[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27944-27946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12093]



[[Page 27944]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0172; FRL-9153-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of 
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10; 
Determination of Attainment for the Coso Junction Nonattainment Area; 
Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act 
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its determination that the Coso Junction 
nonattainment area (CJNA) 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 
determination is based upon quality-assured and certified air quality 
monitoring data for the PM-10 NAAQS from 2006-2008. In addition, 
reported data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) show that the CJNA 
continued to attain the PM-10 NAAQS through 2009 and preliminary data 
available to date for 2010 show that the CJNA continues to attain. 
Also, EPA is finalizing its determination that, because the CJNA has 
attained the PM-10 NAAQS, the State's 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: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this action, 
identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0172, by one of the 
following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, 
please follow the on-line instructions; or,
    <bullet> Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http://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., Confidential Business Information). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4111, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5700363a243b322e791d3225252e1732273679303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88dfe9e5fbe4edf1a6c2edfafaf1c8edf8e9a6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Actions
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Additional Preliminary Air Quality Data Since Proposed Rule
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Actions

    On March 23, 2010, EPA proposed to determine that the CJNA has 
attained the 24-hour NAAQS for PM-10 (75 FR 13710). Our proposed 
determination was based on complete, quality-assured and certified data 
gathered at established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) 
in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA AQS database for the 
period 2006-2008. In addition, EPA found that quality-assured AQS data 
showed that the CJNA continued to attain through 2009 and that 
preliminary data then available for 2010 showed no exceedances of the 
24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. Id.
    EPA also proposed, under its Clean Data Policy, to determine that 
the obligation to submit certain CAA requirements was not applicable 
for as long as the CJNA continued to attain the PM-10 NAAQS. 
Specifically, we proposed that the State's obligation to submit the 
following CAA requirements would be suspended if EPA finalized its 
rulemaking: The part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment 
demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the reasonably 
available control measure (RACM) provisions of 189(a)(1)(C), the 
reasonable further progress (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.
    For a more detailed discussion of our proposed action, including 
background topics, such as development of the PM-10 NAAQS, the 
designation, classification and air quality planning history for the 
CJNA; our Clean Data Policy; and our general requirements for making 
attainment determinations, please refer to our proposed rule.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA provided for a 30-day public comment period on our proposed 
action. This period ended on April 22, 2010. We received no comments.

III. Additional Preliminary Air Quality Data Since Proposed Rule

    Subsequent to our proposal, and after the close of the comment 
period, the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 
(GBUAPCD) informed EPA that preliminary data showed two exceedances of 
the 24-hour PM-10 standard were recorded at the CJNA monitor in March 
2010, one on March 9, 2010 (222 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\)) and another on March 18, 2010 (157 [mu]g/m\3\). See May 4, 2010 
e-mail from Duane Ono, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD, 
to Doris Lo, Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA, with 
CosoJunction2010--MetAndTEOM.xlsx attachment. The preliminary air 
quality data for the first quarter of 2010 (January through March), 
which contain these exceedances, have not been verified through the 
GBUAPCD's data validation process, nor have they been entered into 
EPA's AQS database. The GBUAPCD is still in the process of reviewing 
the first quarter data which does not have to be submitted into the AQS 
database until June 30, 2010. See 52 FR 24634 and 40 CFR 58.16(b).
    The preliminary 24-hour concentrations for March 9 and 18, if 
confirmed after quality assurance and control procedures are completed, 
would exceed the 24-hour PM-10 standard of 154 [mu]g/m\3\. 40 CFR 
50.6.\1\ The District has also indicated that it may flag the March 9, 
2010 exceedance for possible exclusion from consideration in a 
determination of attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the 
level of the 24-hour standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\) after rounding to the 
nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in 5 or greater are to be 
rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\ would not be 
an exceedance since it would be rounded down to 150 [mu]g/m\3\ 
whereas a recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an exceedance 
since it would be rounded up to 160 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix K, section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The determination of whether an area has attained the PM-10 
standard is based on the most recent three consecutive calendar years 
of quality-assured data. As discussed above and in our proposed rule, 
the CJNA has attained the PM-10 standard based on complete, quality-
assured and certified data for the three-year period 2006-2008

[[Page 27945]]

and data in AQS for the period 2007-2009. 75 FR 13710, 13712. These 
quality-assured data show that the CJNA monitor has an expected number 
of exceedances of less than or equal to one per year, averaged over the 
three-year period.
    Because 2010 has not ended, EPA cannot determine whether the area 
has attained the standard based on the three-year period from 2008 
through 2010. We can, however, determine with less than three years of 
data whether the CJNA has failed to attain in the period from 2008 to 
date. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(c).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While it is necessary to have three years of representative 
monitoring data to demonstrate that a monitor is attaining the 
standard, 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(c) states that 
there are less stringent data requirements for showing that a 
monitor has failed to attain. Since the 24-hour PM-10 standard is 
violated once a monitor averages more than one expected exceedance 
per year (averaged over three years), a monitor with four or more 
observed or expected exceedances has violated the 24-hour NAAQS even 
if there are fewer than three years of data (four exceedances 
divided by three years is greater than one per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008 there were no exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS and in 2009 
there was one exceedance on December 22, 2009. 75 FR 13710. If we 
include the preliminary data showing two additional exceedances in 
March 2010, the expected number of exceedances at the CJNA monitor 
during the period from 2008 through 2010 would be three. Thus, even 
with two additional exceedances in March 2010, the CJNA continues to 
attain the PM-10 NAAQS to date because the CJNA monitor has an expected 
number of exceedances of less than or equal to one per year, averaged 
over the three-year period from 2008 through 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The status of the preliminary exceedances may change after 
the data validation process is concluded and after any flagging 
issues are addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While to date the CJNA continues to attain, EPA will continue to 
assess the attainment status of the CJNA as additional data are 
received, reviewed, and entered into the AQS database.

IV. EPA's Final Action

    Based on a three-year period (2006-2008) of complete, quality-
assured and certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix K, EPA is finalizing its determination that the CJNA has 
attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. In addition, EPA's determination is 
based on reported data in EPA's AQS database for 2009 showing that the 
CJNA continued to attain the PM-10 NAAQS for the period 2007-2009, and 
available preliminary data to date for 2010 that are consistent with 
continued attainment.
    This determination of attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS for the CJNA 
does not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 
107(d)(3) because we have neither approved a maintenance plan as 
required under section 175(A) of the CAA, nor determined that the area 
has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. The 
classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 remains 
moderate nonattainment for the CJNA until such time as California meets 
the CAA requirements for redesignation of the CJNA to attainment.
    EPA is also finalizing its determination that, because the CJNA is 
attaining the NAAQS, the obligation to submit the following CAA 
requirements is not applicable for so long as the area 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. Subsequently, if we determine after notice and comment rulemaking 
in the Federal Register that the CJNA has violated the standard (prior 
to a redesignation to attainment), these requirements would once again 
become applicable.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final action makes a determination of attainment based on air 
quality and results in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, 
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 final action does not 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 19, 2010. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

[[Page 27946]]

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 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.

    Dated: May 13, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2010-12093 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>