45076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: The public hearings will be held 

on August 19, 2010, August 26, 2010, 

and September 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The August 19, 2010 

hearing will be held at the Wyndham, 

Chicago in the Grand Ballroom, Salon C 

located at 633 North St. Clair, Chicago, 

IL 60611; Telephone: 312–573–0300. 

The August 26, 2010, hearing will be 

held at the Radisson Plaza—Warwick 

Hotel Philadelphia in the Crystal 

Ballroom located at 1701 Locust Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103; Telephone: 

215–735–6000. The September 1, 2010, 

hearing will be held at the Renaissance 

Downtown Atlanta located at 590 West 

Peachtree Street, NW., Atlanta, GA 

30308; Telephone: 404–881–6000. The 

three public hearings will convene at 9 

a.m. and continue until 8 p.m. (local 

time). The EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers that arrive 

and register before 8 p.m. A lunch break 

is scheduled from 12:30 p.m. until 2 

p.m. and a dinner break is scheduled 

from 5 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. during the 

hearings. The EPA Web site for the 

rulemaking, which includes the 

proposal and information about the 

public hearings, can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you would like to present oral testimony 

at the public hearing, please contact Ms. 

Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Planning Division, (C504–03), Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–0641, fax number (919) 541– 

5509, e-mail address: long.pam@epa.gov 

(preferred method for registering), no 

later than 2 business days prior to each 

public hearing. The last day to register 

will be Tuesday, August 17, 2010, for 

the Chicago, Illinois, hearing, Tuesday, 

August 24, 2010, for the Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, hearing, and Monday, 

August 30, 2010, for the Atlanta, 

Georgia, hearing. If using e-mail, please 

provide the following information: Time 

you wish to speak (morning, afternoon, 

evening), name, affiliation, address, email address, and telephone and fax 

numbers. 

Questions concerning the August 2, 

2010, proposed rule should be 

addressed to Mr. Tim Smith, U.S. EPA, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Geographic Strategies Group, 

(C504–09), Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone number (919) 541– 

4718, e-mail at smith.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These 

public hearings are to provide the 

public with an opportunity to present 

oral comments regarding EPA’s 

proposed Transport Rule, which 

identifies and limits emissions of 

nitrogen oxides and/or sulfur dioxide in 

31 States and the District of Columbia 

that affect the ability of downwind 

States to attain and maintain 

compliance with the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Public hearing: The proposal for 

which EPA is holding the public 

hearings is published elsewhere in 

today’s issue of the Federal Register and 

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

airtransport and also in the docket 

identified below. The public hearings 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposal. The 

EPA may ask clarifying questions during 

the oral presentations, but will not 

respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at the public hearing. Written 

comments on the proposed rule must be 

postmarked by October 1, 2010. 

Commenters should notify Ms. Long if 

they will need specific equipment, or if 

there are other special needs related to 

providing comments at the hearings. 

The EPA will provide equipment for 

commenters to show overhead slides or 

make computerized slide presentations 

if we receive special requests in 

advance. Oral testimony will be limited 

to 5 minutes for each commenter. The 

EPA encourages commenters to provide 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via e-mail or CD) or in 

hard copy form. 

The hearing schedules, including lists 

of speakers, will be posted on EPA’s 

Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtransport. Verbatim transcripts of the 

hearings and written statements will be 

included in the docket for the 

rulemaking. 

EPA will make every effort to follow 

the schedule as closely as possible on 

the day of the hearings; however, please 

plan for the hearing to run either ahead 

of schedule or behind schedule. 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

the proposed rule ‘‘Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone’’ under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491 (available at 

http://www.regulations.gov). 

As stated previously, the proposed 

rule was published in the Federal 

Register on August 2, 2010, and is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtransport and in the above-cited 

docket. 

Dated: July 26, 2010. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18780 Filed 7–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2009–0659; 

FRL–9183–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; 

Determination of Attainment of the 

1997 Fine Particle Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the New York–N. New Jersey–Long 

Island, NY–NJ–CT fine particle (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 annual fine particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This proposed determination 

is based upon quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that shows the area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. If this proposed 

determination is made final, the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, reasonably 

available control measures, reasonable 

further progress plan, and contingency 

measures related to attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS shall be suspended 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2009–0659, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 45077 

1On July 7, 2009, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit rendered its decisions 

in the PM2.5 Designations Litigation, Catawba 

County, NC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (DC Cir. 2009). The 

Court denied all of the petitions for review except 

Rockland County, New York and remanded the 

designation of Rockland County to EPA for further 

explanation of its designation. 

2New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut 

submitted their attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures, reasonable 

further progress plan and contingency measures SIP 

for this area on October 27, 2009, April 1, 2009, and 

November 18, 2008, respectively. EPA has not yet 

taken action on these submittals. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2009– 

0659. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning today’s 

proposed action related to New York or 

New Jersey, please contact Henry 

Feingersh, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, telephone number 

(212)637–3382, fax number (212) 637– 

3901, e-mail feingersh.henry@epa.gov. 

If you have questions concerning 

today’s proposed action related to 

Connecticut, please contact Alison C. 

Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square–Suite 100, Mail Code 

OEP05–02, Boston, MA 02109–3912, 

telephone number (617) 918–1684, fax 

number (617) 918–0684, e-mail 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

detailed information regarding this 

proposal, EPA prepared a Technical 

Support Document (TSD). The TSD can 

be viewed at http://www.regulations. 

gov. 

The following table of contents 

describes the format of this notice: 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

II. What Is the Effect of This Action? 

III. What Is the Background for This Action? 

IV. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant 

Air Quality Data? 

V. How Did EPA Address Missing Data? 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment 

area, referred to from this point forward 

as the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment 

area, has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. This proposed determination 

is based upon quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show that the area 

has monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. The New York 

portion of the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area contains the 

counties of Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New 

York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, 

Rockland,1 Suffolk, and Westchester. 

The New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area contains the 

counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, 

Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, 

Passaic, Somerset, and Union. The 

Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the 

counties of Fairfield and New Haven. 

II. What Is the Effect of This Action? 

If this determination is made final, 

under the provisions of EPA’s PM2.5

implementation rule (see 40 CFR 

51.1004(c)), the requirements for the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

submit an attainment demonstration, 

reasonably available control measures, 

reasonable further progress plan, and 

contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS will be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS.2

As further discussed below, the 

proposed determination, if finalized, 

would: (1) Suspend the requirements for 

the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

reasonably available control measures, 

reasonable further progress plan, and 

contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; 

(2) continue until such time, if any, that 

EPA subsequently determines that the 

area has violated the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS; (3) be separate from the 

designation determination or 

requirements for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area based on the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect 

regardless of EPA’s designation of this 

area as a nonattainment area for 

purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Furthermore, as described below, any 

such final determination would not be 

equivalent to the redesignation of the 

area to attainment based on the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If this rulemaking is finalized and 

EPA subsequently determines, after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking in the 

Federal Register, that the area has 

violated the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the basis for the suspension of the 

specific requirements, set forth at 40 

CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer exist, 

and the area would thereafter have to 

address the pertinent requirements. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
45078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3 In response to legal challenges against the 

annual standard promulgated in 2006, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

remanded this standard to EPA for further 

consideration. (See American Farm Bureau 

Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et 

al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (DC. Cir. 2009).) However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 annual standards are 

essentially identical, attainment of the 1997 annual 

standard would also signify attainment of the 

remanded 2006 annual standard. 

The determination that EPA proposes 

with this Federal Register action, that 

the air quality data shows attainment of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, is not 

equivalent to the redesignation of the 

area to attainment. This proposed 

action, if finalized, would not constitute 

a redesignation to attainment under 

section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), because we would not yet have 

approved a maintenance plan for the 

area as required under section 175A of 

the CAA, nor a determination that the 

area has met the other requirements for 

redesignation. The designation status of 

the area would remain nonattainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until 

such time as EPA determines that it 

meets the CAA requirements for 

redesignation to attainment. 

This proposed action, if finalized, is 

limited to a determination that the NY– 

NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS became 

effective on September 16, 1997 (62 FR 

38652, July 18, 1997) and are set forth 

at 40 CFR 50.7. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

became effective on December 18, 2006 

(71 FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006) and are set 

forth at 40 CFR 50.13.3 Effective 

December 14, 2009, EPA made 

designation determinations, as required 

by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13, 

2009). Of relevance to the proposed 

rulemaking herein, in 74 FR 58688 EPA 

clarified the designations for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS by relabeling the existing 

designation tables to identify 

designations for the annual 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (i.e., 15.0 μg/m3) and the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 65 μg/m3). 

This proposed determination that the 

NY–NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

has attained the annual 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, and any final determination, 

will have no effect on, and is not related 

to, the designation determination that 

EPA has made based on the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Conversely, the designation 

based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, will 

not have any effect on the determination 

proposed by this action. 

If this proposed determination is 

made final and the NY–NJ–CT PM2.5

nonattainment area continues to 

monitor attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the 

area to submit attainment 

demonstrations, reasonably available 

control measures, reasonable further 

progress plans, and contingency 

measures related to attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would remain 

suspended, even though EPA designated 

this area as a nonattainment area for 

purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Areas designated for the 2006 NAAQS 

will have to meet all applicable 

requirements for that designation. 

III. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

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

established a health-based PM2.5

NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

EPA established the standards based on 

significant evidence and numerous 

health studies demonstrating that 

serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to particulate matter. 

The process for designating areas 

following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS is contained in section 

107(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA and state air 

quality agencies initiated the monitoring 

process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

1999, and developed all air quality 

monitors by January 2001. On January 5, 

2005, (70 FR 944), EPA published its air 

quality designations and classifications 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon 

air quality monitoring data from those 

monitors for calendar years 2001–2003. 

These designations became effective on 

April 5, 2005. 

On November 13, 2009, EPA clarified 

the designations for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (74 FR 58688), stating that the 

NY–NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area is 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and attainment/ 

unclassifiable for the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 81.333). 

This proposed determination addresses 

the 1997 annual standard only. On April 

25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA 

promulgated its PM2.5 implementation 

rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

Z, in which the Agency provided 

guidance for state and tribal plans to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

This rule, at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), 

specifies some of the regulatory 

consequences of a determination of 

attainment of the standard. 

IV. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Relevant Air Quality Data? 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent 

with the requirements contained in 40 

CFR part 50 and recorded in the EPA 

Air Quality System database for the NY– 

NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area from 

2001 through the present time. 

On the basis of that review, EPA has 

concluded that this area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

data for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

50.7: The annual primary and secondary 

PM2.5 standards are met when the 

annual arithmetic mean concentration, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than 

or equal to 15.0 μg/m3. 

Table 1 shows the design values by 

county (i.e., the 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations) for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY–NJ–CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors for 

the years 2001 through 2009. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES BY COUNTY FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT MONITORS IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (μG/M3). THE STANDARD FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS IS 15.0 μG/M3

County 01–03 

DV 

02–04 

DV 

03–05 

DV 

04–06 

DV 

05–07 

DV 

06–08 

DV 

07–09 

DV 

Bronx .................................................................................................. 15.7 15.2 15.7 15.1 15.5 14.3 13.9 

Kings .................................................................................................. 14.7 14.2 14.6 14.0 14.0 12.9 12.2 

Nassau ............................................................................................... 12.2 11.7 12.1 11.5 11.4 10.9 10.3 

New York 4 ......................................................................................... 17.5 16.7 17.0 15.7 15.9 14.9 14.0 

Orange ............................................................................................... 11.5 11.1 11.4 10.8 10.8 10.0 9.3 

Queens ............................................................................................... INC 12.8 12.7 12.1 11.8 11.3 10.6 

Richmond ........................................................................................... 12.0 11.5 11.8 13.4 13.2 12.4 11.6 

Rockland ............................................................................................ NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 45079 

4The monitor in New York County located at 

Public School 59 (PS 59) was the highest reading 

monitor at the time EPA made designations for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005. Midway 

through 2008, the monitor at PS 59 was shut down 

due to the demolition of the building site. 

Therefore, the data up until 2008 was from PS 59. 

Missing 2008 data had an effect on calculating the 

design value for the annual standard. EPA 

developed an alternative procedure to determine 

the design value for the annual standard. This 

procedure used data representative of PS 59 based 

on EPA’s statistical analysis. A description of the 

alternate procedure can be found in Section V. 

Detailed information on this alternative procedure 

can be found in the Technical Support Document. 

5The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center 

station in Essex County was discontinued on July 

24, 2008 due to an unexpected loss of access, and 

replaced with a new monitor at the Newark 

Firehouse. PM2.5 monitoring was established at the 

firehouse on May 13, 2009. Since three years of data 

was not collected at either monitoring site for 2006– 

08, and 2007–09, Essex County is listed as INC for 

the most recent three year periods. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES BY COUNTY FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS FOR THE NY-NJ-CT MONITORS IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (μG/M3). THE STANDARD FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS IS 15.0 μG/M3— 

Continued 

County 01–03 

DV 

02–04 

DV 

03–05 

DV 

04–06 

DV 

05–07 

DV 

06–08 

DV 

07–09 

DV 

Suffolk ................................................................................................ 12.1 11.3 11.5 INC INC 10.5 9.7 

Westchester ....................................................................................... 12.3 11.7 11.9 11.6 11.7 11.2 10.6 

Bergen ................................................................................................ INC 12.8 13.3 12.8 13.2 12.2 11.3 

Essex 5 ............................................................................................... INC 13.5 INC 13.2 13.3 INC INC 

Hudson ............................................................................................... 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.1 14.0 14.1 13.1 

Mercer ................................................................................................ 13.8 13.0 13.0 12.7 12.5 11.9 10.8 

Middlesex ........................................................................................... 12.4 11.8 12.5 11.8 12.1 11.3 10.4 

Monmouth .......................................................................................... NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Morris ................................................................................................. INC 11.6 11.9 11.2 11.3 10.3 9.6 

Passaic ............................................................................................... INC 12.9 13.1 12.6 12.9 12.3 11.3 

Somerset ............................................................................................ NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 

Union .................................................................................................. 15.5 15.3 15.5 14.8 14.4 13.6 12.6 

Fairfield .............................................................................................. 13.1 12.7 13.3 13.2 13.2 12.4 11.3 

New Haven ........................................................................................ 13.9 13.4 13.5 13.0 12.8 12.2 11.4 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

INC—All counties listed as INC for time period did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement, and had not previously shown violations of the NAAQS from years 2001–2003 to present. 

EPA’s review of these data indicates 

that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment 

area has met and continues to meet the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. How did EPA address missing data? 

Data handling conventions and 

computations necessary for determining 

whether areas have met the PM2.5

NAAQS, including requirements for 

data completeness, are listed in 

Appendix N of 40 CFR part 50. A year 

meets data completeness requirements 

when at least 75 percent of the 

scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. The use of less 

than complete data is subject to the 

approval of EPA, which may consider 

factors such as monitoring site closures/ 

moves, monitoring diligence, and 

nearby concentrations in determining 

whether to use such data as set forth at 

40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 

4.1(c). 

The building on which the design 

value monitor (PS 59) for the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area was located 

was demolished midway through 2008. 

This was a planned shutdown and 

although New York could have shut it 

down at the beginning of the year, the 

state chose to continue it as long as 

possible to collect data. Unfortunately, 

the monitor at this location can not be 

replaced, because the roof of the new 

building is too far above sidewalk level 

to serve as a valid monitoring site under 

40 CFR part 86 appendix E. NY and EPA 

tried but could not locate a suitable 

replacement monitoring site in the 

immediate vicinity of PS 59 that would 

also meet siting criteria. 

A method was developed, therefore, 

to use less than complete data to 

determine if the design value monitor 

would be in attainment if it had 

continued to operate. The approach 

summarized in this section, and further 

described in the TSD, may or may not 

be appropriate for other areas with less 

than complete data. EPA will evaluate 

the appropriateness of this analytical 

approach for each area with less than 

complete data on a case-by-case basis. 

Monitoring Network 

EPA has determined that the PM2.5

monitoring network for the NY–NJ–CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area is adequate. 

First, the number of monitors in the area 

far exceeds the minimum regulatory 

requirements. While three monitors are 

required in the nonattainment area, the 

area currently has 39 monitoring 

locations. The States of New York, New 

Jersey, and Connecticut have been very 

diligent in the number and placement of 

PM2.5 monitors in the nonattainment 

area. Secondly, EPA meets annually 

with each state to discuss any problems 

or issues concerning the State’s air 

monitoring data and/or network. In 

addition, EPA and the States 

communicate many times during the 

year so that issues can be addressed as 

they show up. Thirdly, EPA regulations 

require states to submit annual network 

plans to their respective Regions. These 

plans outline the current networks and 

any proposed changes in the upcoming 

18 months. Regions 1 and 2 have always 

been able to approve these plans due to 

the high quality of the New York, New 

Jersey and Connecticut monitoring 

networks. Copies of the approved 

annual network review letters can be 

seen in the TSD. 

Methodology 

The method used to determine the 

design value for PS 59 involves 

establishing a linear relationship 

between PS 59 and another site in the 

NY–NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

that has more complete data for the 

missing period and has a substantial 

number of samples in common over the 

period of interest. The monitor in the 

nonattainment area that had the highest 

correlation with PS 59 was used to 

develop a regression equation. The 

regression equation was used to 

estimate values for the missing quarters 

of data for PS 59. The design value for 

PS 59 was then calculated using the 

estimated values to fill in for the 

missing quarters. The estimated design 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
45080 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

value was then analyzed using a 

bootstrapping statistical method. 

Bootstrapping involves the use of 

regression residuals and repeating the 

regression analysis 1,000 times. There 

were no exceedances of the NAAQS as 

a result of the bootstrapping analysis. 

The result of the analysis determined 

that the 2007–2009 design value for the 

NY–NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 

would be 14.0 μg/m3. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the NY–NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment 

area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

continues to attain the standard based 

on data through 2009. As provided in 40 

CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this 

determination, it would suspend the 

requirements for this area to submit 

attainment demonstrations, reasonably 

available control measures, reasonable 

further progress plans, and contingency 

measures related to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS so long as 

the area continues to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination based on air quality data, 

and would, if finalized, result in the 

suspension of certain Federal 

requirements. 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 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 22, 2010. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, Region 1. 

Dated: June 28, 2010. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18885 Filed 7–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0596; FRL–9183–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from boilers, steam 

generators and process heaters with a 

rated heat input from 0.75 to less than 

2.0 MMbtu/hr. We are approving a local 

rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0596, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at 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 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available in 

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1