22666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Dated: April 2, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09365 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0175; FRL–9926–70– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Determination of 

Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Standard for the LibertyClairton Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a 

determination of attainment regarding 

the Liberty-Clairton, Pennsylvania 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘LibertyClairton Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’). EPA is 

proposing to determine that the LibertyClairton Area has attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS), based upon 

quality-assured, quality-controlled and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the calendar years 2012–2014. If EPA 

finalizes this ‘‘clean data 

determination,’’ the requirement for the 

Liberty-Clairton Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

reasonable further progress (RFP), and 

contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS would be suspended for so long 

as the Area continues to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If finalized, this 

determination will not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment. This 

proposed action is being taken under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0175 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0175, 

Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Program 

Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 

0175. 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 email. 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 email 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Liberty-Clairton 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22667 

1EPA previously made a determination of 

attainment for the Liberty-Clairton Area for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 78 FR 63881 (October 25, 

2013). 

2EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule relates to 

requirements for the NSR permitting program 

required by parts C and D of title I of the CAA. The 

details and provisions of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule 

are not relevant to this proposed rulemaking. 

3EPA subsequently withdrew the implementation 

guidance on June 6, 2013 subsequent to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA. EPA’s June 6, 

2013 withdrawal memorandum is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pdfs/

implementationguidancewithdrawmemo.pdf. 

Area has attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed ‘‘clean 

data determination’’ is based upon 

quality assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show the area has 

monitored attainment of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2012–2014 

monitoring period. If EPA finalizes this 

determination, the requirement for the 

Liberty-Clairton Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, 

and contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain that 

NAAQS. However, if finalized, this 

determination of attainment will not 

suspend Pennsylvania’s other required 

statutory obligations including 

requirements for an emissions inventory 

and preconstruction permitting program 

for the Liberty-Clairton Area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This final 

determination will not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment. The 

Liberty-Clairton Area will remain 

designated nonattainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time 

as EPA determines that the LibertyClairton Area meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation to 

attainment, including an approved 

maintenance plan under section 175A. 

II. Background 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS History 

On July 16, 1997, EPA established an 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS’’), based on a 3- 

year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations (62 FR 38652, July 18, 

1997). At that time, EPA also 

established a 24-hour standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’). See 40 CFR 

50.7. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS were 

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. On January 5, 

2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its 

nonattainment area designations for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon 

air quality monitoring data for calendar 

years 2001–2003. These designations, 

effective on April 5, 2005, included the 

Liberty-Clairton Area as a 

nonattainment area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Liberty-Clairton 

Area is comprised of the following 

portion of Allegheny County: the 

boroughs of Lincoln, Glassport, Liberty, 

and Port Vue and the City of Clairton. 

See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania). The 

Liberty-Clairton Area is surrounded by, 

but separate and distinct from, the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area.1

On September 21, 2006, EPA retained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 

mg/m3 (hereby ‘‘the 2006 annual PM2.5

NAAQS’’) based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 

promulgated a new 24-hour standard of 

35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations (71 FR 61144, October 

17, 2006). The revised 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard (hereafter ‘‘the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS’’) became effective 

on December 18, 2006. See 40 CFR 

50.13. The more stringent 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is based on significant 

evidence and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with short-term 

exposures to PM2.5 at this level. 

Many petitioners challenged aspects 

of EPA’s 2006 revisions to the PM2.5

NAAQS. See American Farm Bureau 

Federation and National Pork Producers 

Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 

(D.C. Cir. 2009). As a result of this 

challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) remanded the 2006 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA for further 

proceedings. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS was not affected by the remand 

and remains in effect. 

On November 13, 2009, EPA 

published designations for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688), 

which became effective on December 

14, 2009. In that action, EPA designated 

the Liberty-Clairton Area as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, retaining the same 

geographical boundaries as for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

A nonattainment designation under 

the CAA triggers additional planning 

requirements for states to show 

attainment of the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment areas by a statutory 

attainment date, as specified in the 

CAA. Since 2005, EPA had 

implemented the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS based on the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 

1). On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA 

(NRDC v. EPA), the D.C. Circuit 

determined that EPA should be 

implementing its PM2.5 pollution 

standard under additional CAA 

requirements than those EPA had been 

following in subpart 1 and remanded to 

EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (1997 PM2.5

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 (2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule).2 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

The D.C. Circuit found that the EPA 

erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS solely pursuant to subpart 1, 

without consideration of the particulate 

matter specific provisions of subpart 4 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 

4). 

Although the D.C. Circuit declined to 

establish a deadline for EPA’s response, 

EPA intends to respond promptly to the 

court’s remand and to promulgate new 

generally applicable implementation 

regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4. In the interim, 

however, states and EPA still need to 

proceed with implementation of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and effective 

fashion in order to meet statutory 

obligations under the CAA and to assure 

the protection of public health intended 

by those NAAQS. 

While the regulatory provisions of 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

do not explicitly apply to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA’s underlying 

statutory interpretation has been the 

same for both standards. On March 2, 

2012, EPA provided implementation 

guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS which reaffirmed and 

continued the framework and policy 

approaches of the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule.3 Thus, EPA 

believes that the Clean Data Policy 

provisions within the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule are also applicable 

to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 

78 FR 49403 (August 14, 2013) 

(proposed determination that the 

Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS which discussed the 

application of the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’s Clean Data 

Policy provisions to a determination of 

attainment for the 2006 standard). In 

addition, although the D.C. Circuit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4For an EPA memorandum discussing 

interpretation that three years of data showing 

attainment of a NAAQS suspends requirements to 

submit certain attainment plan SIP requirements 

including those in section 172 of the CAA, see 

Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of 

Air Quality Planning Standards, May 10, 1995 

(Seitz Memorandum), located at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf. 

5 ‘‘EPA’s Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardPhase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).’’ See 70 FR 71612, 

71645–46 (November 29, 2005). 

remanded the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule to EPA, the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA 

related to EPA’s use of subpart 1 for 

CAA Part D requirements instead of 

subpart 1 and subpart 4, and the 

decision did not cast doubt on EPA’s 

interpretation of certain statutory 

provisions underlying the Clean Data 

Policy nor cast any doubt on EPA’s 

Clean Data Policy interpretation in the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. See 

NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428. 

The statutory provisions in subpart 4 

require EPA, among other things, to 

classify nonattainment areas for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on the severity of 

their pollution problem. Under EPA’s 

prior approach to implementing the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 

according to subpart 1, EPA was not 

required to, and thus did not, identify 

any classifications for areas designated 

nonattainment. In contrast, subpart 4 of 

the CAA, at section 188, provides that 

all areas designated nonattainment are 

initially classified ‘‘by operation of law’’ 

as ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and 

they remain classified as Moderate 

nonattainment areas unless and until 

EPA later reclassifies them as Serious 

nonattainment areas or EPA determines 

that an area has not attained the PM2.5

NAAQS by the area’s applicable 

attainment date. On April 25, 2014, EPA 

finalized a rule identifying the 

classification of all PM2.5 areas currently 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as ‘‘Moderate,’’ 

consistent with subpart 4 of the CAA. 

See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 

Consequently, the Liberty-Clairton Area 

was classified as Moderate for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

B. Determination of Attainment of the 

2006 24-Hour NAAQS 

Under section 188(c)(1) of the CAA, a 

Moderate nonattainment area shall 

attain the PM2.5 NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than the end of the sixth calendar year 

after the area’s designation to 

nonattainment. Because the designation 

of nonattainment areas for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on 

December 14, 2009, the presumptive 

sixth year attainment date for Moderate 

nonattainment areas would be no later 

than December 2015. 

To determine attainment with a 

NAAQS, EPA commonly uses three 

calendar years of complete air quality 

data available for the nonattainment 

area. The criteria for determining if an 

area is attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS are set out in 40 CFR 50.13 and 

appendix N. In summary, the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24- 

hour design value is less than or equal 

to 35 mg/m3. Three years of valid annual 

98th percentile 24-hour average PM2.5

concentration values are required to 

produce a valid 24-hour PM2.5 design 

value. A year meets data completeness 

requirements when at least 75 percent of 

the scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. 

C. EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

Under EPA’s longstanding Clean Data 

Policy interpretation, a determination 

that a nonattainment area has attained 

the NAAQS suspends the state’s 

obligation to submit attainment-related 

planning requirements of the CAA for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard.4 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. 

EPA incorporated its Clean Data 

Policy interpretation in both its 8-Hour 

Ozone Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 

51.918 and in its 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). See 72 FR 20585, 20665 

(April 25, 2007). While the D.C. Circuit 

in its January 4, 2013 decision 

remanded the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court did not 

address the merits of that regulation 

regarding our Clean Data Policy in 40 

CFR 51.1004(c), nor cast any doubt on 

EPA’s existing interpretation of the 

statutory provisions for the Clean Data 

Policy. In this section of the proposed 

rulemaking action, EPA is addressing 

the effect of a final determination of 

attainment under the Clean Data Policy 

for the Liberty-Clairton Area, as a 

moderate nonattainment area under 

subpart 4. 

1. Background on Clean Data Policy 

Over the past two decades, 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 such as the 

Seitz Memorandum 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, coarse 

particulate matter (PM10), PM2.5, carbon 

monoxide (CO) and lead (Pb) standards. 

The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean 

Data Policy interpretation as embodied 

in EPA’s 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Implementation Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.5

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

2009). Other U.S. 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); and Latino Issues Forum, v. 

EPA, Nos. 06–75831 and 08–71238 (9th 

Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 

2009. 

In light of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit decision in NRDC v. EPA, EPA’s 

Clean Data Policy interpretation under 

subpart 4 is set forth here, for the 

purpose of identifying the effects of a 

determination of attainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the LibertyClairton Area. EPA has previously 

articulated its Clean Data Policy 

interpretation under subpart 4 in 

implementing the PM10 standard. See, 

e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) 

(determination of attainment of the 

PM10 standard in Coso Junction, 

California); 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 

2006) (Ajo, Arizona Area); 71 FR 13021 

(March 14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona Area); 

71 FR 40023 (July 14, 2006) (Weirton, 

West Virginia Area); 71 FR 44920 

(August 8, 2006) (Rillito, Arizona Area); 

71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) (San 

Joaquin Valley, California Area); 72 FR 

14422 (March 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona 

Area). 

EPA has recently articulated as well 

its Clean Data Policy interpretation 

under subpart 4 in implementing the 

PM2.5 standard, including specifically 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 

FR 25014 (May 2, 2014) (determination 

of attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Area, Pennsylvania) and 78 FR 63881 

(October 25, 2013) (determination of 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in Liberty-Clairton Area, 

Pennsylvania). Thus, EPA has 

established that, under subpart 4, an 

attainment determination suspends the 

obligations to submit an attainment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22669 

6See the Seitz Memorandum. 

7Thus, EPA believes 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 CAA. 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, 

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. 

demonstration, RACM, RFP contingency 

measures, and other measures related to 

attainment. 

2. Application of the Clean Data Policy 

to Attainment-Related Provisions of 

Subpart 4 

EPA initially set forth at length its 

rationale for applying the Clean Data 

Policy to PM10 under subpart 4 in EPA’s 

proposed and final rulemaking actions 

determining that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area attained the PM10

standard. 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, supra. Nos. 06–75831 and 08– 

71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, 

March 2, 2009. In rejecting the 

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 NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 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) 

(General Preamble). In the General 

Preamble, 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.’’ Id. These subpart 1 

requirements include, among other 

things, provisions for attainment 

demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. 

EPA has long interpreted the 

provisions of subpart 1 (sections 171 

and 172) as not requiring the 

submission of RFP for an area already 

attaining the ozone NAAQS.6 For an 

area that is attaining, showing that the 

state will make RFP towards attainment 

‘‘will, therefore, have no meaning at that 

point.’’ Id. See also 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. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 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.7

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 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 Seitz 

Memorandum with respect to the 

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

In the Seitz Memorandum, EPA also 

noted that section 182(g), the milestone 

requirement of subpart 2, which is 

analogous to provisions in section 

189(c), is suspended upon a 

determination that an area has attained. 

The Seitz Memorandum, in citing 

additional provisions related to 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements, stated: 

Inasmuch as each of these requirements is 

linked with the attainment demonstration or 

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

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

requirement to submit the underlying 

attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it 

need not submit the related SIP submission 

either. 

See Seitz Memorandum at 5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

22670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

8See section 182(c)(9) for ozone. 

9EPA’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 in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743–745 (5th Cir. 

2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 

162–163 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

With respect to the attainment 

demonstration requirements of section 

172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B) in 

subpart 4, an analogous rationale leads 

to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) 

requires that the plan provide for ‘‘a 

demonstration (including air quality 

modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date . . . ’’ As with the RFP 

requirements, if an area is already 

monitoring attainment of the standard, 

EPA believes there is no need for an 

area to make a further submission 

containing additional measures to 

achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the 

section 172(c) requirements provided by 

EPA in the General Preamble, and the 

section 182(b) and (c) requirements set 

forth in the Seitz Memorandum. As EPA 

stated in the General Preamble, no other 

measures to provide for attainment 

would be needed by areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment since 

‘‘attainment will have been reached.’’ 57 

FR 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 

section 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted 

the contingency measure requirements 

of section 172(c)(9) 8 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.’’ 

See 57 FR 13564 and Seitz 

Memorandum, pp. 5–6. 

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]. 

The 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 

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 EPA 

interprets section 172(c)(1) so that 

RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’ 

of an area’s attainment demonstration. 

Thus, for the same reason the 

attainment demonstration no longer 

applies by its own terms, the 

requirement for RACM no longer 

applies. EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of potential RACM 

measures that could contribute to 

reasonable further progress or to 

attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR 

13498. Thus, where an area is already 

attaining the standard, no additional 

RACM measures are required.9 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 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 

requirement to submit the pertinent SIP 

revision or revisions and would need to 

address those requirements. Thus, a 

final determination that the area need 

not submit one of the pertinent SIP 

submittals amounts to no more than a 

suspension of the requirements for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. Only if and when EPA 

redesignates the area to attainment 

would the area be relieved of these 

submission obligations. Attainment 

determinations under the Clean Data 

Policy do not shield an area from 

obligations unrelated to attainment in 

the area, such as provisions to address 

nonattainment area permitting 

requirements, emission inventory 

requirements, and pollution transport. 

See 79 FR 77911 (December 29, 2014) 

(discussion of remaining attainment 

plan SIP requirements in CAA section 

172(c) in the final determination of 

attainment rulemaking for the Lyons, 

Pennsylvania lead nonattainment area). 

For this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA has evaluated PM2.5 air quality data 

to propose to determine that the LibertyClairton Area is attaining the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the LibertyClairton PM2.5 Air Quality Data 

The Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD) submitted qualityassured and certified air quality 

monitoring data into the EPA Air 

Quality System (AQS) database for the 

2012–2014 monitoring period. There are 

two PM2.5 monitors in the LibertyClairton Area—one in Liberty Borough 

and one in the City of Clairton. Both 

monitors had complete data for all 

quarters in the calendar years 2012 

through 2014. 

This proposed determination of 

attainment for the Liberty-Clairton Area 

is based on EPA’s evaluation of qualitycontrolled, quality assured, certified 

PM2.5 air quality data for 2012–2014, as 

summarized in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—2012–2014 LIBERTY-CLAIRTON AREA DAILY PM2.5 MONITORING DATA & COMPLETENESS

Monitor name AQS site ID Location 

98th percentile 2012–2014 

Design value 

(μg/m3) 

Complete 

data? 2012 2013 2014 

Liberty ..................... 42–003–0064 Liberty Borough ...... 42.5 31.1 32.2 35 Yes. 

Clairton .................... 42–003–3007 City of Clairton ....... 19.2 17.1 31.2 23 Yes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22671 

As shown, the design values for both 

monitors in the Liberty-Clairton Area 

are 35 mg/m3 or less for the 2012–2014 

monitoring period. Thus, in accordance 

with EPA’s requirements in 40 CFR part 

50, the monitors in the Liberty-Clairton 

Area are showing attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the 

2012–2014 quality-assured and certified 

air quality data, the most recent three 

years of data for the Area. 

Based on our review of the LibertyClairton Area’s PM2.5 ambient air 

monitoring data, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Liberty-Clairton Area 

has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the 2012–2014 

monitoring period, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 50. Additional information 

on air quality data for the LibertyClairton Area can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) 

prepared for this proposed action. 

IV. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine, based 

on the most recent three years of 

complete quality-assured, and certified 

data for 2012–2014 meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, that the Liberty-Clairton 

Area is currently attaining the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In accordance with 

our Clean Data Policy, based upon this 

proposed determination of attainment, 

EPA also proposes to determine that the 

obligation to submit the following 

attainment-related planning 

requirements for the Liberty-Clairton 

Area are not applicable for so long as 

the Area continues to monitor 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS: Subpart 4 obligations to 

provide an attainment demonstration 

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

RACM provisions of section 

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

section 189(c), and related attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP, and 

contingency measure provisions 

requirements of subpart 1, section 172. 

If in the future, EPA determines after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking that 

the Liberty-Clairton Area again violates 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

basis for suspending these requirements 

would no longer exist. This proposed 

rulemaking action, if finalized, would 

not constitute a redesignation to 

attainment under CAA section 

107(d)(3). In addition, this 

determination, if finalized, does not 

relieve the requirement for 

Pennsylvania to submit for the LibertyClairton Area an emissions inventory as 

required by CAA section 172(c)(3) or to 

have a nonattainment area permitting 

program pursuant to CAA sections 

172(c)(5) and 173. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does 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 EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

proposing to determine that the LibertyClairton Area has attained the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: April 10, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09416 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0924; FRL–9924–78– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Feather River Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Feather River Air 

Quality Management District 

(FRAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from rice straw burning, 

boilers, steam generators, process 

heaters, stationary internal combustion 

engines, surfacing preparation and 

cleanup solvents, and wood product 

coating operations. We are proposing to 

approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by May 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0924, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS