31268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: May 14, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12804 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0234; FRL–9677–7] 

Determination of Attainment for the 

Paul Spur/Douglas PM10

Nonattainment Area, Arizona; 

Determination Regarding Applicability 

of Clean Air Act Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Paul Spur/Douglas 

nonattainment area (NA) in Arizona is 

currently attaining the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to a nominal ten micrometers 

(PM10) based on certified, qualityassured ambient air monitoring data for 

the years 2009–2011. Based on our 

proposed determination that the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA is currently attaining 

the PM10 NAAQS, EPA is also proposing 

to determine that Arizona’s obligation to 

make submissions to meet certain Clean 

Air Act requirements related to 

attainment of the NAAQS is not 

applicable for as long as the Paul Spur/ 

Douglas NA continues to attain the 

NAAQS and that the obligation on EPA 

to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to address the State’s 

attainment-related requirements would 

also be suspended for as long as the 

underlying State obligation is 

suspended. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0234, using one of the 

following methods: Via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, at 

www.regulations.gov, please follow the 

on-line instructions; via Email to 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov; via mail or 

delivery to Jerry Wamsley, Air Planning 

Office, AIR–2, EPA 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 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: Jerry 

Wamsley, Air Planning Office, AIR–2, 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

telephone number: (415) 947–4111, or 

email address, wamsley.jerry@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. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

B. Designation and Classification of PM10

Nonattainment Areas, Including the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

II. EPA’s Analysis 

A. What is the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

monitoring network? 

B. Do the Paul Spur/Douglas NA Monitors 

meet minimum Federal ambient air 

quality monitoring requirements? 

C. What does the air quality data show for 

the Paul Spur/Douglas NA? 

III. EPA’s Clean Data Policy and the 

Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31269 

1An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard, 150 mg/ 

m3, after rounding to the nearest 10 mg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in five or greater are to be rounded 

up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 mg/m3 would not 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 

mg/m3; whereas, a recorded value of 155 mg/m3

would be an exceedance since it would b rounded 

to 160 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, 

section 1.0. 

2The Paul Spur/Douglas NA covers 

approximately 220 square miles along the border 

with Mexico within Cochise County. Cities and 

towns within this area include Douglas, 2010 

population 17,378, (U.S. Census) and Pirtleville, 

2010 population 1,744, (U.S. Census). The 2010 

population of Agua Prieta, Mexico, just across the 

border from Douglas, is 78,138 (Instituto Nacional 

de Estadistica y Geografia). 

3For PM10, a ‘‘complete’’ set of data includes a 

minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10

samples per quarter. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K, section 2.3(a). 

4EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient 

air monitoring regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and 

58 on October 17, 2006. (See 71 FR 61236.) The 

requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were 

revised and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR 

58.20. 

5Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006, this document 

discusses only attainment of the 24-hour PM10

standard. See 71 FR 61144; (October 17, 2006). 

Requirements to the Paul Spur/Douglas 

NA 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

EPA sets the NAAQS for certain 

ambient air pollutants at levels required 

to protect public health and welfare. 

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

ten micrometers, or PM10, is one of these 

ambient air pollutants for which EPA 

has established health-based standards. 

On July 1, 1987, EPA promulgated two 

primary standards for PM10: a 24-hour 

standard of 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3); and, an annual PM10

standard of 50 mg/m3. EPA also 

promulgated secondary PM10 standards 

that were identical to the primary 

standards. 52 FR 24634; (July 1, 1987). 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA 

revoked the annual PM10 standard but 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 71 

FR 61144; (October 17, 2006). An area 

attains the 24-hour PM10 standard when 

the expected number of days per 

calendar year with a 24-hour 

concentration in excess of the standard 

(referred to herein as ‘‘exceedance’’), as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less 

than one.1 See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K. 

B. Designation and Classification of 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas, Including 

the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

Areas meeting the requirements of 

section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) were designated 

nonattainment for PM10 by operation of 

law and classified ‘‘moderate’’ upon 

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments. These areas included all 

former Group I PM10 planning areas 

identified in 52 FR 29383, (August 7, 

1987), as further clarified in 55 FR 

45799, (October 31, 1990), and any other 

areas violating the NAAQS for PM10

prior to January 1, 1989. A Federal 

Register notice announcing the areas 

designated nonattainment for PM10

upon enactment of the 1990 

Amendments, known as ‘‘initial’’ PM10

nonattainment areas, was published on 

March 15, 1991, (56 FR 11101); and, a 

subsequent Federal Register document 

correcting the description of some of 

these areas was published on August 8, 

1991, (56 FR 37654). 

As a former ‘‘group I’’ area, the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA2 was included in the 

March 1991 list of initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas. Later, we codified 

the PM10 nonattainment designations 

and moderate area classifications in 40 

CFR part 81 (56 FR 56694; November 6, 

1991). For ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment 

areas, such as the Paul Spur/Douglas 

NA, CAA section 188(c) of the 1990 

Amended Act established an attainment 

date of December 31, 1994. On January 

11, 2011, pursuant to section 188(b)(2) 

of the CAA, we determined that the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA met the PM10 NAAQS 

as of the applicable attainment date, 

December 31, 1994 (76 FR 1532). 

Consequently, the Paul Spur/Douglas 

NA was not reclassified to a ‘‘serious’’ 

PM10 nonattainment area. The 

designation, classification, and 

boundaries of the Paul Spur/Douglas 

NA are codified at 40 CFR 81.303. 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

Generally, EPA determines whether 

an area’s air quality is meeting the PM10

NAAQS based upon complete,3 qualityassured, and certified 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, or Tribal 

agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. These monitoring 

agencies certify annually 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 an 

area. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, 

appendices J and K; 40 CFR part 53; 

and, 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, 

D, and E. EPA will also consider air 

quality data from other air monitoring 

stations in the nonattainment area 

provided those stations meet the Federal 

monitoring requirements for SLAMS, 

including the quality assurance and 

quality control criteria in 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A. See 40 CFR 58.14 

(2006) and 58.20 (2007)4; 71 FR 61236, 

61242; (October 17, 2006). All valid data 

are reviewed to determine the area’s air 

quality status in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K. 

Attainment of the 24-hour PM10

standard is determined by calculating 

the expected number of exceedances of 

the standard in a year. The 24-hour 

PM10 standard is attained when the 

expected number of exceedances 

averaged over a three-year period is less 

than or equal to one at each monitoring 

site within the nonattainment area. 

Generally, three consecutive years of air 

quality data are required to show 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10

standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and 

appendix K.5

To demonstrate attainment of the 24- 

hour PM10 standard at a monitoring site, 

the monitor must provide sufficient data 

to perform the required calculations in 

40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The 

amount of data required varies with the 

sampling frequency, data capture rate, 

and the number of years of record. In all 

cases, three years of representative 

monitoring data that meet the 75 

percent criterion discussed earlier 

should be utilized, if available. More 

than three years may be considered, if 

all additional representative years of 

data meeting the 75 percent criterion are 

utilized. Data not meeting these criteria 

may also suffice to show attainment; 

however, such exceptions must be 

approved by the appropriate Regional 

Administrator in accordance with EPA 

guidance. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K, section 2.3. 

II. EPA’s Analysis 

A. What is the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

monitoring network? 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 

operated PM10 monitors near the 

Douglas Lime Plant, formerly the 

Chemical Lime Plant, at Paul Spur 

(‘‘Paul Spur monitor’’) and within the 

City of Douglas (‘‘Douglas monitor’’) for 

20 years or more. Both sites are part of 

the ADEQ’s SLAMS network. 

The Paul Spur monitor is located near 

the intersection of Paul Spur Road and 

State Route 80. This monitor was sited 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6 In this context, ‘‘middle scale’’ refers to 

conditions characteristic of areas from 100 meters 

to several kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

D, section 4.6. 

7See EPA letters to ADEQ concerning ADEQ’s 

annual network plan reports for years 2009, 2010, 

and 2011. These letters are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

8See Technical System Audit Report transmitted 

via correspondence dated September 23, 2010, from 

Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 

IX, to Eric Massey, Air Division, ADEQ. 

9See, e.g., the letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, 

Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated 

February 28, 2012 certifying the ambient air quality 

data collected at the Paul Spur and Douglas sites 

for year 2011. 

10ADEQ flagged the 2003 and 2008 exceedances 

as exceptional events. EPA has not taken action to 

evaluate whether these exceedances qualify as 

exceptional events. 

to provide PM10 concentration data at a 

middle scale 6 for the purpose of 

determining source impacts from the 

chemical lime plant. At the Paul Spur 

monitoring site, ADEQ replaced the 

dichot sampler with a partisol sampler, 

and added a second collocated partisol 

sampler for precision measurement 

purposes. Both monitors run on a oneday-in-six monitoring schedule. In 

January 2012, ADEQ replaced one of the 

partisol samplers with a continuous 

tapering element oscillating 

microbalance (TEOM) sampler. The 

TEOM sampler provides daily 24-hour 

average observations of PM10 ambient 

concentrations. 

Prior to 1998, the Douglas monitor 

was located at 15th Street Park, 

approximately one mile north of the 

border with Mexico. In 1998, ADEQ relocated the Douglas monitor to its 

current location, the Red Cross building 

just across from the park on 15th Street. 

The Douglas monitor was sited to 

provide PM10 concentration data at a 

neighborhood scale for the purpose of 

determining population exposure. At 

the Douglas monitoring site, ADEQ 

replaced the dichot sampler with a 

partisol sampler. The Douglas monitor 

operates on a one-day-in six monitoring 

schedule. 

B. Do the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

monitors meet minimum Federal 

ambient air quality monitoring 

requirements? 

ADEQ is responsible for monitoring 

ambient air quality outside the 

metropolitan areas in Arizona. 

Annually, ADEQ submits monitoring 

network plan reports to EPA. These 

reports discuss the status of the air 

monitoring network, as required under 

40 CFR part 58. EPA reviews these 

annual network plans for compliance 

with the applicable reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With 

respect to PM10, we have found that 

ADEQ’s annual network plans meet the 

applicable requirements under 40 CFR 

part 58.7 Furthermore, we concluded in 

our Technical System Audit Report 

concerning ADEQ’s ambient air quality 

monitoring program that ADEQ’s 

ambient air monitoring network 

currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of monitoring sites designated as 

SLAMS for all of the criteria pollutants, 

and that all of the monitoring sites are 

properly located with respect to 

monitoring objectives, spatial scales and 

other siting criteria.8 As noted above, in 

January 2012, ADEQ installed a 

continuous TEOM sampler at the Paul 

Spur monitoring site. ADEQ’s 

placement of the TEOM monitor ensures 

that the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

monitoring network continues to meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 58.12(e) for 

monitoring frequency. Also, ADEQ 

annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are quality-assured.9

C. What does the air quality data show 

for the Paul/Douglas NA? 

As noted above, we determined that 

the Paul Spur/Douglas NA attained the 

PM10 NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date based on our review of 

data collected during the 1992–1994 

period. See 76 FR 1532; (January 11, 

2011). Since 1994, the data from AQS 

indicate that only two exceedances of 

the PM10 standard have been measured 

in the Paul Spur/Douglas NA; both 

exceedances were measured at the Paul 

Spur monitoring site. The first 

exceedance, 206 mg/m3, was observed in 

2003 and the other, 159 mg/m3, was 

observed in 2008.10 No exceedances 

have been recorded at the Douglas 

monitoring site since 1991. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

action, we have reviewed the data for 

the most recent three-year period (2009– 

2011). Table 1 summarizes the PM10

concentration data collected at the Paul 

Spur and Douglas monitors over the 

past three years. As shown in Table 1, 

no exceedances were recorded within 

the Paul Spur/Douglas NA over the 

2009–2011 period. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2009–2011 PM10 MONITORING DATA FOR PAUL SPUR/DOUGLAS NONATTAINMENT AREA a

Monitoring site 

Highest 

24-hour PM10

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Expected 

exceedances 

per year 

2009 2010 2011 2009–2011 

Douglas Lime Plant at Paul Spur .................................................... 49 46 85 0.0 

Douglas (15th Street Park) .............................................................. 97 83 138 0.0 

PM10 NAAQS = 150 μg/m3. 

aSource: AQS QuickLook report dated March 19, 2012. 

During the 2009–2011 time period, 

the data collected by ADEQ meets the 

completeness criterion for all quarters at 

the Paul Spur monitor and for ten of 

twelve quarters at the Douglas monitor. 

The two incomplete quarters at the 

Douglas monitor were the first quarter of 

2010 and the fourth quarter of 2011. 

During the first quarter of 2010, the 

Douglas monitor was three samples 

short of the 75 percent criterion, for a 

60 percent (9 of 15 samples) reporting 

rate, and during the fourth quarter of 

2011, the Douglas monitor was one 

sample short of the 75 percent criterion, 

for a 73 percent (11 of 15 samples) 

reporting rate. 

To be considered ‘‘complete,’’ valid 

measurements must be made for 75 

percent of all the scheduled sampling 

dates in each quarter of the year, and 

generally, three years of representative 

monitoring data that meet the 75 

percent criterion should be utilized, 

where available. As noted above, 

however, EPA may find that data not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31271 

11 ‘‘General Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 

(57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992, and supplemented at 

57 FR 18070; April 28, 1992); hereafter referred to 

as the General Preamble. 

meeting the completeness criterion 

suffice to show attainment of a given 

NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K, section 2.3(b). Relevant 

considerations that we take into account 

when evaluating whether data not 

meeting the completeness criterion 

would suffice include, but are not 

limited to, monitoring site closures/ 

moves, monitoring diligence, 

consistency and levels of the valid 

concentration measurements that are 

available, and nearby observed ambient 

concentrations. 

After reviewing the Paul Spur/ 

Douglas NA data for the 2009–2011 

period, for the three reasons discussed 

below, we find that the available data 

are sufficient to determine whether the 

Paul Spur/Douglas NA attained the 

PM10 standard by December 31, 2011; 

notwithstanding that the Douglas’ 

monitor data did not meet the 75 

percent completeness criterion for two 

of twelve quarters. First, we note the 

extent to which the maximum 

monitored levels during the 2009–2011 

period, 85 mg/m3 at the Paul Spur 

monitor and 138 mg/m3 at the Douglas 

monitor, clearly fall below the 

applicable standard of 150 mg/m3. 

Second, we note that twelve of twelve 

quarters were complete at the Paul Spur 

monitor and ten of twelve quarters were 

complete at the Douglas monitor. Lastly, 

we note that the Douglas monitor has 

been in operation for over 20 years and 

has not recorded an exceedance of the 

PM10 standard since 1991. The only two 

exceedances recorded in the Paul Spur/ 

Douglas NA since 1991 have been at the 

Paul Spur monitoring site; the site for 

which we have a complete data set for 

2009–2011. 

Therefore, based on our review of the 

certified, quality-assured data for 2009– 

2011, we find that the expected number 

of exceedances per year for the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA for the most recent 

three-year period (i.e., 2009 to 2011) 

was 0.0 days per year. With an annual 

expected exceedance rate for the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS of less than 1.0, 

these data represent attainment of the 

PM10 standard. Consequently, EPA 

proposes to determine that the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA is attaining the PM10

NAAQS. Prior to taking final action on 

this proposal, we will review any 

preliminary data for 2012 submitted by 

ADEQ to AQS for the Paul Spur/Douglas 

NA to ensure that such preliminary data 

shows continued attainment of the 

standard. 

III. EPA’s Clean Data Policy and the 

Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning 

Requirements to the Paul Spur/Douglas 

NA 

The air quality planning requirements 

for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, 

such as the Paul Spur/Douglas NA, are 

set out in part D, subparts 1 and 4 of 

title I of the Act. EPA has issued 

guidance in a General Preamble 

describing how we will review state 

implementation plans (SIPs) and SIP 

revisions submitted under title I of the 

Act, including those containing 

moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP 

provisions.11

The subpart 1 requirements include, 

among other things, provisions for 

reasonably available control measures or 

‘‘RACM’’, reasonable further progress or 

‘‘RFP’’, emissions inventories, a permit 

program for construction and operation 

of new or modified major stationary 

sources in the nonattainment area or 

‘‘NSR’’, contingency measures, 

conformity, and additional SIP revisions 

providing for attainment where EPA 

determines that the area has failed to 

attain the standard by the applicable 

attainment date. 

Subpart 4 requirements in CAA 

section 189 apply specifically to PM10

nonattainment areas. The requirements 

for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 

include: (1) An attainment 

demonstration; (2) provisions for 

RACM; (3) quantitative milestones 

demonstrating RFP toward attainment 

by the applicable attainment date; and, 

(4) provisions ensuring that the control 

requirements applicable to an area’s 

major stationary sources of PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors, except where the 

Administrator has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels exceeding the NAAQS. 

For nonattainment areas where EPA 

determines that monitored data show 

that the NAAQS have already been 

achieved, EPA’s interpretation, upheld 

by the Courts, is that the obligation to 

submit certain requirements of part D, 

subparts 1, 2 and 4 of the Act are 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain. These include 

requirements for attainment 

demonstrations, RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures, because these 

provisions have the purpose of helping 

achieve attainment of the NAAQS. 

Certain other obligations for PM10

nonattainment areas, however, are not 

suspended, such as the NSR 

requirements. 

This interpretation of the CAA is 

known as the Clean Data Policy. It is the 

subject of several EPA memoranda and 

regulations, and numerous rulemakings 

that have been published in the Federal 

Register over more than fifteen years. 

EPA finalized the statutory 

interpretation set forth in the Clean Data 

Policy in its final 8-hour ozone 

implementation 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, 

71645–71646; (November 29, 2005). The 

D.C. Circuit Court upheld this Clean 

Data regulation as a valid interpretation 

of the CAA; see NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). EPA also finalized 

its interpretation in an implementation 

rule for the NAAQS for particulate 

matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5); see 

40 CFR 51.1004(c). Thus, EPA has 

codified the Clean Data Policy when it 

established final rules governing 

implementation of new or revised 

NAAQS for the pollutants. See 70 FR 

71612, 71644–46 (November 29, 2005); 

72 FR 20586, 20665 (April 25, 2007) 

(PM2.5 Implementation Rule). 

Otherwise, EPA applies the Clean Data 

Policy in individual rulemakings related 

to specific nonattainment areas. See, 

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

determination of attainment of the PM10

standard in Coso Junction, California; 

and, 75 FR 6571 (February 10, 2010) the 

determination of attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard in Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana. 

In its many applications of the Clean 

Data Policy interpretation to PM10, EPA 

has explained 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 

PM2.5 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 PM10. See, e.g., 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

12Thus, 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. 

area); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) 

(Miami, Arizona area); 75 FR 27944 

(May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, 

California area); and 76 FR 21807 (April 

19, 2011) (Truckee Meadows, Nevada 

area). EPA’s interpretation that the 

obligation to submit an attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP contingency 

measures, and other measures related to 

attainment under part D of title I of the 

CAA, pertains whether the standard is 

PM10, ozone or PM2.5. 

In our proposed and final rulemakings 

determining that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area attained the PM10

standard, EPA set forth at length our 

rationale for applying the Clean Data 

Policy to PM10. The Ninth Circuit Court 

subsequently upheld this rulemaking, 

and specifically EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

in the context of the PM10 standard. See 

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 PM10, the Court 

stated: 

As the EPA rationally explained, if an area 

is in compliance with PM10 standards, then 

further progress for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment is not necessary. 

EPA noted in its prior PM10

rulemakings that the reasons for 

relieving an area that has attained the 

relevant standard of certain obligations 

under part D, subparts 1 and 2, apply 

equally to part D, subpart 4, which 

contains specific attainment 

demonstration and RFP provisions for 

PM10 nonattainment areas. In EPA’s 

Phase 2 Final Rule and ozone (Seitz) 

and PM2.5 Clean Data (Page) 

memoranda, EPA established 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, and 

certified air quality monitoring data). 

Every U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that 

has considered the Clean Data Policy 

has upheld EPA rulemakings applying 

its interpretation, for both ozone and 

PM10. See 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, 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 13564; (April 16, 1992). EPA’s 

prior determinations of attainment for 

PM10, e.g., for the San Joaquin Valley 

and Coso Junction areas in California, 

make clear that the same reasoning 

applies to the PM10 provision of part D, 

subpart 4. See 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 

63642 (proposed and final 

determination of attainment for San 

Joaquin Valley); and, 75 FR 13710 and 

75 FR 27944 (proposed and final 

determination of attainment for Coso 

Junction). 

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 applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ Thus, 

whether dealing with the general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2), the 

ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific 

RFP requirements for PM10 areas of part 

D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the 

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date. 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 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.12 EPA took this position with 

respect to the general RFP requirement 

of section 172(c)(2) in the General 

Preamble and also in the Seitz 

memorandum with respect to the 

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

In our prior applications of the Clean 

Data Policy to PM10, we have extended 

that interpretation to the specific 

provisions of part D, subpart 4. See, e.g., 

71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642, the 

proposed and final determination of 

attainment for San Joaquin Valley; and, 

75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944, the 

proposed and final determination of 

attainment for Coso Junction. 

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; (April 16, 1992). 

See also our September 4, 1992 

memorandum from John Calcagni, 

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31273 

13The 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)). 

14We note that our application of the Clean Data 

Policy to the Paul Spur/Douglas NA is consistent 

with actions we have taken for other PM10

nonattainment areas that we also determined were 

attaining the standard. See, e.g., 71 FR 6352 

(February 8, 2006), for the Ajo, Arizona area; 71 FR 

13021 (March 14, 2006) for the Yuma, Arizona area; 

71 FR 40023 (July 14, 2006) for the Weirton, West 

Virginia area; 71 FR 44920 (August 8, 2006) for the 

Rillito, Arizona area; 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 

2006) for the San Joaquin Valley, California area; 72 

FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) for the Miami, Arizona 

area; 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) for the Coso 

Junction, California area; and 76 FR 21807 (April 

19, 2011) for the Truckee Meadows, Nevada area. 

Attainment’’ (Calcagni memorandum), 

at page 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 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 General 

Preamble and also in the Seitz 

memorandum with respect to the 

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

In the Seitz memorandum, EPA also 

noted that section 182(g), the milestone 

requirement of subpart 2, which is 

analogous to provisions in section 

189(c), is suspended upon a 

determination that an area has attained. 

The Seitz memorandum, 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. 

See Seitz memorandum at page 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 * * *.’’ 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 

memorandum, and the section 182(b) 

and (c) requirements set forth in the 

Seitz memorandum. As EPA stated in 

the General Preamble, no other 

measures to provide for attainment 

would be needed by areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment since 

‘‘attainment will have been reached.’’ 57 

FR at 13564; (April 16, 1992). 

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.’’ 

See 57 FR 13564; (April 16, 1992), and 

Seitz memorandum, pages 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 states that EPA 

interprets section 172(c)(1) so that 

RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’ 

of an area’s attainment demonstration; 

see 57 FR 13560; (April 16, 1992). 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. See the General Preamble at 

57 FR 13498; (April 16, 1992). Thus, 

where an area is already attaining the 

standard, no additional RACM measures 

are required.13 EPA is interpreting 

section 189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its 

interpretation of section 172(c)(1). 

We emphasize that the suspension of 

the obligation to submit SIP revisions 

concerning these RFP, attainment 

demonstration, RACM, and other related 

requirements exists only for as long as 

the Paul Spur/Douglas NA continues to 

monitor attainment of the PM10

standard. If EPA determines, after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, that 

the area has monitored a violation of the 

PM10 NAAQS, the basis for suspending 

the requirements would no longer exist. 

As a result, the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

would again be subject to a requirement 

to submit the pertinent SIP revision or 

revisions and would need to address 

those requirements. Thus, a final 

determination that the area need not 

submit one of the pertinent SIP 

submittals amounts to no more than a 

suspension of the requirements for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. Only after EPA redesignates 

the area to attainment would the area be 

relieved of these attainment-related 

submission obligations. Attainment 

determinations under the Clean Data 

Policy do not suspend an area’s 

obligations unrelated to attainment in 

the area, such as provisions to address 

pollution transport. 

Based on our proposed determination 

that the Paul Spur/Douglas NA is 

currently attaining the PM10 NAAQS 

(see section II.C above) and as set forth 

above, we propose to find that Arizona’s 

obligations to submit planning 

provisions to meet the requirements for 

an attainment demonstration, 

reasonable further progress plans, 

reasonably available control measures, 

and contingency measures, no longer 

apply for so long as the Paul Spur/ 

Douglas NA continues to monitor 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.14 In the 

future, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, if EPA determines that the 

area again violates the PM10 NAAQS, 

then the basis for suspending the 

attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

and contingency measure requirements 

would no longer exist. In that event, we 

would notify Arizona that we have 

determined that the Paul Spur/Douglas 

NA is no longer attaining the PM10

standard and provide notice to the 

public in the Federal Register. 

Lastly, suspension of Arizona’s 

obligation to make submissions of 

certain attainment-related requirements 

for as long as the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

continues to attain the standard would 

also serve to suspend any EPA 

obligation to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

the same attainment-related 

requirements because the deficiency 

that had led to the FIP obligation would 

no longer exist, i.e., for so long as the 

related State obligation continues to be 

suspended. In this instance, in 1991, 

EPA made a finding of failure to submit 

a moderate area PM10 plan for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15EPA has been sued to promulgate a FIP for the 

Douglas portion of the Paul Spur/Douglas PM10

nonattainment area. Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Jackson, No. 10–cv–1846–MMC (N.D. Cal.). In 

settling this case, EPA agreed to promulgate a FIP 

by July 27, 2012 unless certain other actions (e.g., 

SIP approval or redesignation) are taken prior to 

that date. See 75 FR 82009; (December 29, 2010). 

The settlement agreement also acknowledges the 

potential for EPA to make a clean data 

determination for the area in lieu of promulgating 

a FIP and states that such a determination will not 

constitute a violation of the settlement agreement. 

Douglas portion of the Paul Spur/ 

Douglas NA, thereby triggering a FIP 

clock during which EPA had two years 

under section 110(c) of the CAA to 

promulgate a moderate area PM10 FIP 

for the Douglas portion of the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA.15 See 57 FR 19906; 

(May 8, 1992). If finalized as proposed, 

today’s proposed action would suspend 

this FIP obligation for so long as the 

State obligation is suspended, or until 

the area is redesignated to attainment, at 

which time the FIP obligation triggered 

in 1992 would end permanently. 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request 

for Public Comment 

Based on the most recent three-year 

period of certified, quality-assured data 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 

50, appendix K and for the reasons 

discussed above, we propose to find that 

the Paul Spur/Douglas NA is currently 

attaining the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

In conjunction with and based upon 

our proposed determination that the 

Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 NA is currently 

attaining the standard, EPA proposes to 

determine that Arizona’s obligation to 

submit the following CAA requirements 

is not applicable for so long as the Paul 

Spur/Douglas NA continues to attain the 

PM10 standard: the part D, subpart 4 

obligation to provide an attainment 

demonstration pursuant to section 

189(a)(1)(B); the RACM provisions of 

section 189(a)(1)(C); the RFP provisions 

of section 189(c); and, the attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP and 

contingency measure provisions of part 

D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of 

the Act. Furthermore, the obligation on 

EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the 

same attainment-related requirements 

would also be suspended. 

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 

Paul Spur/Douglas NA 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 moderate nonattainment 

for the Paul Spur/Douglas NA until such 

time as EPA determines that Arizona 

has met the CAA requirements for 

redesignating the Paul Spur/Douglas NA 

to attainment. 

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 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

With this action, we propose to make 

a determination regarding attainment of 

the PM10 NAAQS based on air quality 

data and, if finalized, this proposed 

action would result in suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, and 

would not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law or by the CAA. 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 will 

not impose substantial direct costs on 

Tribal governments or preempt Tribal 

law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 14, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12781 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 175, 176 

and 178 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2009–0126 (HM–215K)] 

RIN 2137–AE83 

Hazardous Materials: Harmonization 

With the United Nations 

Recommendations on the Transport of 

Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations, 

International Maritime Dangerous 

Goods Code, and the International 

Civil Aviation Organization Technical 

Instructions for the Safe Transport of 

Dangerous Goods by Air 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document responds to 

administrative appeals and solicits 

public comment on proposals generated 

as a result of certain amendments 

adopted in an international 

harmonization final rule published in 

the Federal Register. The final rule 

amended the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR) by revising, 

removing or adding proper shipping 

names, the hazard class of a material, 

packing group assignments, special 

provisions, packaging authorizations, 

packaging sections, air transport 

quantity limitations, and vessel stowage 

requirements. The amendments were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS