65346 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 12, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26384 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0799; FRL–9747–3] 

Determination of Attainment for the 

Sacramento Nonattainment Area for 

the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; 

California; Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Sacramento 

nonattainment area in California has 

attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This proposed 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data showing that this 

area has monitored attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

the 2009–2011 monitoring period. EPA 

is further proposing that, if EPA 

finalizes this determination of 

attainment, the requirements for this 

area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, together with reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

and contingency measures for failure to 

meet RFP and attainment deadlines 

shall be suspended for so long as the 

area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 26, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0799 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at 

www.regulations.gov, please follow the 

on-line instructions; 

2. Email to ungvarsky.john@epa.gov; 

or 

3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, 

Air Planning Office, AIR–2, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected should be clearly identified as 

such and should not be submitted 

through www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If you 

submit an electronic comment, 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: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available at 

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, (415) 972–3963, or by email 

at ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. We are providing the following 

outline to aid in locating information in 

this proposal. 

Table of Contents 

I. What determination is EPA making? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

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

quality data? 

A. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment 

IV. How does EPA’s Clean Data Policy apply 

to this action? 

A. Application of EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS 

B. History and Basis of EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65347 

1For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards are those 

determined by EPA as requisite to protect the 

public health, and ‘‘secondary’’ standards are those 

determined by EPA as requisite to protect the 

public welfare from any known or anticipated 

adverse effects associated with the presence of such 

air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section 

109(b). 

2The Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area 

includes Sacramento County, the western portions 

of El Dorado and Placer counties, and the eastern 

portions of Solano and Yolo counties. Other than 

the El Dorado County portion of the nonattainment 

area, the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area lies 

within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. 

3With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

area is designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ 

4On May 2, 2012, James Goldstene, Executive 

Officer of the California Air Resources Board, 

submitted a request to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the 

Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

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

average values recorded at each monitoring site [see 

40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 1.0(c)], and the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24-hour 

standard design value at each monitoring site is less 

than or equal to 35 mg/m3. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What determination is EPA making? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Sacramento nonattainment area has 

clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS 

for fine particles (generally referring to 

particles less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers in diameter, PM2.5). This 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data showing the area 

has monitored attainment of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2009–2011 

monitoring data. Preliminary data in 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) for 

2012 indicate that the area continues to 

attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on 

this determination, we are also 

proposing to suspend the obligations on 

the State of California to submit certain 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions related to attainment of this 

standard for the Sacramento 

nonattainment area for as long as the 

area continues to attain the standard. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

Under section 109 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), EPA has 

established National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’) for certain pervasive air 

pollutants (referred to as ‘‘criteria 

pollutants’’) and conducts periodic 

reviews of the NAAQS to determine 

whether they should be revised or 

whether new NAAQS should be 

established. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

NAAQS for particulate matter to add 

new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as 

the indicator for the pollutant. EPA 

established primary and secondary 1

annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5

(62 FR 38652). The annual standard was 

set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 

the 24-hour standard was set at 65 mg/ 

m3, based on the 3-year average of the 

98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA revised the level of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations. EPA also 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

but with tighter constraints on the 

spatial averaging criteria. 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

Effective December 14, 2009, EPA 

established the initial air quality 

designations for most areas in the 

United States for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November 

13, 2009). Among the various areas 

designated in 2009, EPA designated the 

Sacramento 2 area in California as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.3 The boundaries for this 

area are described in 40 CFR 81.305. 

Within three years of the effective 

date of designations, states with areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are required to 

submit SIP revisions that, among other 

elements, provide for implementation of 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), attainment of the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than five years from the nonattainment 

designation (in this instance, no later 

than December 14, 2014), as well as 

contingency measures. See CAA section 

172(a)(2), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 

172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for 

submittal of these SIP revisions, the 

State of California requested that EPA 

make determinations that the 

Sacramento 4 nonattainment area has 

attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

that attainment-related SIP submittal 

requirements are not applicable for as 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. Today’s proposal responds to 

the State’s request. 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality currently meets the PM2.5

NAAQS is generally based upon the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured data gathered at 

established State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a 

nonattainment area and entered into the 

AQS database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state/local agencies in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to 

AQS. Monitoring agencies annually 

certify that these data are accurate to the 

best of their knowledge. Accordingly, 

EPA relies primarily on data in AQS 

when determining the attainment status 

of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 

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

part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices 

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

determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, section 50.13 and in accordance 

with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard is met when the design 

value is less than or equal to 35 mg/m3

(based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N) at each 

monitoring site within the area.5 The 

PM2.5 24-hour average is considered 

valid when 75 percent of the hourly 

averages for the 24-hour period are 

available. Data completeness 

requirements for a given year are met 

when at least 75 percent of the 

scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

relevant air quality data? 

A. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

In the Sacramento PM2.5

nonattainment area, the agencies 

responsible for assuring that the area 

meets air quality monitoring 

requirements include CARB, 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD), Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(PCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD). Both 

CARB and SMAQMD submit annual 

monitoring network plans to EPA. 

SMAQMD network plans describe the 

monitoring network operated by 

SMAQMD and CARB in Sacramento 

County, and CARB’s network plans 

describe the monitoring sites CARB 

operates, in addition to monitoring sites 

operated by smaller air districts, 

namely, PCAPCD and YSAQMD. These 

plans discuss the status of the air 

monitoring network, as required under 

40 CFR 58.10. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65348 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, 

Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB 

(November 24, 2009) (approving CARB’s ‘‘2009 

Annual Monitoring Network Report for Small 

Districts in California’’); Letter from Matthew Lakin, 

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA 

Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality 

Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support 

Division, CARB (October 29, 2010) (approving 

CARB’s ‘‘2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for 

the Small Districts in California’’); Letter from 

Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis 

Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, 

Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and 

Technical Support Division, CARB (November 1, 

2011) (approving CARB’s ‘‘2011 Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan for the Small Districts in California’’). 

7Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, 

SMAQMD (September 29, 2009) (approving the 

2009 Air Monitoring Network Plan for the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Larry Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, 

SMAQMD (November 1, 2010) (approving the 

‘‘Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District’s 2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan’’); 

Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Larry 

Greene, Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD 

(October 31, 2011) (approving the ‘‘Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s 

2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan’’). 

8See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, transmitting ‘‘Technical 

System Audit of the California Environmental 

Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,’’ 

with enclosure, August 18, 2008. 

9See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air 

Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical 

Support Division, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2011 ambient air quality 

data and quality assurance data, May 1, 2012. 

10See CARB’s 2011 Annual Monitoring Network 

Report for Small Districts in California and 

SMAQMD’s 2011 Annual Monitoring Network Plan; 

U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description 

Report, September 14, 2012. 

11Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews 

these annual plans for compliance with 

the applicable reporting requirements in 

40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM2.5, 

EPA has found that the areas’ network 

plans, submitted by CARB and 

SMAQMD, meet the applicable 

requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See 

EPA letters to CARB and SMAQMD 

approving their annual network plans 

for years 2009, 2010, and 2011.6 7 EPA 

also concluded 8 from its Technical 

System Audit of the CARB Primary 

Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO) 

(conducted during the summer of 2007), 

that the combined ambient air 

monitoring network operated by CARB 

and the local air districts in their PQAO 

(which includes SMAQMD, PCAPCD, 

and YSAQMD) currently meets or 

exceeds the requirements for the 

minimum number of SLAMS for PM2.5

in the Sacramento nonattainment area. 

CARB annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are complete and 

quality-assured.9

There were five PM2.5 SLAMS located 

throughout the Sacramento PM2.5

nonattainment area in calendar years 

2009, 2010, and 2011. EPA defines 

specific monitoring site types and 

spatial scales of representativeness to 

characterize the nature and location of 

required monitors. For the five sites, the 

spatial scale is neighborhood scale, and 

monitoring objective is population 

exposure. In addition, the SacramentoDel Paso Manor site has a monitoring 

objective of highest concentration.10

Consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has 

reviewed the quality-assured, and 

certified PM2.5 ambient air monitoring 

data as recorded in AQS for the 

applicable monitoring period collected 

at the monitoring sites in the 

Sacramento nonattainment area and 

determined that the data are complete. 

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment 

EPA’s evaluation of whether the 

Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area 

has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS is based on our review of the 

monitoring data and takes into account 

the adequacy 11 of the PM2.5 monitoring 

network in the nonattainment area and 

the reliability of the data collected by 

the network as discussed in the 

previous section of this document. 

Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design values 

for the Sacramento nonattainment area 

monitors based on ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the most recent 

complete three-year period (2009–2011). 

The data show that the design value for 

the 2009–2011 period was equal to or 

less than 35 mg/m3 at the monitors. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

determine, based on the complete, 

quality-assured data for 2009–2011, that 

the Sacramento area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

Preliminary data available in AQS for 

2012 indicate that the area continues to 

attain the standard. 

TABLE 1—2009–2011 24-HOUR PM2.5 MONITORING SITES AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SACRAMENTO NONATTAINMENT

AREA

Monitoring site AQS site 

identification No. 

98th Percentile (μg/m3) 2009–2011 

Design 

values 

(μg/m3) 2009 2010 2011 

Roseville ........................................................................................ 06–061–0006 21.3 20.3 23.0 22 

Sacramento-Del Paso Manor ........................................................ 06–067–0006 38.7 27.0 39.8 35a

Sacramento-1309 T Street ............................................................ 06–067–0010 27.2 27.3 45.1 33 

Sacramento Health Dept—Stockton Blvd ...................................... 06–067–4001 34.9 26.5 44.8 35a

Woodland ....................................................................................... 06–113–1003 27.4 18.6 25.8 24 

aThe average of the 98th percentile values for 2009–2011 equals 35.2 and 35.4 at the Del Paso Manor and Stockton Blvd. sites, respectively, 

but consistent with applicable rounding conventions in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.3, 24-hour standard design values are rounded to 

the nearest 1 μg/m3 (decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to 

the nearest whole number). 

Source: Design Value Report, August 31, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action). 

IV. How does EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

apply to this action? 

A. Application of EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5

Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5

standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007). 

In March, 2012, EPA published 

implementation guidance for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (March 2, 2012). In that 

guidance, EPA stated its view ‘‘that the 

overall framework and policy approach 

of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

continues to provide effective and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65349 

12While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) 

does not itself expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5

standard, the statutory interpretation that it 

embodies is identical and is applicable to both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

13This discussion refers to subpart 1 because 

subpart 1 contains the requirements relating to 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

appropriate guidance on the EPA’s 

interpretation of the general statutory 

requirements that states should address 

in their SIPs. In general, the EPA 

believes that the interpretations of the 

statute in the framework of the 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule are relevant 

to the statutory requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS * * *’’ Id., 

page 1. With respect to the statutory 

provisions applicable to 2006 PM2.5

implementation, the guidance 

emphasized that ‘‘EPA outlined its 

interpretation of many of these 

provisions in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule. In addition to 

regulatory provisions, the EPA provided 

substantial general guidance for 

attainment plans for PM2.5 in the 

preamble to the final the [sic] 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule.’’ Id., page 2. 

In keeping with the principles set forth 

in the guidance, and with respect to the 

effect of a determination of attainment 

for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, EPA is 

applying the same interpretation with 

respect to the implications of clean data 

determinations that it set forth in the 

preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

and in the regulation that embodies this 

interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).12

EPA has long applied this interpretation 

in regulations and individual 

rulemakings for the 1-hour ozone and 

1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM– 

10 standard, and the lead standard. 

B. History and Basis of EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy 

Following enactment of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated 

its interpretation of the requirements for 

implementing the NAAQS in the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992). In 1995, based on the 

interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 

172, and section 182 in the General 

Preamble, EPA set forth what has 

become known as its ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy’’ for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, ‘‘Reasonable Further 

Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 

and Related Requirements for Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA 

indicated its intention to extend the 

Clean Data Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See Memorandum from Steve Page, 

Director, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ 

(December 14, 2004). 

Since 1995, EPA has applied its 

interpretation under the Clean Data 

Policy in many rulemakings, 

suspending certain attainment-related 

planning requirements for individual 

areas, based on a determination of 

attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 

1995) (Salt Lake and Davis Counties, 

Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 

7, 1996) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21, 

1996) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour 

ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000) 

(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 

1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 

2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 

Pennsylvania, 1-hour ozone); 68 FR 

25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis, 

Missouri-Illinois, 1-hour ozone); 69 FR 

21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco 

Bay Area, California, 1-hour ozone); 75 

FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 

27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, 

California, PM10). 

EPA also incorporated its 

interpretation under the Clean Data 

Policy in several implementation rules. 

See Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 

(April 25, 2007); Final Rule To 

Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). 

The Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld 

EPA’s rule embodying the Clean Data 

Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 

(D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have 

reviewed and considered individual 

rulemakings applying EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy, and have consistently upheld 

them in every case. 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, No. 04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 

2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino 

Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06–75831 

and 08–71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 

(Memorandum Opinion)). 

EPA sets forth below a brief 

explanation of the statutory 

interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. 

EPA also incorporates the discussions of 

its interpretation set forth in prior 

rulemakings, including the 1997 PM2.5

implementation rulemaking. See 72 FR 

20586, at 20603–20605 (April 25, 2007). 

See also 75 FR 31288 (June 3, 2010) 

(Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour 

ozone); 75 FR 62470 (October 12, 2010) 

(Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour 

ozone); 75 FR 53219 (August 31, 2010) 

(Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour 

ozone); 75 FR 54778 (September 9, 

2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8- 

hour ozone); 75 FR 64949 (October 21, 

2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 

8-hour ozone); 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 

2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8- 

hour ozone); 76 FR 31237 (May 31, 

2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 

Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76 

FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis, 

Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour ozone); 

76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011) 

(Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North 

Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour 

ozone); 77 FR 31496 (May 29, 2012) 

(Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, 

Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone). See 

also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) 

(Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, 

North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 75 FR 230 

(January 5, 2010) (Hickory-MorgantonLenoir, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 76 

FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville, 

Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 

18650 (April 5, 2011) (Rome, Georgia, 

1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 

2011) (Chattanooga, Tennessee-GeorgiaAlabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31858 

(June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997 

PM2.5); 76 FR 36873 (June 23, 2011) 

(Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 

38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, 

Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 55542 

(September 7, 2011) (HuntingtonAshland, West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio, 

1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 60373 (September 

29, 2011) (Cincinnati, Ohio-KentuckyIndiana, 1997 PM2.5); 77 FR 18922 

(March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-LebanonCarlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown 

and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1997 

PM2.5). 

The Clean Data Policy represents 

EPA’s interpretation that certain 

requirements of subpart 1 of part D of 

the Act are by their terms not applicable 

to areas that are currently attaining the 

NAAQS.13 As explained below, the 

specific requirements that are 

inapplicable to an area attaining the 

standard are the requirements to submit 

a SIP that provides for: attainment of the 

NAAQS; implementation of all 

reasonably available control measures; 

reasonable further progress (RFP); and 

implementation of contingency 

measures for failure to meet deadlines 

for RFP and attainment. 

CAA section 172(c)(1), the 

requirement for an attainment 

demonstration, provides in relevant part 

that SIPs ‘‘shall provide for attainment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65350 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14This interpretation was adopted in the General 

Preamble, see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld 

as applied to the Clean Data Policy, as well as to 

nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 

294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

of the [NAAQS].’’ EPA has interpreted 

this requirement as not applying to 

areas that have already attained the 

standard. If an area has attained the 

standard, there is no need to submit a 

plan demonstrating how the area will 

reach attainment. In the General 

Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that 

no other measures to provide for 

attainment would be needed by areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment 

since ‘‘attainment will have been 

reached.’’ See also Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ (September 4, 

1992), at page 6. 

A component of the attainment plan 

specified under section 172(c)(1) is the 

requirement to provide for ‘‘the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ (RACM). 

Since RACM is an element of the 

attainment demonstration, see General 

Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same 

reason the attainment demonstration no 

longer applies by its own terms, RACM 

also no longer applies to areas that EPA 

has determined have clean air. 

Furthermore, EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of such potential 

RACM measures that could advance 

attainment.14 Thus, where an area is 

already attaining the standard, no 

additional RACM measures are 

required. EPA’s interpretation that the 

statute requires only implementation of 

the RACM measures that would advance 

attainment was upheld by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 

735, 743–745, 5th Cir. 2002) and by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 

F.3d 155, 162–163, D.C. Cir. 2002). See 

also the final rulemakings for 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 

66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. 

Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418 

(May 12, 2003). 

CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that 

SIP provisions in nonattainment areas 

must require ‘‘reasonable further 

progress.’’ The term ‘‘reasonable further 

progress’’ is defined in section 171(1) as 

‘‘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, 

by definition, the ‘‘reasonable further 

progress’’ provision under subpart 1 

requires only such reductions in 

emissions as are necessary to attain the 

NAAQS. If an area has attained the 

NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP 

requirement has been fulfilled, and 

since the area has already attained, 

showing that the State will make RFP 

towards attainment ‘‘[has] no meaning 

at that point.’’ General Preamble, 57 FR 

13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). 

CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that 

SIPs in nonattainment areas ‘‘shall 

provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to make reasonable further 

progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by 

the attainment date applicable under 

this part. Such measures shall be 

included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in 

any such case without further action by 

the State or [EPA].’’ This contingency 

measure requirement is inextricably tied 

to the reasonable further progress and 

attainment demonstration requirements. 

Contingency measures are implemented 

if reasonable further progress targets are 

not achieved, or if attainment is not 

realized by the attainment date. Where 

an area has already achieved attainment, 

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. 

It is important to note that should an 

area attain the 2006 PM2.5 standard 

based on three years of data, its 

obligation to submit an attainment 

demonstration and related planning 

submissions is suspended only for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. If EPA subsequently 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, that the area has violated 

the NAAQS, the requirements for the 

State to submit a SIP to meet the 

previously suspended requirements 

would be reinstated. It is likewise 

important to note that the area remains 

designated nonattainment pending a 

further redesignation action. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request 

for Public Comment 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Sacramento nonattainment area in 

California has attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard based on the most recent 

three years of complete, quality-assured, 

and certified data for 2009–2011. 

Preliminary data available in AQS for 

2012 show that the area continues to 

attain the standard. 

EPA further proposes that, if its 

proposed determination of attainment is 

made final, the requirements for the 

Sacramento nonattainment area to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated RACM, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would be 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA’s proposal is consistent 

and in keeping with its long-held 

interpretation of CAA requirements, as 

well as with EPA’s regulations for 

similar determinations for ozone (see 40 

CFR 51.918) and the 1997 fine 

particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR 

51.1004(c)). As described below, any 

such determination would not be 

equivalent to the redesignation of the 

area to attainment for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Any final action resulting from this 

proposal would not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3) because we have not 

yet approved a maintenance plan for the 

Sacramento nonattainment area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA or determined that the 

area has met the other CAA 

requirements for redesignation. The 

classification and designation status in 

40 CFR part 81 would remain 

nonattainment for the area until such 

time as EPA determines that California 

has met the CAA requirements for 

redesignating the Sacramento 

nonattainment area to attainment. 

If the Sacramento nonattainment area 

continues to monitor attainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that 

the requirements for the area to submit 

an attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning requirements related to 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

will remain suspended. If this proposed 

rulemaking is finalized and EPA 

subsequently determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking in the Federal 

Register, that the area has violated the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the 

suspension of these attainment planning 

requirements for the Sacramento 

nonattainment area would no longer 

exist, and the area would thereafter have 

to address such requirements. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65351 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality and to suspend certain 

federal requirements, and thus, would 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP obligations discussed herein do 

not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this 

proposed action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen 

oxides, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 15, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26417 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0490; FRL–9743–9] 

RIN 2060–AQ29 

Extension of the Comment Period for 

the Proposed Standards of 

Performance for Stationary Gas 

Turbines; Standards of Performance 

for Stationary Combustion Turbines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. Announcement of 

extension of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that 

the period for providing public 

comments on the August 29, 2012, 

proposed rule titled, ‘‘Standards of 

Performance for Stationary Gas 

Turbines; Standards of Performance for 

Stationary Combustion Turbines’’ is 

being extended for 60 days. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

these actions is being extended for 60 

days to December 28, 2012, in order to 

provide the public additional time to 

submit comments and supporting 

information. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule may be submitted to the 

EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile 

or through hand delivery/courier. Please 

refer to the proposal for the addresses 

and detailed instructions. Publicly 

available documents relevant to this 

action are available for public 

inspection either electronically in 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division (D243–01), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

4003; Fax number: (919) 541–5450; 

Email address: 

fellner.christian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period 

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register on August 29, 

2012, and a copy of the proposed rule 

is available in the docket (77 FR 52554). 

Due to requests we have received from 

the public to extend the public 

comment period for the August 29, 

2012, proposed Standards of 

Performance for Stationary Gas 

Turbines; Standards of Performance for 

Stationary Combustion Turbines, the 

public comment period is being 

extended for 60 days. Therefore, the 

public comment period will end on 

December 28, 2012, rather than October 

29, 2012. 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established the official 

public docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 

0490, available at www.regulations.gov. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 17, 2012. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26206 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2012–0719; FRL–9744–3] 

Missouri: Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Missouri has applied to EPA 

for final authorization for the changes to 

its hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final 

authorization to Missouri. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

November 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

RCRA–2012–0719 by one of the 

following methods: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS