Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 72999 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

establish controlled airspace at the 

Tucumcari VORTAC, Tucumcari, NM. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 6, 2014, and 

effective September 15, 2014, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic 

Airspace Areas. 

* * * * * 

ASW NM E6 Tucumcari, NM [New] 

Tucumcari VORTAC, NM 

Lat. 35°10′56′′ N., long. 103°35′55′′ W 

That airspace extending upward from 

1,200 feet above the surface within an area 

bounded by lat. 37°30′00′′ N., long. 

102°33′00′′ W.; to lat. 36°30′00′′ N., long. 

101°45′00′′ W.; to lat. 36°23′50′′ N., long. 

101°28′20′′ W.; 35°12′30′′ N., long. 105°28′30′′ 

W.; to lat. 36°43′00′′ N., long. 105°20′30′′ W.; 

to lat. 36°43′00′′ N., long. 105°00′00′′ W.; 

thence to the point of beginning. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 24, 

2014. 

Humberto Melendez, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28793 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4901–14–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0708; FRL–9920–19- 

Region 9] 

Clean Data Determination for 1997 

PM2.5 Standards; California—South 

Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the South Coast air quality planning 

area in California has attained the 1997 

annual and 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. This proposed determination 

is based upon complete (or otherwise 

validated), quality-assured, and certified 

ambient air monitoring data showing 

that the area has monitored attainment 

of the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5

standards based on the 2011–2013 

monitoring period. The EPA is further 

proposing that, if the EPA finalizes this 

determination of attainment, the 

requirements for the area to submit 

certain State implementation plan 

revisions shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 8, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0708 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at 

www.regulations.gov, please follow the 

on-line instructions; 

2. Email to tax.wienke@epa.gov; or 

3. Mail or delivery to Wienke Tax, Air 

Planning Office, AIR–2, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected should be clearly identified as 

such and should not be submitted 

through www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available at 

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, (415) 947–4192, or by 

email at tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. We are 

providing the following outline to aid in 

locating information in this proposal. 

Table of Contents 

I. What determination is the EPA proposing 

to make? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. South Coast PM2.5 Designations, 

Classifications, and SIP Revisions 

C. How does the EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The South Coast includes Orange County, the 

southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, 

southwestern San Bernardino County, and western 

Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305.) 

2For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ NAAQS are 

those determined by EPA as requisite to protect the 

public health, allowing an adequate margin of 

safety, and ‘‘secondary’’ standards are those 

determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the 

public welfare from any known or anticipated 

adverse effects associated with the presence of such 

air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section 

109(b). 

3Originally, the EPA designated nonattainment 

areas under subpart 1 of part D (of title I) of the 

CAA, not under subpart 4, but as discussed later in 

this document, the EPA has now established 

classifications for areas designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 under subpart 4. 

A. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

B. Monitoring Method Considerations 

C. Evaluation of Current Attainment 

IV. What is the effect of a determination of 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

under subpart 4 of the Clean Air Act? 

A. Background for the Clean Data Policy 

B. Application of the Clean Data Policy to 

the Attainment-Related Provisions of 

Subpart 4 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What determination is the EPA 

proposing to make? 

The EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Los Angeles–South Coast Air 

Basin (‘‘South Coast’’) nonattainment 

area has clean data for the 1997 annual 

and 24-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’) for fine particles (generally 

referring to particles less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM2.5).1

This determination is based upon 

complete (or otherwise validated), 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data showing the area 

has monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on 2011–2013 monitoring data. 

Based on this proposed clean data 

determination, we are also proposing to 

suspend the obligations on the State of 

California to submit certain state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

related to attainment of this standard for 

the area for as long as the area continues 

to attain the standard. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

Under section 109 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), the EPA has 

established NAAQS for certain 

pervasive air pollutants (referred to as 

‘‘criteria pollutants’’) and conducts 

periodic reviews of the NAAQS to 

determine whether they should be 

revised or whether new NAAQS should 

be established. 

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

EPA revised the particulate matter 

NAAQS, replacing the indicator of total 

suspended particulate matter (TSP) (i.e., 

particles roughly 30 micrometers or 

less), with a new indicator that includes 

only those particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), the 

EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate 

matter by establishing new NAAQS for 

particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5). The EPA 

established primary and secondary 

annual and 24-hour standards for 

PM2.5.2 The annual primary and 

secondary standards were set at 15.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations, and the 24- 

hour primary and secondary standards 

were set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3- 

year average of the 98th percentile of 24- 

hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 

monitoring site within an area. See 40 

CFR 50.7. Collectively, we refer herein 

to the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5

NAAQS as the ‘‘1997 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ or 

‘‘1997 PM2.5 standards.’’ 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, and on 

January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), the EPA 

revised the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to a 

level of 12 mg/m3. Even though the EPA 

has lowered the 24-hour and annual 

PM2.5 standards, the original 1997 PM2.5

standards remain in effect and represent 

the standards for which today’s 

proposed attainment determination is 

made. 

B. South Coast PM2.5 Designations, 

Classifications, and SIP Revisions 

Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA 

established the initial air quality 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). The 

South Coast was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS at this time, with an attainment 

deadline of April 5, 2010.3

Within three years of the effective 

date of designations, states with areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS were required to 

submit SIP revisions that, among other 

elements, provide for implementation of 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), attainment of the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than five years from the nonattainment 

designation (in this instance, no later 

than April 5, 2010) unless the state 

justified up to a five-year attainment 

date extension, as well as contingency 

measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2), 

172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9). 

On November 28, 2007, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB or State) 

submitted the ‘‘Final 2007 Air Quality 

Management Plan, June 2007’’ (‘‘South 

Coast 2007 AQMP’’), which was 

prepared by the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD or 

District). The South Coast 2007 AQMP 

included a PM2.5 attainment 

demonstration for the South Coast for 

the 1997 NAAQS. In order to meet 

relevant CAA requirements for the PM2.5

NAAQS, the South Coast 2007 AQMP 

includes base and projected year PM2.5

emissions inventories for the South 

Coast nonattainment area; air quality 

monitoring data; short-, medium- and 

long-term District control measures; a 

summary of CARB’s control measures; 

transportation control measures (TCMs); 

a demonstration of reasonable further 

progress (RFP); a modeled attainment 

demonstration; a demonstration of 

reasonably available control measures/

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT); RFP and attainment 

contingency measures for the South 

Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area; and a 

request to extend the attainment date for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to April 5, 2015. 

To demonstrate attainment, the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP relied in part on 

measures in CARB’s State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan (‘‘2007 State Strategy’’). The 2007 

State Strategy discussed CARB’s overall 

approach to addressing, in conjunction 

with local plans, attainment of both the 

1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

not only in the South Coast 

nonattainment area, but also in 

California’s other nonattainment areas, 

such as the San Joaquin Valley and the 

Sacramento area. It also included 

CARB’s commitments to propose 15 

defined State measures and to obtain 

specific amounts of aggregate emissions 

reductions of direct PM2.5, sulfur oxides 

(SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) in 

the South Coast from sources under the 

State’s jurisdiction, such as on- and offroad motor vehicles, engines, and fuels. 

On November 9, 2011, we approved 

the portions of the South Coast 2007 

AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as 

revised in 2009 and 2011, that 

addressed attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the South Coast PM2.5

nonattainment area, except for the 

attainment contingency measures, 

which we disapproved. (see 76 FR 

69928, November 9, 2011). On October 

29, 2013, we approved SIP revisions 

addressing the attainment contingency 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73001 

4The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA’s 

repository of ambient air quality data. 

5The annual PM2.5 standard design value is the 

3-year average of annual mean concentration, and 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 

annual standard design value at each eligible 

monitoring site is less than or equal to 15.0 mg/m3. 

6The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the 

3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour 

average values recorded at each eligible monitoring 

site, and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met 

when the 24-hour standard design value at each 

monitoring site is less than or equal to 65 mg/m3. 

7See, e.g., letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, 

Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Dr. 

Matt Miyasato, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, 

dated September 30, 2014. 

8EPA Region IX, Technical System Audit Report, 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 

September 24–25, 2013, dated September 2014. 

9See, e.g., letter from Dr. Matt Miyasato, Deputy 

Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administration, EPA Region IX, dated 

May 1, 2014. 

10Please see figure 8 in appendix A of SCAQMD’s 

Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 

2014) for a map showing PM2.5 ambient monitoring 

locations. 

11Please see files entitled ‘‘Maximum Quarterly 

Value Data Substitution Test for the 24-hour 1997 

p.m.2.5 NAAQS’’ and ‘‘Maximum Quarterly Value 

Data Substitution Test for the Annual 1997 p.m.2.5 

NAAQS’’ for documentation regarding the 

maximum quarterly value data substitution test in 

the docket for today’s proposed action. 

measure requirements for the South 

Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area (see 78 

FR 64402, October 29, 2013). 

C. How does the EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality currently meets the PM2.5

NAAQS is generally based upon the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured data gathered at 

established State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a 

nonattainment area and entered into the 

AQS database. Data from ambient air 

monitors operated by state/local 

agencies in compliance with the EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS).4 Monitoring agencies annually 

certify that these data are accurate to the 

best of their knowledge. Accordingly, 

the EPA relies primarily on data in AQS 

when determining the attainment status 

of areas. See 40 CFR 50.7; 40 CFR part 

50, appendix L; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR 

part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices 

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

determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, section 50.7 and in accordance with 

appendix N, the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard is met when the design value 

is less than or equal to 15.0 mg/m 3

(based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N) at each 

eligible monitoring site within the area.5

Data completeness requirements for a 

given year are met when at least 75 

percent of the scheduled sampling days 

for each quarter have valid data. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, section 50.7 and in accordance with 

appendix N, the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

standard is met when the design value 

is less than or equal to 65 mg/m3 (based 

on the rounding convention in 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix N) at each eligible 

monitoring site within the area.6 Data 

completeness requirements for a given 

year are met when at least 75 percent of 

the scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

relevant air quality data? 

A. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

The SCAQMD is the governmental 

agency with the authority and 

responsibility under state law for 

collecting ambient air quality data 

within the South Coast nonattainment 

area. Annually, SCAQMD submits 

monitoring network plans to EPA. These 

plans discuss the status of the air 

monitoring network, as required under 

40 CFR part 58. The EPA reviews these 

annual network plans for compliance 

with the applicable reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With 

respect to PM2.5, we have found that 

SCAQMD’s annual network plans meet 

the applicable requirements under 40 

CFR part 58.7 Furthermore, we 

concluded in our Technical System 

Audit Report concerning SCAQMD’s 

ambient air quality monitoring program 

that SCAQMD’s ambient air monitoring 

network currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of monitoring sites designated as 

SLAMS for PM2.5 in the South Coast 

nonattainment area.8 Also, SCAQMD 

annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are quality-assured.9

The SCAQMD operated 18 PM2.5

SLAMS during the 2011–2013 period 

within the South Coast PM2.5

nonattainment area. Nine of the sites are 

located in the Los Angeles County 

portion of the South Coast (Azusa, 

Burbank, Los Angeles (Main Street), 

Reseda, Compton, Pico Rivera, 

Pasadena, Long Beach (North), and 

South Long Beach); four are located in 

the San Bernardino County portion of 

the South Coast (Ontario Fire Station, 

Fontana, Big Bear, and San Bernardino); 

three are located in the Riverside 

portion of the South Coast (Riverside 

(Magnolia), Rubidoux, and Mira Loma 

(Van Buren)); and two are located in 

Orange County (Anaheim and Mission 

Viejo).10

For the purposes of this proposed 

action, we have reviewed the data for 

the most recent three-year period (2011– 

2013) for completeness, and we 

determined that the data collected by 

the SCAQMD meets the completeness 

criterion for all 12 quarters at most 

PM2.5 monitoring sites. Of the 18 PM2.5

monitoring sites, five monitoring sites 

did not meet the 75% completeness 

requirements in 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, section 4.1 and 4.2(b) for 

the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards, 

respectively. Specifically, the Pasadena, 

Riverside (Magnolia), Ontario Fire 

Station, Big Bear, and San Bernardino 

monitoring sites had less that 75% data 

completeness in one or more quarters 

during the 2011–2013 period. 

For the Riverside (Magnolia), Ontario 

Fire Station, Big Bear, and San 

Bernardino monitoring sites, the EPA 

has performed the maximum quarterly 

value data substitution test procedure in 

40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 

4.1(c)(ii) and 4.2(c)(ii) for the annual 

and 24-hour standards, respectively, 

and determined that these monitoring 

sites pass the data substitution 

diagnostic test for both the annual and 

24-hour standards.11 The EPA 

concludes that the design values for 

these monitoring sites are valid for 

NAAQS comparison purposes. 

The remaining monitoring site, 

Pasadena, is not eligible for the 

maximum quarterly value data 

substitution test due to having less than 

50% completeness during the first 

quarter of 2011, the fourth quarter of 

2012, and the first and second quarters 

of 2013. The provisions in 40 CFR part 

50, appendix N, section 4.1(c)(ii) and 

4.2(c)(ii) state that, if any quarter has 

less than 50% data capture, then the 

substitution test cannot be used. While 

the Pasadena monitoring site is not 

eligible for the substitution test, per 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.1(d) 

and 4.2(d), the design value may also be 

considered valid with the approval of 

the EPA Administrator, who may 

consider factors such as monitoring site 

closures/moves, monitoring diligence, 

the consistency and levels of the daily 

values that are available, and nearby 

concentrations in determining whether 

to use such data. 

The Pasadena monitoring site had 

47% completeness in the first quarter of 

2011 due to poor quality assurance 

results and sampler operational issues, 

and 71% completeness in the third 

quarter of 2012 due to multiple different 

sampler operational issues and site 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12The EPA maintains a list of designated FRMs 

and FEMs on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

amtic/criteria.html. 

13EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Policy Assessment for the Review of the 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, EPA 452/R–11–003, April 2011. This 

report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html. 

operator error. Beginning in the fourth 

quarter of 2012 through the second 

quarter of 2013, the Pasadena site had 

less than 50% completeness due to site 

repairs (i.e. SCAQMD was working to 

replace the monitoring site shelter from 

mid-November 2012 until the beginning 

of June 2013). 

Per 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, 

section 4.1(d) and 4.2(d), the EPA 

evaluated the location of the Pasadena 

monitoring site relative to the historical 

design value site for the area, the 

historical annual and 24-hour PM2.5

design values trends over the past 12 

years at nearby monitoring sites, and 

causes of incomplete data when 

determining whether the 2011–2013 

design value at the Pasadena monitoring 

site could be considered valid for the 

purposes of this action. First, the 

Pasadena monitoring site is not located 

near the previous and current design 

value sites for the area. Historically, the 

Rubidoux and the Mira Loma (Van 

Buren) monitoring sites have been the 

design value sites for the area for both 

the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The Rubidoux monitoring site was the 

design value site for both the annual 

and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 2001 to 

2006, while the Mira Loma (Van Buren) 

monitoring site was the design value 

site for both the annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS from 2006 to 2013. The 

Pasadena monitoring site is located in 

the center of Los Angeles County, while 

the Rubidoux and Mira Loma (Van 

Buren) monitoring sites are located 

approximately 38 miles to the east in 

Riverside County, where higher values 

are typically measured. 

Second, an assessment of the longterm trends at the Pasadena monitoring 

site and nearby monitoring sites shows 

nearby sites have design values below 

both the annual and 24-hour 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS and the Pasadena monitoring 

site has the lowest design value 

compared to these nearby sites. For 

example, during the 2001 to 2013 

period, the Pasadena monitoring site has 

consistently measured lower design 

values for both the annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS than the Azusa, Burbank, 

Pico Rivera (AQS ID: 06–037–1601), 

Pico Rivera #2, and Los Angeles (Main 

Street) monitoring sites, which are all 

located within an approximately 12- 

mile radius from the Pasadena 

monitoring site. These four sites all have 

complete annual and 24-hour design 

values below the 1997 NAAQS for the 

2011–2013 period and provide 

appropriate characterization of air 

quality for the area surrounding the 

Pasadena monitoring site. 

Based on the location of the Pasadena 

monitoring site and the historical design 

value concentrations relative to both the 

annual and 24-hour 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

at the site and nearby locations, the 

incomplete data should not preclude the 

EPA from determining the area has 

attained the NAAQS. Therefore, we 

consider the PM2.5 data set for the 2011– 

2013 period from the Pasadena monitor 

to be valid for the purposes of 

determining whether the area has 

attained the standards. 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

consider the PM2.5 data set for 2011– 

2013 from the 18 PM2.5 monitoring sites 

to be valid for the purposes of 

determining whether the area has 

attained the standards. 

B. Monitoring Method Considerations 

The monitoring requirements are 

specified by regulation in 40 CFR part 

58. These requirements are applicable to 

State, and where delegated, local air 

monitoring agencies that operate criteria 

pollutant monitors. In section 4.7 of 

appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, the EPA 

specifies minimum monitoring 

requirements for PM2.5 to operate at 

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations 

(SLAMS). SLAMS produce data 

comparable to the NAAQS, and 

therefore, the monitor must be an 

approved federal reference method 

(FRM), federal equivalent method 

(FEM), or approved regional method 

(ARM). The minimum number of 

SLAMS required is described in section 

4.7.1, and can be met by either filterbased or continuous FRMs or FEMs. The 

monitoring regulations also provide that 

each core-based statistical area (CBSA) 

must operate a minimum number of 

PM2.5 continuous monitors (section 

4.7.2); however, this requirement can be 

met by either an FEM or a non-FEM 

continuous monitor, and the continuous 

monitors can be located with other 

SLAMS or at a different location. 

Consequently, the monitoring 

requirements for PM2.5 can be met with 

a filter-based FRMs/FEMs, continuous 

FEMs, continuous non-FEMs, or a 

combination of monitors at each 

required SLAMS. 

In 2006, the EPA published 

performance criteria and field testing 

requirements for approval of PM2.5

continuous FEMs and PM2.5 continuous 

ARMs in 40 CFR part 53. Subsequently, 

several PM2.5 continuous monitors have 

been approved 12 as FEMs. As 

monitoring agencies implemented PM2.5

continuous FEMs in their networks, the 

EPA assessed the available data from 

these monitors and included a summary 

of that assessment in the PM Policy 

Assessment in April of 2011.13

Recognizing that in some cases 

monitoring agencies were still testing 

and working to optimize the 

performance of their PM2.5 continuous 

FEMs, but were beyond the 24-month 

period that allows data from an 

approved method to be set aside using 

the provisions described in 40 CFR 

58.20 on Special Purpose Monitoring 

(SPMs), the EPA proposed and finalized 

a new provision to allow PM2.5 FEM 

data to be considered not eligible for 

comparison to the NAAQS under 

certain conditions, even if more than 24 

months of data are collected. 

This provision was part of the PM 

NAAQS final rule published on January 

15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), and included 

criteria for monitoring agencies to use, 

if they choose, that allow for PM2.5

continuous FEM or ARM data to be set 

aside and not used for determining 

NAAQS calculations, if certain 

performance criteria are not met (40 

CFR 58.11(e)). 

This provision to allow PM2.5

continuous FEM data to be excluded 

from comparison to the NAAQS is 

applicable, when in accordance with 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan 

provisions described in 40 CFR 

58.10(b)(13), the monitoring agency has 

assessed the data to determine if it 

meets the criteria described in 40 CFR 

58.11(e), and has also sought and 

received approval from the applicable 

EPA Regional office. 

As noted above, the SCAQMD 

operated 18 PM2.5 SLAMS within the 

South Coast during the 2011–2013 

period. At these sites, SCAQMD 

operates manual filter-based FRMs to 

measure PM2.5. At seven of the 18 sites, 

SCAQMD also measured PM2.5 using 

(automated) continuous FEM monitors: 

Anaheim, Burbank, Los Angeles (Main 

Street), Long Beach (North), South Long 

Beach, Rubidoux, and Mira Loma (Van 

Buren). SCAQMD’s primary purpose in 

operating the continuous FEM monitors 

at these sites is to support forecasting 

and reporting of the Air Quality Index 

(AQI). However, under EPA’s 

monitoring regulations, data from 

continuous FEM monitors is generally 

considered valid for NAAQS 

comparison purposes, unless the 

applicable monitoring agency justifies 

excluding the data for NAAQS 

comparison purposes under 40 CFR 

58.11(e). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73003 

14See appendix C (‘‘PM2.5 Continuous Monitor 

Comparability Assessment and Request for 

Waiver’’) of SCAQMD’s Annual Air Quality 

Monitoring Network Plan (July 2013); and appendix 

C with the same title of SCAQMD’s Annual Air 

Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 2014). 15See letter, Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region 

9, to Jason Low, Ph.D., South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, dated September 9, 2014. 

In this instance, as part of its 2013 

and 2014 annual air quality monitoring 

network plans, SCAQMD requested that 

the data from the continuous FEM 

monitors at the seven monitoring sites 

in the PM2.5 monitoring network be 

considered not eligible for comparison 

to the NAAQS.14 The EPA evaluated 

SCAQMD’s request per 40 CFR 58.11(e), 

confirmed that the acceptable bias 

criteria were not met during the 2010– 

2012 and 2011–2013 periods, and 

therefore approved the request for the 

continuous FEM monitor data from the 

sites listed above to be considered not 

eligible for comparison to the NAAQS.15

As a result, the monitoring data 

presented in the next section of this 

document reflects data collected by 

filter-based PM2.5 FRMs operated by the 

SCAQMD at the 18 PM2.5 SLAMS within 

the South Coast. 

C. Evaluation of Current Attainment 

EPA’s evaluation of whether the 

South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area 

has attained the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS is based on our 

review of the monitoring data and takes 

into account the adequacy of the PM2.5

monitoring network in the 

nonattainment area and the reliability of 

the data collected by the network as 

discussed in the previous sections of 

this document. 

Table 1 and table 2 show the annual 

and 24-hour PM2.5 design values, 

respectively, at each of the 18 SLAMS 

monitoring sites within the South Coast 

nonattainment area for the most recent 

three-year period (2011–2013). The data 

show that the design value for the 2011– 

2013 period was equal to or less than 65 

mg/m3 (for the 24-hour standard) and 

15.0 mg/m3 (for the annual standard) at 

all monitors. Therefore, we are 

proposing to determine, based on 

complete (or otherwise validated), 

quality-assured, and certified data for 

2011–2013, that the South Coast area 

has attained the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards. At the present 

time, AQS includes no PM2.5 data for 

year 2014 for the South Coast, but 

several quarters of preliminary data are 

expected to be uploaded to AQS prior 

to EPA’s final action on the proposed 

determination of attainment. The EPA 

will review the preliminary 2014 data 

prior to taking final action to ensure that 

they are consistent with the 

determination of attainment. 

TABLE 1—2011–2013 ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SOUTH COAST NONATTAINMENT AREA

General location Site (AQS ID) 

Annual mean (μg/m3) 2011–2013 

annual 

design values 

(μg/m3) 2011 2012 2013 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 

East San Gabriel Valley ............ Azusa (06–037–0002) ...................... 12.1 11.0 10.5 11.2 

East San Fernando Valley ......... Burbank (06–037–1002) .................. 13.2 12.2 12.1 12.5 

Central Los Angeles .................. Los Angeles (Main St.) (06–037– 

1103).

13.0 12.6 12.0 12.5 

West San Fernando Valley ........ Reseda (06–037–1201) ................... 10.2 10.5 9.9 10.2 

South Central Los Angeles 

County.

Compton (06–037–1302) ................. 13.0 11.7 12.0 12.2 

South San Gabriel Valley .......... Pico Rivera #2 (06–037–1602) ........ 12.5 11.9 11.8 12.0 

West San Gabriel Valley ........... Pasadena (06–037–2005) ................ * 10.8 * 10.1 * 10.2 10.4 

South Coastal Los Angeles 

County.

Long Beach (North) (06–037–4002) 11.0 10.4 11.3 10.9 

South Coastal Los Angeles 

County.

South Long Beach (06–037–4004) .. 10.7 10.6 11.0 10.8 

ORANGE COUNTY: 

Central Orange County .............. Anaheim (06–059–0007) .................. 11.0 10.8 10.1 10.6 

Saddleback Valley ..................... Mission Viejo (06–059–2022) .......... 8.5 7.9 8.1 8.2 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY: 

Metropolitan Riverside County .. Riverside (Magnolia) (06–065–1003) 11.8 * 11.4 11.3 11.5 

Metropolitan Riverside County .. Rubidoux (06–065–8001) ................. 13.6 13.5 12.5 13.2 

Mira Loma .................................. Mira Loma (Van Buren) (06–065– 

8005).

15.3 15.1 14.1 14.8 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: 

Southwest San Bernardino Valley.Ontario Fire Station (06–071–0025) 13.3 12.4 * 12.0 12.6 

Central San Bernardino Valley .. Fontana (06–071–2002) ................... 12.6 12.8 12.3 12.6 

East San Bernardino Mountains Big Bear (06–071–8001) .................. 8.4 * 8.0 9.7 8.7 

Central San Bernardino Valley .. San Bernardino (06–071–9004) ....... * 12.2 11.8 11.4 11.8 

Note: The annual standard is set at 15.0 μg/m3. Annual values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk (‘*’) but, as discussed above, the EPA has determined that the data is valid for the NAAQS comparison purposes. 

Source: EPA, Design Value Report, October 6, 2014. 

TABLE 2—2011–2013 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SOUTH COAST NONATTAINMENT AREA

General location Site (AQS ID) 

98th Percentile (μg/m3) 2011–2013 

24-hour 

design values 

(μg/m3) 2011 2012 2013 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section 

51.004(c) states: ‘‘Upon a determination by EPA that 

an area designated nonattainment for the PM2.5

NAAQS has attained the standard, the requirements 

for such area to submit attainment demonstrations 

and associated reasonably available control 

measures, reasonable further progress plans, 

contingency measures and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS shall be 

suspended until such time as the area is 

redesignated to attainment, at which time the 

requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines 

that that area has violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at 

which time the area is again required to submit 

such plans.’’ 

17 In response to the court’s ruling, the EPA 

published a final rule on June 2, 2014 classifying 

all 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 areas as moderate, and 

setting a December 31, 2014 deadline for submittal 

of any remaining subpart 4 SIP requirements (see 

79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). 

TABLE 2—2011–2013 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SOUTH COAST NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued 

General location Site (AQS ID) 

98th Percentile (μg/m3) 2011–2013 

24-hour 

design values 

(μg/m3) 2011 2012 2013 

East San Gabriel Valley ............ Azusa (06–037–0002) ...................... 30.6 25.6 26.4 28 

East San Fernando Valley ......... Burbank (06–037–1002) .................. 33.5 28.2 30.4 31 

Central Los Angeles .................. Los Angeles (Main St.) (06–037– 

1103).

31.5 32.0 29.0 31 

West San Fernando Valley ........ Reseda (06–037–1201) ................... 23.6 31.2 23.0 26 

South Central Los Angeles 

County.

Compton (06–037–1302) ................. 31.5 30.3 24.3 29 

South San Gabriel Valley .......... Pico Rivera #2 (06–037–1602) ........ 31.5 28.5 28.7 30 

West San Gabriel Valley ........... Pasadena (06–037–2005) ................ *29.8 *25.7 *20.5 25 

South Coastal Los Angeles 

County.

Long Beach (North) (06–037–4002) 27.8 26.5 26.1 27 

South Coastal Los Angeles 

County.

South Long Beach (06–037–4004) .. 26.6 25.6 24.6 26 

ORANGE COUNTY: 

Central Orange County .............. Anaheim (06–059–0007) .................. 28.1 25.0 22.7 25 

Saddleback Valley ..................... Mission Viejo (06–059–2022) .......... 28.8 17.6 17.5 21 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY: 

Metropolitan Riverside County .. Riverside (Magnolia) (06–065–1003) 28.0 *26.8 29.2 28 

Metropolitan Riverside County .. Rubidoux (06–065–8001) ................. 31.0 33.7 34.6 33 

Mira Loma .................................. Mira Loma (Van Buren) (06–065– 

8005).

36.6 35.1 37.5 36 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: 

Southwest San Bernardino Valley.Ontario Fire Station (06–071–0025) 35.3 28.6 *26.8 30 

Central San Bernardino Valley .. Fontana (06–071–2002) ................... 28.2 35.6 33.1 32 

East San Bernardino Mountains Big Bear (06–071–8001) .................. 30.6 *27.4 35.1 31 

Central San Bernardino Valley .. San Bernardino (06–071–9004) ....... *32.5 27.1 33.4 31 

Note: The 24-hour standard is set at 65 μg/m3. Daily values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk (‘*’) but, as discussed above, the EPA has determined that the data is valid for the NAAQS comparison purposes. 

Source: EPA, Design Value Report, October 6, 2014. 

IV. What is the effect of a determination 

of attainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS under subpart 4 of the Clean 

Air Act? 

This section of the EPA’s proposal 

addresses the effects of a final 

determination of attainment for the 

South Coast nonattainment area. 

For the 1997 PM2.5 standard, 40 CFR 

51.1004(c) of the EPA’s Implementation 

Rule embodies the EPA’s ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy’’ interpretation under subpart 1. 

The provisions of section 51.1004(c) set 

forth the effects of a determination of 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5

standard.16 72 FR 20585, 20665 (April 

25, 2007). 

On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

DC Circuit remanded to the EPA the 

‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’ or 

‘‘Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the 

general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, 

rather than the particulate-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of part 

D of title I. The Court remanded the 

EPA’s Implementation Rule for further 

proceedings consistent with the Court’s 

decision. 

In light of the Court’s decision and its 

remand of the Implementation Rule, the 

EPA in this proposed rulemaking 

addresses the effect of a final 

determination of attainment for the 

South Coast nonattainment area as a 

moderate nonattainment area under 

subpart 4.17 As set forth in more detail 

below, under the EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy interpretation, a determination 

that the area has attained the standard 

suspends the State’s obligation to 

submit attainment-related plan revisions 

under subpart 4 (and the applicable 

provisions of subpart 1) for so long as 

the area continues to attain the 

standard. These include requirements to 

submit an attainment demonstration, 

RFP, RACM, and contingency measures, 

because the purpose of these provisions 

is to help reach attainment, a goal which 

has already been achieved. 

A. Background for the Clean Data Policy 

Over the past two decades, the EPA 

has consistently applied its ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy’’ interpretation to attainmentrelated provisions of subparts 1, 2 and 

4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject 

of several EPA memoranda and 

regulations. In addition, numerous 

individual rulemakings published in the 

Federal Register have applied the 

interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS, 

including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, 

PM10, PM2.5, CO and lead standards. The 

DC Circuit has upheld the Clean Data 

Policy interpretation as embodied in 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73005 

18The EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard— 

Phase 2,’’ 70 FR 71612, 71645–46 (November 29, 

2005). 

EPA’s 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule, 40 CFR 51.918.18 Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 

(D.C. Cir. 2009). Other U.S. Circuit 

Courts of Appeals that have considered 

and reviewed EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

interpretation have upheld it and the 

rulemakings applying EPA’s 

interpretation. 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, v. EPA, Nos. 06–75831 

and 08–71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 

(Memorandum Opinion)). 

As noted above, the EPA incorporated 

its Clean Data Policy interpretation in 

both its 1997 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule (40 CFR 51.918) 

and in its PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

(40 CFR 51.1004(c)). 70 FR 71612, 71702 

(November 29, 2005) (1997 8-hour 

ozone) and 72 FR 20585, 20665 (April 

25, 2007)(1997 PM2.5). While the DC 

Circuit, in its January 4, 2013 decision, 

remanded the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the court did not 

address the merits of that regulation, nor 

cast doubt on the EPA’s existing 

interpretation of the statutory 

provisions. 

However, in light of the Court’s 

decision, we set forth here the EPA’s 

Clean Data Policy interpretation under 

subpart 4, for the purpose of identifying 

the effects of a determination of 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

for the South Coast nonattainment area. 

The EPA has previously articulated its 

Clean Data interpretation under subpart 

4 in implementing the 2006 PM2.5 and 

the PM10 standard. See, e.g., 78 FR 

41901 (July 12, 2013) and 78 FR 54394 

(September 4, 2013) (proposed and final 

determination of attainment of the 2006 

PM2.5 standard in West Central Pinal 

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

2010) (determination of attainment of 

the PM10 standard in Coso Junction, 

California); 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 

2006) (determination of attainment of 

the PM10 standard in Ajo, Arizona); 71 

FR 13021 (March 14, 2006) 

(determination of attainment of the 

PM10 standard in Yuma, Arizona); 71 FR 

44920 (August 8, 2006) (determination 

of attainment of the PM10 standard in 

Rillito, Arizona); 71 FR 63642 (October 

30, 2006) (determination of attainment 

of the PM10 standard in San Joaquin 

Valley, California); and 72 FR 14422 

(March 28, 2007) (determination of 

attainment of the PM10 standard in 

Miami, Arizona). Thus, the EPA has 

established that, under subpart 4, an 

attainment determination suspends the 

obligations to submit an attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

measures related to attainment. 

B. Application of the Clean Data Policy 

to the Attainment-Related Provisions of 

Subpart 4 

In the EPA’s proposed and final 

rulemakings determining that the San 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 

attained the PM10 standard, the EPA set 

forth at length its rationale for applying 

the Clean Data Policy to PM10 under 

subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit upheld 

EPA’s final rulemaking, and specifically 

EPA’s Clean Data Policy, in the context 

of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. 

EPA, Nos. 06–75831 and 08–71238 (9th 

Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum 

Opinion)). In rejecting petitioner’s 

challenge to the Clean Data Policy under 

subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit 

stated, ‘‘As the EPA explained, if an area 

is in compliance with PM10 standards, 

then further progress for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment is not necessary.’’ 

The general requirements of subpart 1 

apply in conjunction with the more 

specific requirements of subpart 4, to 

the extent they are not superseded or 

subsumed by the subpart 4 

requirements. Subpart 1 contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, these same statutory 

requirements also apply for PM2.5

nonattainment areas. The EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, the EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM10

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). These subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

The EPA has long interpreted the 

provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the 

Act (sections 171 and 172) as not 

requiring the submission of RFP for an 

area already attaining the ozone 

NAAQS. For an area that is attaining, 

showing that the State will make RFP 

towards attainment ‘‘will, therefore, 

have no meaning at that point.’’ 57 FR 

at 13564. 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). 

Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 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 [section 171(1)] of this title, toward 

attainment by the applicable date. 

With respect to RFP, section 171(1) 

states that, for purposes of part D, 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 PM10 areas of part 

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

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date. 

Although section 189(c) 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. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
73006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

19Thus, 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. 7501(1). As discussed in the text 

of this rulemaking, the 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. 

20Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated 

May 10, 1995 (‘‘Seitz memorandum’’). 

21Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ December 14, 

2004 (‘‘Page memorandum’’). 

22The EPA’s interpretation that the statute 

requires implementation only 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 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). 

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.19

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. This is consistent with the position 

that the 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 memorandum20 with respect to the 

requirements of section 182(b) and (c). 

In the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, 

the 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 revision 

either. 

1995 Seitz memorandum at page 5. 

With respect to the attainment 

demonstration requirements of section 

172(c) and 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, The 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 the EPA in the General 

Preamble, the Page memorandum,21 and 

the section 182(b) and (c) requirements 

set forth in the Seitz memorandum. As 

the 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). We have interpreted 

the contingency measure requirements 

of section 172(c)(9) (and section 

182(c)(9) for ozone) 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 memorandum, 

pages 5–6. 

CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that 

SIPs in nonattainment areas ‘‘shall 

provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to make reasonable further 

progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by 

the attainment date applicable under 

this part. Such measures shall be 

included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in 

any such case without further action by 

the State or [EPA].’’ This contingency 

measure requirement is inextricably tied 

to the reasonable further progress and 

attainment demonstration requirements. 

Contingency measures are implemented 

if reasonable further progress targets are 

not achieved, or if attainment is not 

realized by the attainment date. Where 

an area has already achieved attainment 

by the attainment date, it has no need 

to rely on contingency measures to 

come into attainment or to make further 

progress to attainment. As the EPA 

stated in the General Preamble: ‘‘The 

section 172(c)(9) requirements for 

contingency measures are directed at 

ensuring RFP and attainment by the 

applicable date.’’ See 57 FR 13564. Thus 

these requirements no longer apply 

when an area has attained the standard. 

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 the 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. The 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.22 The 

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

consistent with its interpretation of 

section 172(c)(1). 

The suspension of the obligations to 

submit SIP revisions concerning these 

RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, 

contingency measures and other related 

requirements exists only for as long as 

the area continues to monitor 

attainment of the standard. If the EPA 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73007 

1 78 FR 71732, November 29, 2013. 

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 the 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 South 

Coast area is currently attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, we propose to find 

that the obligations to submit any 

remaining attainment-related provisions 

that may be necessary to satisfy the 

requirements applicable to moderate 

areas under subpart 4 of part D (of title 

I of the Act) are suspended for so long 

as the area continues to monitor 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If, 

in the future, the EPA determines after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking that 

the area again violates the 1997 annual 

or 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for 

suspending any remaining SIP 

obligations would no longer apply. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request 

for Public Comment 

The EPA proposes to determine, 

based on the most recent three years 

(2011–2013) of complete (or otherwise 

validated), quality-assured, and certified 

data meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N, that the South 

Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In conjunction with and based upon 

our proposed determination that the 

South Coast area has attained and is 

currently attaining the standard, the 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

obligation to submit any remaining 

attainment-related SIP revisions arising 

from classification of the South Coast as 

a moderate nonattainment area under 

subpart 4 of part D (of title I of the Act) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is not 

applicable for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. These attainment-related 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, 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), and the RFP 

provisions of section 189(c). This 

proposed action, if finalized, would not 

constitute a redesignation to attainment 

under CAA section 107(d)(3). 

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document or on other relevant 

matters. We will accept comments from 

the public on this proposal for the next 

30 days. We will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality and to suspend certain 

federal requirements, and thus, would 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

obligations discussed herein do not 

apply to Indian tribes and thus this 

proposed action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 20, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28709 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0479; FRL–9919–92– 

OAR] 

Delay in Issuing 2014 Standards for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of delay in issuing 

standards. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing that it will 

not be finalizing 2014 applicable 

percentage standards under the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

program before the end of 2014. In light 

of this delay in issuing the 2014 RFS 

standards, the compliance 

demonstration deadline for the 2013 

RFS standards will take place in 2015. 

EPA will be making modifications to the 

EPA-Moderated Transaction System 

(EMTS) to ensure that Renewable 

Identification Numbers (RINs) generated 

in 2012 are valid for demonstrating 

compliance with the 2013 applicable 

standards. 

DATES: December 9, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

MacAllister, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, Assessment and 

Standards Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood 

Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone 

number: (734) 214–4131; Fax number: 

(734) 214–4816; Email address: 

macallister.julia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 29, 2013, at 78 FR 71732, 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to establish the 2014 RFS 

standards.1 The proposal has generated 

significant comment and controversy, 

particularly about how volumes should 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS