91088 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Utah. 

Dated: November 30, 2016. 

J.E. Ryan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–30342 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 and 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0515; FRL–9956–20– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT24 

Determinations of Attainment by the 

Attainment Date, Determinations of 

Failure To Attain by the Attainment 

Date and Reclassification for Certain 

Nonattainment Areas for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing 

determinations of attainment by the 

attainment date and determinations of 

failure to attain by the attainment date 

for eleven areas currently classified as 

‘‘Moderate’’ for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing to determine that seven areas 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by December 31, 2015, based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

PM2.5 monitoring data for 2013–2015. 

The EPA is also proposing to determine 

that four areas failed to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 

2015. Upon finalization of such 

determinations of failure to timely attain 

the NAAQS, these four areas will be 

reclassified as ‘‘Serious’’ for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by operation of 

law. Within 18 months from the 

effective date of reclassification, or 2 

years before the applicable Serious area 

attainment date, whichever is earlier, 

states with jurisdiction over these areas 

must submit State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions that comply with the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 17, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2016–0515, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Leigh Herrington, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Mail code C539–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–0882; fax number: 

(919) 541–5315; email address: 

herrington.leigh@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What information should I know about 

a possible public hearing? 

II. Summary of Proposal and Background 

A. Summary of Proposal 

B. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

III. Criteria for Determining Whether an Area 

Has Attained the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

Standards 

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action and 

Associated Rationale 

A. Determinations of Attainment 

B. Determinations of Failure To Attain and 

Reclassification 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(URMA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action include states (typically state air 

pollution control agencies) and, in some 

cases, tribal governments. In particular, 

seven states 1 with one or more areas 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS are affected by this 

action. Entities potentially affected 

indirectly by this proposal include 

owners or operators of sources of 

emissions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5

precursors (ammonia, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide and volatile organic 

compounds) that contribute to fine 

particulate levels within the designated 

nonattainment areas the EPA is 

addressing in this action. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be confidential 

business information (CBI). For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed to be 

CBI must be submitted for inclusion in 

the public docket. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 91089 

2An area’s highest design value for the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is the highest of the 3-year average 

of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average PM2.5

mass concentration values recorded at each eligible 

monitoring site (40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 

1.0(c)(2)). 

3According to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 

3.0(a), ‘‘data not certified by the reporting 

organization can nevertheless be used, if the 

deadline for certification has passed and EPA 

judges the data to be complete and accurate.’’ 

4The EPA notes that 2013–2015 monitoring data 

indicate that the Imperial County, California 

nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Prior to 2013, the EPA requested 

that the California Air Resources Board and 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 

increase sampling frequency at the monitor from 1 

in 3 days to daily, but CARB and ICAPCD did not 

start daily sampling until 2014. This does not affect 

the validity of the design value because daily 

sampling was not required under the monitoring 

regulations that applied at the time. Further, a 

separate calculation based on daily sampling data 

collected in 2013 at a collocated non-regulatory 

monitor yields a similar 98th percentile value for 

2013 as the primary regulatory monitor. See Memo 

from Michael Flagg, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, ‘‘Implementation of PM2.5

sampling frequency requirements in Imperial 

County,’’ November 1, 2016. This memo is within 

the rulemaking docket. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/ 

pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pmimplementation-regulatory-actions. 

D. What information should I know 

about a possible public hearing? 

To request a public hearing or 

information pertaining to a public 

hearing on this document, contact Ms. 

Pamela Long at (919) 541–0641 before 5 

p.m. on January 3, 2017. If requested, 

further details concerning a public 

hearing for this proposed rule will be 

published in a separate Federal Register 

notice. For updates and additional 

information on a public hearing, please 

check the EPA’s Web site for this 

rulemaking at https://www.epa.gov/pmpollution/particulate-matter-pmimplementation-regulatory-actions. 

II. Summary of Proposal and 

Background 

A. Summary of Proposal 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 188(b)(2) 

requires the EPA to determine whether 

any PM2.5 nonattainment area classified 

as ‘‘Moderate’’ attained the relevant 

PM2.5 standard by the area’s attainment 

date, and requires EPA to make such 

determination within 6 months after 

that date.2 The CAA requires that a 

Moderate area that has not attained the 

standard by the relevant attainment date 

be reclassified to ‘‘Serious.’’ The 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value at 

each eligible monitoring site is less than 

or equal to 35 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3), as explained in Section 

III of this rulemaking action. 

In this notice, the EPA is proposing to 

find that seven Moderate areas attained 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2015, which is the 

applicable attainment date for these 

areas. This finding is based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

PM2.5 monitoring data for the 3-year 

period of 2013–2015.3 The seven areas 

are: (1) Chico, California; (2) Imperial 

County, California; 4 (3) KnoxvilleSevierville-La Follette, Tennessee; (4) 

Liberty-Clairton, Pennsylvania; (5) 

Nogales, Arizona; (6) Sacramento, 

California; and, (7) San Francisco Bay 

Area, California. The EPA is also 

proposing to find that four Moderate 

areas failed to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015: (1) 

Fairbanks, Alaska; (2) Logan, UtahIdaho; (3) Provo, Utah; and, (4) Salt Lake 

City, Utah. As required by CAA section 

188(b)(2), upon finalization of the EPA’s 

determinations that these areas failed to 

attain, these four areas will be 

reclassified to Serious by operation of 

law and will be subject to all applicable 

Serious area attainment planning and 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) requirements. Under CAA 

section 188(b)(2) and the EPA’s final 

rule, titled ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements’’ (81 FR 58010, August 

24, 2016), a state is required to make a 

SIP submission to address the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for any 

newly reclassified Serious area within 

18 months from the effective date of 

reclassification, or 2 years before the 

attainment date, whichever is earlier, 

and will be required to demonstrate that 

the area will attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but in this 

case no later than December 31, 2019, 

which is the end of the tenth calendar 

year following the effective date of 

designation of the area. 

The EPA also notes that CAA section 

188(d) provides a mechanism by which 

a state may request, and the EPA may 

grant, a 1-year extension of an area’s 

attainment date if the state meets certain 

criteria. While the state of Idaho 

submitted a request for a 1-year 

attainment date extension for the Logan, 

Utah-Idaho multi-state nonattainment 

area, the agency has determined that the 

state did not meet the criteria for a 

Moderate area 1-year attainment date 

extension provided in CAA section 

188(d), as explained more fully later. 

Accordingly, the EPA is including the 

Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment area 

in its list of areas for a proposed finding 

of failure to attain by December 31, 

2015. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

EPA’s proposed findings that would 

apply to these eleven areas. 

TABLE 1—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR ELEVEN MODERATE NONATTAINMENT

AREAS

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area 

2013–2015 

Design value 

(μg/m3) 

2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS status 

Chico, California ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Attained. 

Fairbanks, Alaska .................................................................................................................................... 124 Did not attain. 

Imperial County, California ...................................................................................................................... 33 Attained. 

Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, Tennessee .......................................................................................... 20 Attained. 

Liberty-Clairton, Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................. 33 Attained. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
91090 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 6 Id., 706 F.3d at 437. 

TABLE 1—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR ELEVEN MODERATE NONATTAINMENT

AREAS—Continued 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment area 

2013–2015 

Design value 

(μg/m3) 

2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS status 

Logan, Utah-Idaho ................................................................................................................................... * 50 Did not attain. 

Nogales, Arizona ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Attained. 

Provo, Utah ............................................................................................................................................. * 49 Did not attain. 

Sacramento, California ............................................................................................................................ 35 Attained. 

Salt Lake City, Utah ................................................................................................................................ * 45 Did not attain. 

San Francisco Bay Area, California ........................................................................................................ 30 Attained. 

* Data submitted to the EPA’s National Air Quality System (AQS) by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality for the period 2013–2015 

are incomplete, meaning there are fewer than 75 percent of the necessary data required for completion. However, the valid data provided by the 

state and submitted to AQS for 2013–2015 show a design value greater than 35 μg/m3. The EPA’s regulations governing the use of air quality 

data for regulatory purposes, located at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N 4.2(b), specify that 24-hour PM2.5 design values derived from less than 

complete data are valid if greater than the level of the standard. The EPA is thus basing this proposal on its determination that sufficient data 

exist to make findings of failure to attain and reclassifications for all Utah nonattainment areas. The EPA calculated the design values for these 

areas using the available PM2.5 Federal Reference Method (FRM) data in AQS as of September 21, 2016. These design values may change as 

data validation efforts to include additional monitoring data are completed by Utah. A memo describing the agency’s treatment of these data, titled ‘‘Utah PM2.5 2013–2015 24-hour Design Concentrations Memo,’’ is included in the docket for this rulemaking. 

B. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

This proposed action relates to the 

ongoing efforts of states and the EPA to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS. Since the 

EPA’s initial promulgation of the 

NAAQS to address fine particles, there 

have been significant rulemaking and 

litigation developments that affect these 

ongoing efforts. In order to clarify the 

proper application of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements to this action, 

the EPA is providing a fuller 

explanation of the evolving 

implementation efforts. 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA established 

the first NAAQS for PM2.5 (the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS), including an annual 

standard of 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) 

standard of 65 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations (62 FR 38652). The EPA 

established the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on significant evidence and 

numerous health studies demonstrating 

the serious health effects associated 

with exposures to PM2.5. To provide 

guidance on the CAA requirements for 

state and tribal implementation plans to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

EPA promulgated the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) (hereinafter, 

the ‘‘2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’). 

The Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) subsequently filed a petition for 

review challenging certain aspects of 

this rule. 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by revising it to 35 mg/m3 and retained 

the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 

15.0 mg/m3 (71 FR 61144). Following 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, the EPA is required by the 

CAA to promulgate designations for 

areas throughout the U.S. in accordance 

with section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On 

November 13, 2009, the EPA designated 

31 areas across the U.S. with respect to 

the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(74 FR 58688), requiring states to 

prepare and submit attainment plans to 

meet those NAAQS. At the time of those 

designations, the states and the EPA 

were operating under the interpretations 

of the CAA set forth in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, which covered 

issues such as the timing of attainment 

plan submissions, the content of 

attainment plan submissions, and the 

relevant attainment dates. 

On March 2, 2012, the EPA issued its 

‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 

Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ to provide guidance to states 

on the development of attainment plans 

to demonstrate attainment with the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘March 2012 

Implementation Guidance’’). This 

guidance largely instructed states to rely 

on the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

in developing SIPs to demonstrate 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its 

decision with regard to the challenge by 

the NRDC to the EPA’s 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule. In NRDC v. EPA,5

the court held that the EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

pursuant only to the general 

implementation requirements of subpart 

1, rather than also to the 

implementation requirements specific to 

particulate matter (PM10) in subpart 4, 

part D of title I of the CAA (‘‘subpart 

4’’). The court reasoned that the plain 

meaning of the CAA requires 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS under subpart 4 because PM2.5

particles fall within the statutory 

definition of PM10 and thus 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS is 

subject to the same statutory 

requirements as the PM10 NAAQS. The 

court remanded the rule and instructed 

the EPA ‘‘to repromulgate these rules 

pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with 

this opinion.’’ 6

As a result of the NRDC v. EPA 

decision, the EPA withdrew its March 

2012 Implementation Guidance for 

implementation of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In so doing, the EPA 

advised states that the statutory 

requirements of subpart 4 apply to 

attainment plans for these NAAQS and 

reminded the states about pre-existing 

EPA guidance regarding the subpart 4 

requirements. One practical 

consequence of the application of 

subpart 4 to states with areas designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS is that the applicable 

statutory attainment date is governed by 

CAA section 188(c), which states that 

for areas classified as Moderate, the 

statutory attainment date is ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than the end of the sixth calendar year 

after the area’s designation as 

nonattainment.’’ Thus, for the areas at 

issue in this action, the latest possible 

statutory Moderate area attainment date 

was December 31, 2015. 

Consistent with the NRDC v. EPA 

decision, the EPA published a final rule 

on June 2, 2014, classifying all areas that 

were designated nonattainment for the 

1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards at the 

time as ‘‘Moderate’’ under subpart 4. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 91091 

7The three areas not addressed in this action are 

Klamath Falls, Oregon; Oakridge, Oregon; and, West 

Central Pinal, Arizona. The EPA issued a 

determination of attainment by the attainment date 

of December 31, 2014, for Klamath Falls, Oregon, 

on June 6, 2016 (See 81 FR 36176). The EPA issued 

a 1-year attainment date extension from December 

31, 2015, to December 31, 2016, for Oakridge, 

Oregon. See 81 FR 46612, July 18, 2016. The EPA 

designation for the West Central Pinal, Arizona area 

as nonattainment became effective March 7, 2011. 

See 76 FR 6056, February 3, 2011. Therefore, the 

latest attainment date applicable to this area under 

subpart 4 is December 31, 2017. 

8Technical Support Document Regarding PM2.5

Monitoring Data—Determinations of Attainment by 

the Attainment Date, Determinations of Failure to 

Attain by the Attainment Date and Reclassification 

For Certain Nonattainment Areas for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

9Consistent with the January 2013 NRDC v. EPA 

decision, the EPA reads the air quality criterion 

under CAA 188(d) for PM10 to also apply to PM2.5.

The form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is a 

percentile-based form and not a ‘‘one expected 

exceedance’’ form as is the PM10 NAAQS. The EPA 

interprets the statutory language to require a state 

seeking an attainment date extension for a Moderate 

nonattainment area for a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 

demonstrate that the area had clean data for that 

particular standard in the calendar year prior to the 

applicable attainment date for the area, rather than 

demonstrating that the area necessarily had no more 

than one exceedance of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

10See Letters from John H. Tippets, Director, 

Department of Environmental Quality, state of 

Idaho, to Dennis J. McLerran, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 10, on December 

Continued 

The EPA also established a due date of 

December 31, 2014, for states to submit 

attainment-related and NNSR SIP 

elements required for these areas 

pursuant to subpart 4. This rulemaking 

did not affect the statutory attainment 

dates imposed in subpart 4 and merely 

provided states with the opportunity to 

update or revise any prior attainment 

plan submissions, if necessary, to meet 

subpart 4 requirements in light of the 

2013 court decision. This rulemaking 

did not affect any action that the EPA 

had previously taken under CAA 

section 110(k) on a SIP for a PM2.5

nonattainment area. 

Currently, there are 14 nonattainment 

areas classified as Moderate for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 11 of which are 

addressed in this notice.7 The 

applicable statutory attainment date for 

these areas was as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2015. Pursuant to section 188(b)(2) 

of the CAA, within 6 months of the 

Moderate area attainment date, the EPA 

must (1) determine whether each area 

attained the standard by the attainment 

date, and (2) reclassify as a Serious 

nonattainment area any area that did not 

attain by the attainment date. 

III. Criteria for Determining Whether 

an Area Has Attained the 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 Standards 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix N, the 2006 primary and 

secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

met within a nonattainment area when 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value 

at each eligible monitoring site is less 

than or equal to 35 mg/m3. Three years 

of valid annual PM2.5 98th percentile 

mass concentrations are required to 

produce a valid 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

design value. 

The EPA’s determination of 

attainment is based upon data that have 

been collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in the EPA’s AQS database. 

Ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 3-year period must meet data 

completion criteria or data substitution 

criteria according to 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N. The ambient air quality 

monitoring data completeness 

requirements are met when quarterly 

data capture rates for all four quarters in 

a calendar year are at least 75 percent. 

However, Appendix N states that years 

shall be considered valid, 

notwithstanding quarters with less than 

complete data, if the resulting annual 

98th percentile value or resulting 24- 

hour NAAQS design value is greater 

than the level of the standard. 

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action and 

Associated Rationale 

The EPA is issuing this proposal 

pursuant to the agency’s statutory 

obligation under CAA section 188(b)(2) 

to determine whether 11 nonattainment 

areas have attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015. 

The agency’s proposed actions, and the 

rationale for these proposed actions, are 

described in the sections that follow. 

A. Determinations of Attainment 

The EPA evaluated data from air 

quality monitors in 11 areas classified as 

Moderate for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in order to determine the areas’ 

attainment status as of the applicable 

attainment date, December 31, 2015. 

Seven of the 11 nonattainment areas’ 

monitoring sites with valid data had a 

design value equal to or less than 35 mg/ 

m3 based on the 2013–2015 monitoring 

period. Thus, the EPA proposes to 

determine, in accordance with section 

188(b)(2) of the CAA, that these seven 

areas (listed in Table 1) have attained 

the standard by the applicable 

attainment date. The EPA’s 

determination is based upon 3 years’ 

worth of complete, quality-assured and 

certified data during the applicable 3- 

year period. The monitoring data for the 

3 years (2013 to 2015) used to calculate 

each monitor’s design value are 

provided in a technical support 

document (TSD) in the docket for this 

proposed action.8 Also, the EPA notes 

that these determinations of attainment 

do not constitute a redesignation to 

attainment. Redesignations require 

states to meet a number of additional 

statutory criteria, including the EPA 

approval of a state plan demonstrating 

maintenance of the air quality standard 

for 10 years after redesignation. As for 

all NAAQS, the EPA is committed to 

working with states that choose to 

submit redesignation requests for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is 

soliciting comments on these proposed 

determinations of attainment by the 

attainment date. 

B. Determinations of Failure To Attain 

and Reclassification 

The EPA is proposing to determine 

that the remaining four areas (listed in 

Table 1) failed to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. Each of these areas 

failed to attain because the 2013–2015 

design value for at least one monitor in 

each area exceeded the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. The TSD 

provided in the docket shows all 

monitoring data for the relevant years 

for each of these nonattainment areas as 

well as the 3-year design value 

calculations for each area. 

CAA section 188(b)(2) provides that a 

Moderate nonattainment area shall be 

reclassified by operation of law upon a 

determination by the EPA that such area 

failed to attain the relevant NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date. Based on 

quality-assured PM2.5 monitoring data 

from 2013–2015, described in the TSD 

for this proposal, the new classification 

applicable to each of these four areas 

would be ‘‘Serious.’’ Serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas are required to 

attain the standard as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the end of 

the tenth year after designation (which, 

in the case of these four areas, is 

December 31, 2019). 

Section 188(d) of the CAA states that 

the Administrator may extend the 

attainment date for 1 additional year if: 

‘‘(1) the State has complied with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the applicable 

implementation plan and (2) no more 

than one exceedance of the 24-hour 

NAAQS for PM10 has occurred in the 

area in the year preceding the Extension 

Year, and the annual mean 

concentration of PM10 in the area for 

such year is less than or equal to the 

standard level.’’ 9 The state of Idaho 

submitted two letters 10 to the EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
91092 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15, 2015 and February 26, 2016, regarding a 1-year 

extension of the attainment date for the Logan UTID nonattainment area. Copies of these letters are 

available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

11See ‘‘Final Technical Systems Audit Report for 

the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality,’’ 

January 16, 2015. This report is within the 

rulemaking docket. 

requesting a 1-year extension of the 

area’s Moderate attainment date for its 

portion of the Logan, UT-ID multi-state 

nonattainment area, asserting that the 

state has complied with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the Logan, Utah-Idaho 

nonattainment area in the applicable 

Idaho SIP and that all monitors in the 

area have a 98th percentile of 35 mg/m3

or less for the attainment year (2015). 

These letters are provided in the docket 

for this proposed action. 

CAA section 188(d)(2) air quality 

criterion requiring the area to meet the 

applicable NAAQS in the year 

preceding the extension year applies to 

‘‘the area’’ which, in the case of the 

Logan, Utah-Idaho, nonattainment area, 

includes regulatory monitors in both 

Franklin, Idaho, and Logan, Utah. In 

other words, the reference to ‘‘the area’’ 

is to the entire designated 

nonattainment area, not merely to a 

portion of it in one state. However, in 

its request, Idaho acknowledges that, 

‘‘. . . the validity of the Logan, Utah, 

monitor data is in question. Therefore, 

the Franklin monitor is the only 

regulatory monitor available for use in 

the (nonattainment area).’’ Idaho’s 

submission attempts to address 

concerns about the regulatory suitability 

of the Utah monitor with a statistical 

comparison of monitors in Utah and 

Idaho based on historical data. 

Because there are data completeness 

issues for the Utah monitoring sites in 

question for the first three quarters of 

2015, the nonattainment area as a whole 

lacks the necessary data for the EPA to 

determine that the air quality criterion 

has been satisfied for the entire 

nonattainment area. Moreover, because 

the historically high monitor is located 

on the Utah portion of the multi-state 

nonattainment area, as acknowledged by 

Idaho, the EPA believes that it is 

necessary to have complete data from 

the Utah monitor in order to determine 

whether the entire nonattainment area 

has a 98th percentile of 35 mg/m3 or less 

for the year prior to the attainment date 

(i.e., 2015). 

Further, with respect to the 2015 

monitoring data for the Franklin 

monitor, the EPA determined in 2015 

that temperature and relative humidity 

data for the FRM filter laboratory were 

not being archived as required by the 

Idaho Quality Assurance Plan and EPA 

regulations. The EPA’s audit 11

concluded that, due to this lack of 

laboratory data, FRM filter weight 

determinations and the resulting FRM 

concentration data cannot be confirmed 

to meet data quality objectives. Idaho 

concurred with this finding and 

subsequently changed the status of the 

affected data for 2011–2014 in AQS to 

‘‘non-regulatory.’’ The EPA therefore 

cannot confirm the accuracy of the 

monitoring data cited in Idaho’s request. 

The EPA has thus evaluated the 

information submitted by Idaho for its 

portion of the nonattainment area and 

the relevant monitoring data for the 

entire area for calendar year 2015 and 

has determined that the area does not 

meet the air quality criterion for a 1-year 

extension to the CAA section 188(c)(1) 

Moderate area attainment date. Given 

the lack of complete and valid data from 

Utah, and the lack of valid, historical 

data from Idaho, the EPA is unable to 

determine whether the entire 

nonattainment area has a 98th 

percentile of 35 mg/m3 or less for the 

year preceding the extension year. 

Therefore, the EPA has determined that 

Idaho’s request for a 1-year extension to 

the Moderate attainment date for the 

Idaho portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho 

nonattainment area should be denied, 

and is instead proposing to determine 

that the Logan, Utah-Idaho 

nonattainment area failed to attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. 

If the EPA determines that an area has 

failed to attain by its attainment date, 

CAA section 188(b)(2) requires that 

those areas be reclassified to Serious as 

of the time that the EPA publishes the 

notice identifying the areas that have 

failed to attain by their attainment date. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing that 

the following four Moderate areas failed 

to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by December 31, 2015, and will be 

reclassified to Serious: Fairbanks, 

Alaska; Logan Utah-Idaho; Provo, Utah 

and Salt Lake City, Utah. The EPA is 

taking comment on these proposed 

determinations of failure to attain and 

subsequent reclassifications of each of 

these four nonattainment areas from 

Moderate to Serious. 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

The actions proposed in this notice 

affect 11 nonattainment areas for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS currently 

classified as Moderate. The EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

following seven areas attained the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of December 31, 2015: (1) Chico, 

CA; (2) Imperial County, CA; (3) 

Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN; 

(4) Liberty-Clairton, PA; (5) Nogales, 

AZ; (6) San Francisco, CA and (7) 

Sacramento, CA. The EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the 

following four Moderate areas failed to 

attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

December 31, 2015, attainment date and 

thus will be reclassified to Serious: (1) 

Fairbanks, AK; (2) Logan UT-ID; (3) 

Provo, UT; and, (4) Salt Lake City, UT. 

The EPA is taking comment on these 

proposed determinations of attainment 

by the attainment date. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This 

proposed action to find that the 

Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

listed in Table 1 have failed to attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by their 

attainment date and to reclassify those 

areas as Serious PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas does not establish any new 

information collection burden. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. Determinations of attainment 

and the resulting reclassification of 

nonattainment areas by operation of law 

under section 188(b)(2) of the CAA do 

not in and of themselves create any new 

requirements. Instead, this rulemaking 

only makes a factual determination, and 

does not directly regulate any entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The EPA believes, as 

discussed previously in this document, 

that the finding of nonattainment is a 

factual determination based upon air 

quality considerations and that the 

resulting reclassification of an area and 

the associated required revisions to state 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 91093 

implementation plans must occur by 

operation of law. Thus, this action 

imposes no enforceable duty on any 

state, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This action 

merely proposes to determine whether 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas listed in Table 1 attained the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date and to reclassify as 

‘‘Serious’’ the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

nonattainment areas that did not do so. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. No tribal areas are 

implicated in the four areas that the 

EPA is proposing to find failed to attain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. The CAA 

and the Tribal Authority Rule establish 

the relationship of the federal 

government and tribes in developing 

plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule 

does nothing to modify that 

relationship. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action merely proposes to 

determine that four 2006 24-hour PM2.5

nonattainment areas, identified in Table 

1, did not attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard by their applicable attainment 

date and to reclassify these areas as 

Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. This action merely 

proposes to determine that four 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

(identified in Table 1) did not attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard by their 

applicable attainment date and to 

reclassify these areas as Serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This action merely proposes to 

determine that four 2006 24-hour PM2.5

nonattainment areas identified in Table 

1, did not attain by the applicable 

attainment date and to reclassify these 

nonattainment areas as Serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Fine 

particulate matter, Ammonia, Sulfur 

dioxides, Volatile organic compounds, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Fine 

particulate matter, Ammonia, Sulfur 

dioxides, Volatile organic compounds, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: December 1, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.131 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.131 Control Strategy and regulations: 

Fine Particle Matter. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the EPA has determined 

that, based on 2013–2015 ambient air 

quality data, the Nogales, AZ PM2.5

nonattainment area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met 

the requirement pursuant to CAA 

section 188((b)(2) to determine whether 

the area attained the standard. The EPA 

also has determined that the Nogales, 

AZ nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 188(b)(2). 

Subpart F—California 

■ 3. Section 52.247 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (i), (j), (k) and (l) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.247 Control Strategy and regulations: 

Fine Particle Matter. 

* * * * * 

(i) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the EPA 

has determined that, based on 2013– 

2015 ambient air quality data, the Chico, 

CA PM2.5 nonattainment area has 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date of 

December 31, 2015. Therefore, the EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 

CAA section 188((b)(2) to determine 

whether the area attained the standard. 

The EPA also has determined that the 

Chico, CA nonattainment area will not 

be reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 188(b)(2). 

(j) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the EPA 

has determined that, based on 2013– 

2015 ambient air quality data, the 

Imperial County, CA PM2.5

nonattainment area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met 

the requirement pursuant to CAA 

section 188(b)(2) to determine whether 

the area attained the standard. The EPA 

also has determined that the Imperial 

County, CA nonattainment area will not 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
91094 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

be reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 188(b)(2). 

(k) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the EPA has determined 

that, based on 2013–2015 ambient air 

quality data, the Sacramento, CA PM2.5

nonattainment area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met 

the requirement pursuant to CAA 

section 188(b)(2) to determine whether 

the area attained the standard. The EPA 

also has determined that the 

Sacramento, CA nonattainment area will 

not be reclassified for failure to attain by 

its applicable attainment date under 

section 188(b)(2). 

(l) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the EPA has determined 

that, based on 2013–2015 ambient air 

quality data, the San Francisco Bay, CA 

PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met 

the requirement pursuant to CAA 

section 188(b)(2) to determine whether 

the area attained the standard. The EPA 

also has determined that the San 

Francisco Bay, CA nonattainment area 

will not be reclassified for failure to 

attain by its applicable attainment date 

under section 188(b)(2). 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 4. Section 52.2059 is amended by 

adding paragraph (u) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2059 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(u) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the EPA has determined 

that, based on 2013–2015 ambient air 

quality data, the Liberty-Clairton, PA 

PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met 

the requirement pursuant to CAA 

section 188(b)(2) to determine whether 

the area attained the standard. The EPA 

also has determined that the LibertyClairton, PA nonattainment area will 

not be reclassified for failure to attain by 

its applicable attainment date under 

section 188(b)(2). 

* * * * * 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 5. Section 52.2231 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2231 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides 

and particulate matter. 

* * * * * 

(f) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the EPA has determined 

that, based on 2013–2015 ambient air 

quality data, the Knoxville-SeviervilleLa Follette, Tennessee PM2.5

nonattainment area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 2015. Therefore, the EPA has met 

the requirement pursuant to CAA 

section 188(b)(2) to determine whether 

the area attained the standard. The EPA 

also has determined that the KnoxvilleSevierville-La Follette, Tennessee 

nonattainment area will not be 

reclassified for failure to attain by its 

applicable attainment date under 

section 188(b)(2). 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations 

■ 7. Section 81.302 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Alaska—2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Fairbanks, AK’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.302 Alaska. 

* * * * * 

ALASKA—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

Fairbanks, AK: 

AQCR 09 Northern Alaska Intrastate: 

Fairbanks North Star Borough (part) ........................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 

The following townships and ranges:—MTRS 

F001N001—All Sections; —MTRS 

F001N001E—Sections 2–11, 14–23, 26–34; 

—MTRS F001N002—Sections 1–5, 8–17, 20– 

29, 32–36; —MTRS F001S001E—Sections 1, 

3–30, 32–36; —MTRS F001S001W—Sections 

1–30; —MTRS F001S002E—Sections 6–8, 

17–20, 29–36; —MTRS F001S002W—Sections 1–5, 8–17, 20–29, 32–33; —MTRS 

F001S003E—Sections 31–32; —MTRS 

F002N001E—Sections 31–35; —MTRS 

F002N001—Sections 28, 31–36; —MTRS 

F002N002—Sections 32–33, 36; —MTRS 

F002S001E—Sections 1–2; —MTRS 

F002S002E—Sections 1–17, 21–24; —MTRS 

F002S003E—Sections 5–8, 18 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 

2This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 91095 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 81.313 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Idaho—2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Franklin 

County, ID’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.313 Idaho. 

* * * * * 

IDAHO—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

Logan, UT-ID: 

Franklin County (part) ......................................................................... .................... Nonattainment .............. [DATE 30 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 

Begin in the bottom left corner (southwest) of the nonattainment area boundary, southwest corner of the PLSS-Boise 

Meridian, Township 16 South, Range 37 East, Section 25. 

The boundary then proceeds north to the northwest corner of 

Township 15 South, Range 37 East, Section 25; then the 

boundary proceeds east to the southeast corner of Township 

15 South, Range 38 East, Section 19; then north to the 

Franklin County boundary at the northwest corner of Township 13 South, Range 38 East, Section 20. From this point 

the boundary proceeds east 3.5 sections along the northern 

border of the county boundary where it then turns south 2 

sections, and then proceeds east 5 more sections, and then 

north 2 sections more. At this point, the boundary leaves the 

county boundary and proceeds east at the southeast corner 

of Township 13 South, Range 39 East, Section 14; then the 

boundary heads north 2 sections to northwest corner of 

Township 13 South, Range 39 east, Section 12; then the 

boundary proceeds east 2 sections to the northeast corner of 

Township 13 South, Range 40 East, Section 7. The boundary then proceeds south 2 sections to the northwest corner 

of Township 13 South, Range 40 East, Section 20; the 

boundary then proceeds east 6 sections to the northeast corner of Township 13 South, Range 41 East, Section 19. The 

boundary then proceeds south 20 sections to the southeast 

corner of Township 16 South, Range 41 East, Section 30. Finally, the boundary is completed as it proceeds west 20 sections along the southern Idaho state boundary to the southwest corner of the Township 16 South, Range 37 East, Section 25. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 

2This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 81.345 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Utah—2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Logan, UT-ID,’’ 

‘‘Provo, UT’’, and ‘‘Salt Lake City, UT’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.345 Utah. 

* * * * * 

UTAH—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

Logan, UT-ID: 

Cache County (part) .................................................... .................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 

All portions of Cache County west of and including any portion of the following townships located within Utah: Township 15 North Range 1 

East; Township 14 North Range 1 East; Township 13 North Range 1 East; Township 12 

North Range 1 East; Township 11 North 

Range 1 East; Township 10 North Range 1 

East; Township 9 North Range 1 East. 

Provo, UT: 

Utah County (part) ....................................................... .................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
91096 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

UTAH—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

The area of Utah County that lies west of the 

Wasatch Mountain Range (and this includes 

the Cities of Provo and Orem) with an eastern 

boundary for Utah County to be defined as the 

following Townships: Township 3 South Range 

1 East; Township 4 South Range 2 East; 

Township 5 South Range 3 East; Township 6 

South Range 3 East; Township 7 South Range 

3 East; Township 8 South Range 3 East; 

Township 9 South Range 3 East; Township 10 

South Range 2 East. 

Salt Lake City, UT: 

Box Elder County (part) ............................................... .................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 

The following Townships or portions thereof as 

noted (including Brigham City): Township 7 

North Range 2 West; Township 8 North Range 

2 West; Township 9 North Range 2 West; 

Township 10 North Range 2 West; Township 

11 North Range 2 West; Township 12 North 

Range 2 West; Township 13 North Range 2 

West; Township 9 North Range 3 West; Township 10 North Range 3 West; Township 11 

North Range 3 West; Township 12 North 

Range 3 West; Township 13 North Range 3 

West; Township 13 North Range 4 West; 

Township 12 North Range 4 West; Township 

11 North Range 4 West; Township 10 North 

Range 4 West; Township 9 North Range 4 

West; Township 13 North Range 5 West; 

Township 12 North Range 5 West; Township 

11 North Range 5 West; Township 10 North 

Range 5 West; Township 9 North Range 5 

West; Township 13 North Range 6 West; 

Township 12 North Range 6 West; Township 

11 North Range 6 West; Township 10 North 

Range 6 West; Township 9 North Range 6 

West; Township 7 North Range 1 West (portion located in Box Elder County); Township 8 

North Range 1 West (portion located in Box 

Elder County); Township 9 North Range 1 

West (portion located in Box Elder County). 

Davis County ............................................................... .................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 

Salt Lake County ......................................................... .................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 

Tooele County (part) .................................................... .................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 

The following Townships or portions thereof as 

noted (including Tooele City: Township 1 

South Range 3 West; Township 2 South 

Range 3 West; Township 3 South Range 3 

West; Township 3 South Range 4 West; 

Township 2 South Range 4 West; Township 2 

South Range 5 West; Township 3 South 

Range 5 West; Township 3 South Range 6 

West; Township 2 South Range 6 West; 

Township 1 South Range 6 West; Township 1 

South Range 5 West; Township 1 South 

Range 4 West; Township 1 South Range 7 

West; Township 2 South Range 7 West; 

Township 3 South Range 7 West; all Sections 

within Township 4 South Range 7 West except 

for Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32; Township 4 

South Range 6 West; Township 4 South 

Range 5 West; Township 4 South Range 4 

West; Township 4 South Range 3 West. 

Weber County (part) .................................................... .................... Nonattainment ..................... [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Serious. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 91097 

UTAH—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

The area of Weber County that lies west of the 

Wasatch Mountain Range with an eastern 

boundary for Weber County to be defined as 

the following Townships (or portion thereof) 

extending to the western boundary of Weber 

County: Township 5 North Range 1 West; 

Township 6 North Range 1 West; all Sections 

within Township 7 North Range 1 West located within Weber County except for Sections 

1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 24; Township 7 

North Range 2 West (portion located in Weber 

County). 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 

2This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–30174 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 

[Docket No. 161109999–6999–01] 

RIN 0648–BG45 

Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp 

Trawling Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments; notice of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to withdraw 

the alternative tow time restriction and 

require all skimmer trawls, pusher-head 

trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) 

rigged for fishing—with the exception of 

vessels participating in the Biscayne 

Bay wing net fishery prosecuted in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida—to use 

turtle excluder devices (TEDs) designed 

to exclude small turtles in their nets. 

The intent of this proposed rule is to 

reduce incidental bycatch and mortality 

of sea turtles in the southeastern U.S. 

shrimp fisheries, and to aid in the 

protection and recovery of listed sea 

turtle populations. We also are 

proposing to amend the definition of 

tow times to better clarify the intent and 

purpose of tow times to reduce sea 

turtle mortality, and to refine additional 

portions of the TED requirements to 

avoid potential confusion. 

DATES: Written comments (see 

ADDRESSES) will be accepted through 

February 14, 2017. Public hearings on 

the proposed rule will be held in 

January 2017. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for meeting dates, times, 

and locations. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule, identified by 

0648–BG45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=[NOAA-NMFS-2016- 

0151], click the ‘‘Comment Now!’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments 

• Mail: Michael Barnette, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Fax: 727–824–5309; Attention: 

Michael Barnette. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments if they are sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the 

comment period ends. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and NMFS will generally post for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (for example, name, 

address, etc.), confidential business 

information, or otherwise sensitive 

information submitted voluntarily by 

the sender will be publicly accessible. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Barnette, 727–551–5794. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

All sea turtles in U.S. waters are listed 

as either endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA). In the Atlantic Ocean and 

Gulf of Mexico, the Kemp’s ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles are 

listed as endangered. The loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta; Northwest Atlantic 

Ocean distinct population segment) and 

green (Chelonia mydas; North Atlantic 

and South Atlantic Ocean distinct 

population segments) turtles are listed 

as threatened. 

Sea turtles are incidentally taken, and 

some are killed, as a result of numerous 

activities including fishery-related 

trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico 

and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under 

the ESA and its implementing 

regulations, taking (harassing, injuring 

or killing) sea turtles is prohibited, 

except as identified in 50 CFR 223.206 

in compliance with the terms and 

conditions of a biological opinion 

issued under section 7 of the ESA, or in 

accordance with an incidental take 

permit issued under section 10 of the 

ESA. Incidental takes of threatened sea 

turtles during shrimp trawling are 

exempt from the taking prohibition of 

section 9 of the ESA so long as the 

conservation measures specified in the 

sea turtle conservation regulations (50 

CFR 223.206) are followed. The same 

conservation measures also apply to 

endangered sea turtles (50 CFR 

224.104). 

The regulations require most shrimp 

trawlers operating in the southeastern 

United States to have an approved TED 

installed in each net that is rigged for 

fishing, to allow sea turtles to escape. 

Approved TED types include single-grid 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS