ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0172; FRL- ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM10; Determination of Attainment for the Coso Junction 

Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding Applicability of 

Certain Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Coso Junction 

nonattainment area (CJNA) in California has attained the 24-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 

nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). This proposed determination is 

based upon monitored air quality data for the PM-10 NAAQS during 

the years 2006-2008. In addition, data for 2009 contained in 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS)shows the CJNA continued to attain 

the PM-10 NAAQS through 2009, and preliminary data for 2010 

available to date show no exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS have 

been recorded at the CJNA monitoring site. EPA is also proposing 

to determine that, because the CJNA has attained the PM-10 NAAQS, 

the obligation to make submissions to meet certain Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) requirements is not applicable for as long as 

the CJNA continues to attain the PM-10 NAAQS. 
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [

2

insert 

date 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal 

Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2010-0172, by one of the following methods: 

1) Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions. 

2) E-mail: mahdavi.sarvy@epa.gov. 

3) Mail or deliver: Sarvy Mahdavi (AIR-2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise 

protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be 

submitted through the www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to 

EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your 
3 

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be 

publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact listed directly below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarvy Mahdavi, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972-3173, mahdavi.sarvy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever 

“we,” “us,” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. 

Table of Contents

I. Background 

A. The NAAQS for PM-10 

B. Designation, Classification and Air Quality Planning for PM-10 

for the CJNA 

C. Attainment Determinations 

II. Proposed Attainment Determination for the CJNA 

III. Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning Requirements 

IV. EPA's Proposed Action 
4 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background

A. The NAAQS for PM-10 

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 

or equal to 10 micrometers (PM-10) is the subject of this 

proposed action. The NAAQS are limits for certain ambient air 

pollutants set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM10 is among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has 

established a health-based standard. 

 On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised the NAAQS for 

particulate matter with an indicator that includes only those 

particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 

nominal 10 micrometers. The 24-hour primary PM-10 standard was 

set at 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) with no more than 

one expected exceedance per year. The annual primary PM-10 

standard was set at 50 μg/m3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The 

secondary PM-10 standards, promulgated to protect against adverse 

welfare effects, were identical to the primary standards. 

On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary PM-10 standards 

by revoking the annual standard of 50 μg/m3

, but retained the 24-

hour standard of 150 μg/m3

. EPA also revised the secondary PM-10 

standards to be the same as the primary standards. The revised 

PM-10 NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. See 71 FR 

61144 and 40 CFR 50.6. 
5 

B. Designation, Classification and Air Quality Planning for PM-10 

for the CJNA 

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to address, 

among other things, continued nonattainment of the PM-10 NAAQS. 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 

PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of 

the amended Act were designated nonattainment by operation of 

law. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). At that time, the CJNA 

was within the boundaries of the Searles Valley planning area and 

EPA codified the boundaries of the Searles Valley planning area 

at 40 CFR 81.305; however, EPA subsequently changed the 

boundaries of the Searles Valley area by dividing it into three 

separate nonattainment areas: the CJNA, Indian Wells and Trona 

planning areas. 67 FR 50805 (August 6, 2002). 

Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM-10, section 

188 of the CAA outlines the process for classifying the area and 

establishes the area’s initial attainment deadline. In 

accordance with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all 

PM-10 nonattainment areas, such as the Searles Valley, were 

initially classified as moderate nonattainment. When EPA changed 

the boundaries of the Searles Valley area, the Agency also 

classified the newly created CJNA, Indian Wells and Trona 

planning areas as moderate. In the same action, EPA determined 

that the Trona planning area had attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the 
6 

statutory attainment deadline. 67 FR 50805. EPA redesignated 

the Indian Wells planning area to attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS 

on December 17, 2002. 67 FR 77196. This proposed action 

concerns only the moderate CJNA. 

C. Attainment Determinations 

We generally determine whether an area's air quality meets 

the PM-10 NAAQS for purposes of sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) 

based upon data gathered at established state and local air 

monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the nonattainment area and entered 

into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from air 

monitors operated by state/local agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be submitted to the EPA AQS 

database. Heads of monitoring agencies annually certify that 

these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. 

Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS database 

when determining the attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR 

50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, 

appendices A, C, D and E. We will also consider air quality data 

from other air monitoring stations in the nonattainment area 

regardless of whether they have been entered into the EPA AQS 

database if the stations meet the federal monitoring requirements 

for SLAMS. See 40 CFR 58.20 and August 22, 1997 Memorandum 

"Agency Policy on the Use of Special Purpose Monitoring Data," 

from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
7 

Standards, to the Regional Air Directors. All data are reviewed 

to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with our 

guidance at 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.

 Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard is determined by 

calculating the expected number of days in a year with PM-10 

concentrations greater than 150 μg/m3. The 24-hour standard is 

attained when the expected number of days per year with levels 

above 150 μg/m3

 (averaged over a three-year period) is less than 

or equal to one. Three consecutive years of air quality data are 

necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour standard for PM-10. 

See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year of air quality 

data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, includes all 

four calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from at 

least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days. 

II. Proposed Attainment Determination for the CJNA 

The CJNA has one SLAMS site operated by the Great Basin 

Unified Air Pollution Control District (District or GBUAPCD). 

This monitoring site is located in the Rose Valley of Coso 

Junction at the southern end of Inyo County and currently has a 

continuous PM-10 analyzer which records PM-10 concentrations on 

an hourly basis.1

 

1

 The Federal Reference Method (FRM) for PM-10 monitoring sites 

is a manual sampler operated on a once every six day schedule. 

These samplers draw ambient air through a quartz fiber filter 

which is weighed before and after sampling in order to determine 

the mass of PM-10 that is collected after the 24-hour run period. 
8 

 PM-10 data collected in the CJNA is reported by the GBUAPCD 

to the EPA AQS database. The database contains three consecutive 

years of complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2006-

2008 for CJNA. Table 1 summarizes the exceedances of the 24-hour 

PM-10 NAAQS of 150 μg/m3

 measured in the CJNA during the 2006-

2008 period. This table also summarizes data for 2009 that are 

contained in the AQS database but not yet certified. 

TABLE 1 

CJNA 24-hour PM-10 exceedances, 2006-2009 

Monitoring Site Date of 

Exceedance

Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

# of 

expected 

exceedances 

2006-2008 

# of 

expected 

exceedances 

2007-2009 

Coso Junction 12/8/06 

6/5/07 

12/6/07 

12/22/09* 

295 

217 

283 

168* 

1 1 

Source: EPA AQS Database 

* The 2009 data have been submitted to the AQS database but are 

not yet certified. 

As noted above, the 24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the 

 

The GBUAPCD was operating two FRMs at the CJNA monitoring site on 

a staggered once every six day schedule that enabled the District 

to collect a 24-hour PM-10 sample every three days until June 30, 

2006 when the FRMs were terminated. See EPA AQS Database, Monitor 

Description Report. Prior to terminating the FRMS, the GBUAPCD 

added a tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) analyzer 

on May 11, 2006. Id. The TEOM analyzer, which records PM-10 

levels continuously, is not a FRM but has been designated a 

federal equivalent method (FEM) by EPA. All exceedances 

monitored from 2006 to date were recorded by this TEOM. 

 
9 

expected number of days per year with levels above 150 μg/m3

(averaged over a three-year period) is less than or equal to one. 

As can be seen from Table 1, there were three exceedances of the 

24-hour PM-10 NAAQS for both the 2006-2008 and 2007-2009 periods; 

therefore the expected number of days per year with levels above 

150 μg/m3 (averaged over that three-year period) for both of 

these periods is one.2,3 EPA is not aware of any exceedances to 

date during the year 2010. Thus, based on quality-assured and 

certified data for the period 2006-2008 and data in AQS for the 

period 2007-2009 that show the area continues to attain, we 

propose to find that the CJNA has attained the 24-hour PM-10 

NAAQS. Before EPA finalizes its rulemaking on a determination of 

attainment for CJNA, the Agency will consider the most current 

data available at that time. 

III. Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning Requirements 

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 

nonattainment areas, such as the CJNA, are set out in part D, 

subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the Act. EPA has issued guidance 

in a General Preamble4 describing how we will review state 

 

2 Based on data from the EPA AQS database. 

3

 We note that the GBUAPCD has reported the 4th quarter data for 

2009 before the deadline. Under 40 CFR 58.16(b), quarterly data 

are not required to be reported in the AQS database until 90 days 

after the quarter; thus the data for the 4th quarter of 2009 must 

be reported by no later than March 31, 2010. The AQS data for 

the year 2009 must be certified by May 1, 2010. See 40 CFR 

58.15. 

4 “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 
10 

implementation plans (SIPs) and SIP revisions submitted under 

title I of the Act, including those containing moderate PM-10 

nonattainment area SIP provisions. 

In nonattainment areas where monitored data demonstrate that 

the NAAQS have already been achieved, EPA has determined that 

certain requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 2 of the Act do 

not apply. Therefore, we do not require certain submissions for 

an area that has attained the NAAQS. These include reasonable 

further progress (RFP) requirements, attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures (RACM), and contingency 

measures, because these provisions have the purpose of helping 

achieve attainment of the NAAQS. 

This interpretation of the CAA is known as the Clean Data 

Policy and is the subject of two EPA memoranda. EPA also 

finalized the statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in 

its final rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of its "Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

- Phase 2" (Phase 2 Final Rule). See discussion in the preamble 

to the rule at 70 FR 71612, 71645-46 (November 29, 2005). The 

D.C. Circuit upheld this Clean Data regulation as a valid 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 

(D.C. Cir. 2009). EPA also finalized its interpretation in a 

regulation that was part of its Implementation Rulemaking for the 

 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), 
11 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.1004 (c). Thus, EPA has codified the 

policy when it established final rules governing implementation 

of new or revised NAAQS for the pollutants. 70 FR 71612, 71644-

46 (November 29, 2005) (ozone); 72 FR 20585, 20665 (April 25, 

2007) (PM-2.5). Otherwise, it applies the policy in individual 

rulemakings related to specific nonattainment areas. See, e.g., 

75 FR 6571 (February 10, 2010). EPA believes that the legal 

bases set forth in detail in our Phase 2 Final rule, our May 10, 

1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled “Reasonable Further 

Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard,” our PM-2.5 implementation rule, and our 

December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled “Clean 

Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards”, are equally pertinent to the interpretation of 

provisions of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM-10. Our 

interpretation that an area that is attaining the standards is 

relieved of obligations to demonstrate RFP and to provide an 

attainment demonstration, RACM and contingency measures pursuant 

to part D of the CAA, pertains whether the standard is PM-10, 

ozone or PM-2.5. 

In our recent proposed and final rulemakings determining 

that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM-10 

 

as supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 
12 

standard, EPA set forth at length our rationale for applying the 

Clean Data Policy to PM-10. The Ninth Circuit subsequently 

upheld this rulemaking, and specifically EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

in the context of the PM-10 standard. Latino Issues Forum v. 

EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir.) Memorandum Opinion, 

March 2, 2009. In rejecting petitioner’s challenge to the Clean 

Data Policy for PM-10, the Court stated: 

As the EPA rationally explained, if an area is in compliance 

with PM-10 standards, then further progress for the purpose 

of ensuring attainment is not necessary. 

The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the 

relevant standard of certain part D, subparts 1 and 2 

obligations, applies equally to part D, subpart 4, which contains 

specific attainment demonstration and RFP provisions for PM-10 

nonattainment areas. As we have explained in the Phase 2 Final 

Rule and our ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, EPA believes 

that it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and 

attainment demonstrations, along with related requirements, so as 

not to require SIP submissions if an area subject to those 

requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (i.e. attainment of 

the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive years of 

complete, quality-assured air quality monitoring data). Every 
13 

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that has considered the Clean Data 

Policy has upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation, 

for both ozone and PM-10. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th 

Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 

Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. 

June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion), Latino Issues Forum,supra. 

It has been EPA’s longstanding interpretation that the 

general provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the Act (sections 171 

and 172) do not require the submission of SIP revisions 

concerning RFP for areas already attaining the ozone NAAQS. In 

the General Preamble, we stated: 

[R]equirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a 

request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, 

the air quality data for the area must show that the area 

has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP 

towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that 

point. 

57 FR at 13564. EPA believes the same reasoning applies to the 

PM-10 provision of part D, subpart 4. 

 With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for 

purposes of part D of title I, RFP “means such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are 

required by this part or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 
14 

applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, whether dealing 

with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), the ozonespecific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), or the 

specific RFP requirements for PM-10 areas of part D, subpart 4, 

section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment date. Section 189(c)(1) 

states that: 

 Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to 

 the Administrator for approval under this subpart shall 

 contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved 

 every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and 

 which demonstrate reasonable further progress, as defined in 

 section 7501(1) of this title, toward attainment by the 

 applicable date. 

 Although this section states that revisions shall contain 

milestones which are to be achieved until the area is 

redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show 

reasonable further progress “toward attainment by the applicable 

attainment date,” as defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear 

that once the area has attained the standard, no further 

milestones are necessary or meaningful. This interpretation is 

supported by language in section 189(c)(3), which mandates that a 

state that fails to achieve a milestone must submit a plan that 

assures that the state will achieve the next milestone or attain 
15 

the NAAQS if there is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) 

assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve milestones 

does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS. 

 In the General Preamble, we noted with respect to section 

189(c) that “the purpose of the milestone requirement is to 

‘provide for emission reductions adequate to achieve the 

standards by the applicable attainment date’ (H.R. Rep. No. 490 

101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).” 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992). 

If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose 

of the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.5 EPA 

took this position with respect to the general RFP requirement of 

section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and 

also in the May 10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the 

requirements of sections 182(b) and (c). We are extending that 

 

5

 Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without a difference 

that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as one to be 

achieved until an area is “redesignated attainment,” as opposed 

to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the 

requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP 

requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182 (c)(2), which refer to 

the RFP requirements as applying until the “attainment date,” 

since section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 

171(1) of the Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, 

as with the general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the 

ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), 

the PM-specific requirements may only be required “for the 

purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient 

air quality standard by the applicable date.” 42 U.S.C. section 

7501(1). As discussed in the text of this rulemaking, EPA 

interprets the RFP requirements, in light of the definition of 

RFP in section 171(1), and incorporated in section 189(c)(1), to 

be a requirement that no longer applies once the standard has 

been attained. 
16 

interpretation to the specific provisions of part D, subpart 4. 

In the General Preamble, we stated, in the context of a 

discussion of the requirements applicable to the evaluation of 

requests to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that 

the “requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request 

for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the area has already 

attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment 

will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.” (57 FR 13564). 

See also our September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, 

entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas 

to Attainment” (Calcagni memo), p. 6. 

 Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with 

respect to milestones no longer apply so long as an area has 

attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant 

part that: 

 Not later than 90 days after the date on 

 which a milestone applicable to the area occurs, 

 each State in which all or part of such area is 

 located shall submit to the Administrator a 

 demonstration * * * that the milestone has been 

 met. 

 Where the area has attained the standard and there are no 

further milestones, there is no further requirement to make a 
17 

submission showing that such milestones have been met. As noted 

above, this is consistent with the position that EPA took with 

respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in 

the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 

Seitz memorandum with respect to the requirements of section 

182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, EPA also 

noted that section 182(g), the milestone requirement of Subpart 

2, which is analogous to provisions in section 189(c), is 

suspended upon a determination that an area has attained. The 

memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to 

attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, stated: 

 Inasmuch as each of these requirements is 

 linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP 

 requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), 

 if an area is not subject to the requirement to 

 submit the underlying attainment demonstration or 

 RFP plan, it need not submit the related SIP 

 submission either. 

1995 Seitz memorandum at 5. 

 With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of 

section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same 

result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for 

“a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] 

will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date * * 
18 

*.” As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already 

monitoring attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no 

need for an area to make a further submission containing 

additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c) 

requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, the Page 

memo, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in 

the Seitz memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other 

measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have 

been reached.” (57 FR at 13564). 

 Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these 

attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar 

reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the 

contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency measure 

requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer 

applying when an area has attained the standard because those 

“contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment 

by the applicable date.” (57 FR at 13564); Seitz memo, pp. 5-6. 

 Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require 

“provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures” 

(i.e., RACM) are implemented in a nonattainment area. The 

General Preamble, 57 FR at 13560 (April 16, 1992), states that 
19 

EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements are a 

“component” of an area's attainment demonstration. Thus, for the 

same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its 

own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies. EPA has 

consistently interpreted this provision to require only 

implementation of potential RACM measures that could contribute 

to reasonable further progress or to attainment. General 

Preamble, 57 FR at 13498. Thus, where an area is already 

attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are 

required.6 EPA is interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) consistent 

with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1). 

 Here, as in both our Phase 2 Final Rule and ozone and PM2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension of a 

requirement to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, 

attainment demonstration, RACM, and other related requirements 

exists only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to 

monitor attainment of the standard. If such an area experiences 

a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being 

suspended would no longer exist. Therefore, the area would again 

be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision 

 

6

 The EPA's interpretation that the statute only requires 

implementation of RACM measures that would advance attainment was 

upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

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

2002), and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 

2002)). 
20 

or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, 

a determination that an area need not submit one of the SIP 

submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the 

requirements for so long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. However, once EPA ultimately redesignates the area to 

attainment, the area will be entirely relieved of these 

requirements to the extent the maintenance plan for the area does 

not rely on them. 

 Should EPA at some future time determine that an area that 

has attained the standard, but which has not yet been 

redesignated as attainment for a NAAQS, has violated the relevant 

standard, the area would again be required to submit the 

pertinent SIP requirements for the area. Attainment 

determinations under the policy do not shield an area from other 

required actions, such as provisions to address pollution 

transport. 

 As set forth above, EPA finds that because the CJNA is 

attaining the PM-10 NAAQS, the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably 

available control measures and contingency measures no longer 

apply for so long as the area continues to monitor attainment of 

the PM-10 NAAQS.7 If in the future EPA determines, after notice 

 

7 We note that our application of the Clean Data Policy to the 

CJNA is consistent with actions we have taken for other PM-10 

nonattainment areas that we also determined were attaining the 
21 

and comment rulemaking, that the CJNA violates the PM-10 NAAQS, 

the basis for the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM and 

contingency measure requirements being suspended would no longer 

exist. In that event, we would notify the State that we have 

determined that the area is no longer attaining the PM-10 

standard and provide notice to the public in the Federal 

Register. 

IV. EPA's Proposed Action 

Based on the most recent three years of complete, qualityassured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K, we propose to determine that the CJNA has attained the 24-hour 

PM-10 NAAQS. Preliminary data indicate that the area continues 

to attain the standard. This proposed action, if finalized, 

would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3) because we would not yet have approved a 

maintenance plan as required under section 175(A) 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 moderate nonattainment for this area 

until such time as California meets the CAA requirements for 

redesignation of the CJNA to attainment. 

 

standard. See 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 2006)(Ajo, Arizona area); 

71 FR 13021 (March 14, 2006)(Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023

(July 14, 2006)(Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 (August 

8, 2006)(Rillito, Arizona area); 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) 

(San Joaquin Valley, California area) and 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 
22 

EPA also finds that, because the CJNA is attaining the 

NAAQS, the obligation to submit the following CAA requirements is 

not applicable for so long as the CJNA continues to attain the 

PM-10 standard: the part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an 

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

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

by section 189(c)(1), and the attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP 

and contingency measure provisions of part D, subpart 1 contained 

in section 172 of the Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

 This action proposes to make a determination of attainment 

based on air quality, and would, if finalized; result in the 

suspension of certain Federal requirements, and 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.); 

 

2007)(Miami, Arizona area). 
23 

• 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 (Public Law 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 the 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 Clean Air Act; 

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). 
24 

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 

40 CFR Parts 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National 

parks, Wilderness areas. 

_March 15, 2010 _____s/b____________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld 

 Regional Administrator, 

 Region 9.