in the Captain ofthe Port LakeMichigan Zone toprotect the public from the hazards associated during annual
events. We seek any comments or information thatmay lead to the discovery ofa significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part165

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 ofHomeland 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 requiringsafety zones inthe Captain ofthe Port Lake Michigan zone.

(a) * * * (15) Taste ofChicagoFireworks; Chicago,IL.

(i)Location.All waters ofMonroe Harbor and all waters ofLake 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) GaryAirandWaterShow; Gary,
IN.(i)Location.All waters ofLake Michigan boundedby 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 thepoint oforigin. (NAD 83)

* * * * *

(65) VenetianNightFireworks; Chicago,IL.

(i)Location.All waters ofMonroe Harbor and all waters ofLake 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 thepoint oforigin. (NAD 83)

* * * * *

(82) CochraneCup;BlueIsland,IL. (i)Location.All waters ofthe 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 thejunction ofthe Calumet Sag Channel at 41o39'23" N, 087o39 ' W (NAD 83).

(ii)Enforcementdateandtime.The first Saturday ofMay; 6:30 a.m. to 5p.m.

* * * * *

(83) World WarIIBeachInvasionReenactment;St.Joseph,MI. (i)Location.All waters ofLake Michigan in the vicinity ofTiscornia Park in St.Joseph, MI beginning at 42°06.55N, 086°29.23W; then west/ northwest along the northbreakwater 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 at42°0 7.39N, 086028.27 W; then southwest along the shoreline to the pointoforigin (NAD 83). (ii)Enforcementdateandtime.The third Saturday ofJune; 8 a.m. to 2p.m.

* * * * *

Dated: March 8, 2010.
L. Barndt, Captain,

### U.S. CoastGuard,Captain ofthe Port LakeMichigan.
[FRDoe. 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 AirQuality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10; Determination ofAttainment for the Coso Junction Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain Clean AirAct Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine thatthe 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 isbased upon monitored air quality data forthe PM-10 NAAQS during theyears 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 ofthe 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 tomake 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 orbefore April 22, 2010. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09- OAR-2010-0172, by one ofthe following methods: (1)FederaleRulemakingportal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. (2)E-mail:mahdavi.sarvy@epa.gov. (3)Mailordeliver: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 maybe 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 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 55/Tuesday, March 23, 2010/Proposed Rules

you consider CBI or otherwise protected shouldbe clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the http://www.regulations.govor e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an anonymous access system, and EPA will
not knowyour identity or contact information unlessyou provide itin the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send e-mail directly to EPA,your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe public
comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment.

Docket:The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.govand 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 maybe 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 normalbusiness 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 ofContents

I.Background

A. The NAAQS for PM-10 B. Designation, Classification and Air

Quality Planning forPM-10 forthe CJNA C. Attainment Determinations II. Proposed Attainment Determination for the CJNA I1. Applicability ofClean Air Act Planning Requirements IV. EPA's Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background

A. TheNAAQSforPM-IO

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter oflessthan or equal to 10 micrometers (PM-10)isthe subject ofthis 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 EPAhas established a healthbased standard.

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter with an indicator that includes onlythose 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 alsorevised the secondary PM10 standards to be the same asthe 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 andAir QualityPlanning forPM-10 forthe CJNA

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to address, among other things, continued nonattainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. On the date ofenactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) ofthe amended Act were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). At thattime, the CJNA

was within the boundaries ofthe Searles Valley planning area and EPA codified the boundaries ofthe Searles Valley planning area at 40 CFR 81.305; however, EPA subsequently changed the boundaries ofthe Searles Valley area by dividing itinto 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 ofthe 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 ofdesignation, allPM-10 nonattainment areas, such as the Searles Valley, were initially classified as moderate nonattainment. When EPA changed the boundaries ofthe 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.AttainmentDeterminations

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 atestablished state andlocal air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from air monitors operated bystate/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the EPA AQS database. Heads ofmonitoring agencies annually certify that these data

are accurate to thebest oftheir knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in itsAQS database when determining the attainment status ofareas. 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 inthe nonattainment area regardless of whether theyhave been entered intothe EPA AQS database ifthe stations meet the federal monitoring requirements for SLAMS. See40 CFR 58.20 andAugust 22, 1997 Memorandum "Agency Policy

onthe Use ofSpecial Purpose Monitoring Data," from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir 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 ofthe 24-hour PM-10 standard is determined by calculating the expected number ofdays in ayear with PM-10 concentrations greaterthan 150 ptg/m 3

. The 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days peryear with levels above 150 pg/

m 3 (averaged over a three-year period) is less than or equal to one.Three consecutive years ofair quality data are necessary to show attainment ofthe 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 ofthe scheduled sampling days.

II. Proposed Attainment Determination for the CJNA

The CJNA has one SLAMS site operated bythe Great Basin UnifiedAir Pollution Control District (District or GBUAPCD). This monitoring site is located in the Rose Valley ofCoso Junction at the southern end ofInyo County and currently has a continuous 

### 13711

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

PM-10 analyzer which records PM-10 three consecutive years ofcomplete, 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 inthe CJNA is 2006-2008 for CJNA. Table 1 data for 2009 thatare contained inthe reported bythe GBUAPCD to the EPA summarizes the exceedances ofthe 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/m3) exceedances exceedances 2006-2008 2007-2009

Coso Junction

.................................................................................. 12/8/06 295 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 ofdays peryear with levels above 150 plg/m 3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one. As canbe seenfrom Table 1, there were three exceedances ofthe 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS for both the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 periods; therefore the expected number ofdays per year with levels above 150 pg/m 3 (averaged over that three-year period) for both ofthese periods is one. 23 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 AQSfor the period 2007-2009 thatshow the area continues
to attain, we propose to find thatthe 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 mostcurrent data available
atthat time.

III. Applicability ofClean AirAct Planning Requirements

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment
areas, such as the CJNA, are set outin part D, subparts 1and4 oftitle I ofthe Act. EPA has issued guidance in a General Preamble 4describing how we will review state implementation plans (SIPs) and SIP revisions submitted under title I ofthe 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 beforeand after sampling in order to determine the mass ofPM-10 that is collected after the 24-hourrun period. The GBUAPCD was operating twoFRMs 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 wereterminated. 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 ofpart D, subparts 1and 2ofthe 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 ofhelping achieve attainment ofthe NAAQS.

This interpretation ofthe CAA is known as the Clean Data Policy and is the subject oftwo EPA memoranda. EPA also finalized the statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in its finalrule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of its "FinalRule toImplement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2" (Phase 2Final Rule). Seediscussion in thepreamble 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 ofthe Clean Air Act NRDCv.EPA,571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). EPA also finalized its interpretation in a regulation thatwas part ofitsImplementation 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. TheTEOM analyzer, which records PM-10 levels continuously, is nota FRMbut has been designated a Federal equivalent method (FEM) by EPA. All exceedances monitored from 2006 to date wererecorded by this TEOM.

21Based on data from the EPA AQS database.
3We note that the GBUAPCD hasreported the 4th quarter data for 2009 before the deadline. Under 40 governing implementation ofnew 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 inindividual rulemakings related to specific nonattainment areas. See,e.g., 75 FR 6571 (February 10, 2010). EPAbelieves that the legal bases setforth in detail in

our Phase 2Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum fromJohn 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 theFine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards", are equallypertinent tothe interpretation of provisions of subparts 1and 4 applicable to PM-10. Our interpretation that an area thatis attaining the standards isrelieved of obligations to demonstrate RFP and to provide an attainment demonstration, RACM and contingency measures pursuant topart D ofthe CAA, pertains whether the standard is PM-10, ozone or PM-2.5.

In our recent proposed andfinal rulemakings determining thatthe San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM-10 standard, EPA set forth at length our rationale for applying the Clean Data Policyto PM-10.The

CFR 58.16(b), quarterly data are notrequired tobe reported in the AQS database until 90 days after the quarter; thus the data for the 4th quarter of2009
must bereported by no later than March 31, 2010. The AQS data for the year 2009 must becertified by May 1, 2010. See 40 CFR 58.15.

4"General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean AirActAmendments of1990,"
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), as supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

### 13712

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13712 2010Federal 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 ofthe PM-10 standard.LatinoIssuesForumv. 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, ifan area is in compliance with PM-10 standards, then further progress forthe purpose ofensuring 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 inthe Phase 2Final Rule and our ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, EPA believes that itis reasonable tointerpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions ifan area subject to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (i.e.attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive years ofcomplete, qualityassured air quality monitoring data). Every U.S. Circuit Court ofAppeals that has considered the Clean Data Policy has upheld EPArulemakings applying its interpretation, forboth ozone and PM-10. SierraClubv. EPA,99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); SierraClubv. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's EarthFoundationv. EPA,N. 04-73032 (9th Cir.June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion), LatinoIssues Forum,supra.

It hasbeen EPA's longstanding interpretation thatthe general provisions ofpart D, subpart 1ofthe Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the submission ofSIP 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 arequest forredesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data forthe 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 ofpart D, subpart 4.

With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes ofpart D oftitle I,RFP "means such annual incremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant air pollutant as are required by this part

or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS by the applicable date." Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement ofsection 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 ofRFP isto 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 furtherprogress, as defined in section 7501() ofthis 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 isclear 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 failsto achieve a milestone must submit a plan that

assures thatthe state will achieve the
next milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no nextmilestone. Section 189(c)(3) assumes that therequirement
to submit and achieve milestones does
not continue after attainment ofthe NAAQS.

In the General Preamble, we noted with respect to section 189(c) that "the purpose ofthe 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). Ifan area has in fact attainedthe standard, the stated purpose ofthe RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.5EPA took this position with

5Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without

a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks ofthe 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 RFPrequirements insections 182(b)(1) or 182 (c)(2), which refer to the RFPrequirements as applying until the "attainment date," since section 189(c)(1) defines RFPbyreference to section 171(1) ofthe Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that,

as withthe general RFPrequirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific requirements may onlyberequired "for the purpose ofensuring attainment ofthe applicable national respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in theApril 16, 1992 General Preamble and also inthe May 10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the requirements ofsections 182(b) and (c). We are extending that interpretation
to the specific provisions ofpart D, subpart 4. In the General Preamble, we stated, in the context of a discussion of the requirements applicable to the evaluation ofrequests 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 fromJohn Calcagni, entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" (Calcagnimemo), p. 6.

Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect tomilestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:

Not laterthan 90 days after the date on which a milestone applicable to thearea occurs, each State in whichall orpart ofsuch

area islocated shall submitto the Administrator a demonstration * * * that the milestone has beenmet.

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 thatEPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in theApril 16, 1992 General Preamble and also inthe May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with respect to therequirements 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 eachof these requirements is linked withthe attainment demonstration or RFPrequirements ofsection 182(b)(1) or

ambient air quality standard bythe applicable date." 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in the
text ofthis rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in light ofthe definition ofRFP in section 171(1), and incorporated in section 189(c)(1), tobe arequirement that no longer applies

once the standard has been attained. 

### 13713

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13713 2010Federal 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 ofsection 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) thatthe [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date * * *." As with the RFP requirements, ifan area is already monitoring attainment ofthe 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 ofthe 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. AsEPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures toprovide 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 thatreasonably available control measures" (i.e.,RACM) are implemented in a nonattainment area. The General Preamble, 57 FR at 13560 (April 16, 1992), states thatEPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so thatRACM requirements

are a "component" ofan area's attainment demonstration. Thus, for the

same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its

own terms, therequirement for RACM

no longer applies. EPAhas consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation ofpotential 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 itsinterpretation of section 172(c)(1).

Here, as inboth our Phase 2Final Rule and ozone andPM-2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension ofa 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 ofthe standard. If such an area experiences a violation ofthe NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist. Therefore, the

area would again be subject to a requirement to submit thepertinent SIP revision or revisions and would needto address those requirements. Thus, a determination that an area need not submit one ofthe SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension ofthe requirements for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard. However, once EPA ultimately redesignates the area to attainment, the

area willbe entirely relieved ofthese 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 notyetbeen 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 ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. 7Ifin the future EPA

6TheEPA's interpretation that the statute only requires implementation of RACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court ofAppeals for the FifthCircuit (Sierra Clubv. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002), and by the United States Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit (SierraClubv. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

7Wenote that our application of the CleanData Policy to the CJNA is consistent with actions we have taken for otherPM-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 FR44920 (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 wouldnotify the State that wehave determined thatthe area is

no longer attaining the PM-10 standard and provide notice tothe public in the Federal Register.

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

Based on the mostrecent three years ofcomplete, quality-assured data meeting therequirements of40 CFR part 50, appendix K, we propose to determine thatthe CJNA has attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. Preliminary data indicate thatthe area continues to attain the standard. This proposed action, iffinalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because

we would notyet have approved a maintenance plan asrequired under section 175(A) ofthe 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 ofthe CJNA to attainment.

EPA also finds that, because the CJNA is attaining theNAAQS, 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 1contained in section 172 ofthe Act.

V. Statutoryand Executive Order Reviews

This action proposes tomake a determination ofattainment based on air quality, and would, iffinalized; result in the suspension ofcertain Federal requirements, and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Forthat
reason, this proposed action:

* Is not a "significantregulatory action" subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget under

(October 30, 2006) (SanJoaquin Valley, California area) and 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona area). 

### 13714

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13714 2010Federal 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 ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

* 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 etseq.);

* Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (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 actionbased onhealth 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 (66FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose 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

40CFRParts52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

40CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 15, 2010. Jared Blumenfeld, RegionalAdministrator, Region9.
[FRDoe. 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 ofthe 1995 Amendments tothe International Convention on Standards ofTraining, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; next stage.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that itisrevisiting the approach proposed in the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Implementation ofthe 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards ofTraining, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as published inthe Federal Register on November 17, 2009. DATES: The Coast Guard publishedits NPRM on the Implementation ofthe 1995 Amendments tothe International Convention on Standards ofTraining, 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 5p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also findthis 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.Ifyou 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 andPurpose

The United States ratified the International Convention on Standards ofTraining, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCWConvention), on June 10, 1991. OnNovember 17, 2009, the Coast Guard published aNPRM onthe Implementation ofthe 1995 Amendments to the STCW Convention. The Coast Guard held five public meetings and received a large number of
comments to therulemaking docket in response to theNPRM.

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. Ifadopted, these amendments will change the minimum training requirements for seafarers. They

are expected to enter into force in accordancewith ArticleXII ofthe Convention onJanuary 1, 2012 for all countries that are party tothe STCW Convention.

In response to feedback we have received and tothe expected adoption ofthe 2010 amendments to the Convention under development at the IMO, the Coast Guard isreviewing 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 theNPRM, and seek comments from the public on those proposed changes.

This document is issuedunder authority of5U.S.C. 552(a).

Dated: March 17, 2010. F.J. Sturm, DeputyDirector,OfficeofCommercial RegulationsandStandards,U.S. CoastGuard.
[FRDoe. 2010-6297 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fishand WildlifeService

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 BullTrout 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 ofthe comment period onthe proposed revision ofcritical habitat for thebull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) 

### 13715

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 13715 2010