Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0175-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation: Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Standard for the Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment Area; PA
Posted Date: 2015-04-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22666-22671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09416]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0175; FRL-9926-70-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour Fine 
Particulate Standard for the Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make 
a determination of attainment regarding the Liberty-Clairton, 
Pennsylvania 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
nonattainment area (hereafter ``Liberty-Clairton Area'' or ``the 
Area''). EPA is proposing to determine that the Liberty-Clairton Area 
has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS), based upon quality-assured, quality-
controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data for the calendar 
years 2012-2014. If EPA finalizes this ``clean data determination,'' 
the requirement for the Liberty-Clairton Area to submit an attainment 
demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable 
further progress (RFP), and contingency measures related to attainment 
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so 
long as the Area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. If finalized, this determination will not constitute a 
redesignation to attainment. This proposed action is being taken under 
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0175 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0175, Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0175. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. 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: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Liberty-Clairton

[[Page 22667]]

Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This 
proposed ``clean data determination'' is based upon quality assured and 
certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored 
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2012-2014 
monitoring period. If EPA finalizes this determination, the requirement 
for the Liberty-Clairton Area to submit an attainment demonstration, 
RACM, RFP, and contingency measures related to attainment of the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the 
area continues to attain that NAAQS. However, if finalized, this 
determination of attainment will not suspend Pennsylvania's other 
required statutory obligations including requirements for an emissions 
inventory and preconstruction permitting program for the Liberty-
Clairton Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This final 
determination will not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The 
Liberty-Clairton Area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that 
the Liberty-Clairton Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation 
to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan under section 
175A.

II. Background

A. PM2.5 NAAQS History

    On July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (hereafter referred to 
as ``the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS''), based on a 3-year 
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (62 FR 38652, 
July 18, 1997). At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour standard 
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (hereafter referred to as ``the 1997 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS''). See 40 CFR 50.7. The 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS were based on significant evidence and numerous health studies 
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures 
to particulate matter.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On 
January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its nonattainment area 
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air 
quality monitoring data for calendar years 2001-2003. These 
designations, effective on April 5, 2005, included the Liberty-Clairton 
Area as a nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS. The Liberty-Clairton Area is comprised of the following portion 
of Allegheny County: the boroughs of Lincoln, Glassport, Liberty, and 
Port Vue and the City of Clairton. See 40 CFR 81.339 (Pennsylvania). 
The Liberty-Clairton Area is surrounded by, but separate and distinct 
from, the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley PM2.5 nonattainment 
area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA previously made a determination of attainment for the 
Liberty-Clairton Area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 78 FR 
63881 (October 25, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (hereby ``the 2006 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS'') based on a 3-year average of annual mean 
PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour standard 
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 
24-hour concentrations (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006). The revised 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (hereafter ``the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS'') became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40 
CFR 50.13. The more stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 
based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating 
that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to 
PM2.5 at this level.
    Many petitioners challenged aspects of EPA's 2006 revisions to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS. See American Farm Bureau Federation and 
National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 
2009). As a result of this challenge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded the 2006 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA for further proceedings. The 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS was not affected by the remand and remains in 
effect.
    On November 13, 2009, EPA published designations for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688), which became effective on 
December 14, 2009. In that action, EPA designated the Liberty-Clairton 
Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 
retaining the same geographical boundaries as for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    A nonattainment designation under the CAA triggers additional 
planning requirements for states to show attainment of the NAAQS in the 
nonattainment areas by a statutory attainment date, as specified in the 
CAA. Since 2005, EPA had implemented the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS based on the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of 
Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1). On January 4, 2013, in 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (NRDC v. EPA), the D.C. 
Circuit determined that EPA should be implementing its PM2.5 
pollution standard under additional CAA requirements than those EPA had 
been following in subpart 1 and remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air 
Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule) (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (2008 
NSR PM2.5 Rule).\2\ 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. 
Circuit found that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to subpart 1, without 
consideration of the particulate matter specific provisions of subpart 
4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule relates to requirements 
for the NSR permitting program required by parts C and D of title I 
of the CAA. The details and provisions of the 2008 NSR 
PM2.5 Rule are not relevant to this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the D.C. Circuit declined to establish a deadline for 
EPA's response, EPA intends to respond promptly to the court's remand 
and to promulgate new generally applicable implementation regulations 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of 
subparts 1 and 4. In the interim, however, states and EPA still need to 
proceed with implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely 
and effective fashion in order to meet statutory obligations under the 
CAA and to assure the protection of public health intended by those 
NAAQS.
    While the regulatory provisions of EPA's 1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule do not explicitly apply to the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's underlying statutory interpretation has 
been the same for both standards. On March 2, 2012, EPA provided 
implementation guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
which reaffirmed and continued the framework and policy approaches of 
the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule.\3\ Thus, EPA believes 
that the Clean Data Policy provisions within the 1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule are also applicable to the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 78 FR 49403 (August 14, 2013) (proposed 
determination that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS which discussed the application of the 1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule's Clean Data Policy provisions to 
a determination of attainment for the 2006 standard). In addition, 
although the D.C. Circuit

[[Page 22668]]

remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA, the D.C. 
Circuit's decision in NRDC v. EPA related to EPA's use of subpart 1 for 
CAA Part D requirements instead of subpart 1 and subpart 4, and the 
decision did not cast doubt on EPA's interpretation of certain 
statutory provisions underlying the Clean Data Policy nor cast any 
doubt on EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation in the 1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule. See NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA subsequently withdrew the implementation guidance on 
June 6, 2013 subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in NRDC v. 
EPA. EPA's June 6, 2013 withdrawal memorandum is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pdfs/implementationguidancewithdrawmemo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statutory provisions in subpart 4 require EPA, among other 
things, to classify nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS 
based on the severity of their pollution problem. Under EPA's prior 
approach to implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 
according to subpart 1, EPA was not required to, and thus did not, 
identify any classifications for areas designated nonattainment. In 
contrast, subpart 4 of the CAA, at section 188, provides that all areas 
designated nonattainment are initially classified ``by operation of 
law'' as ``Moderate'' nonattainment areas, and they remain classified 
as Moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA later reclassifies 
them as Serious nonattainment areas or EPA determines that an area has 
not attained the PM2.5 NAAQS by the area's applicable 
attainment date. On April 25, 2014, EPA finalized a rule identifying 
the classification of all PM2.5 areas currently designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as 
``Moderate,'' consistent with subpart 4 of the CAA. See 79 FR 31566 
(June 2, 2014). Consequently, the Liberty-Clairton Area was classified 
as Moderate for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. Determination of Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour NAAQS

    Under section 188(c)(1) of the CAA, a Moderate nonattainment area 
shall attain the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable 
but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's 
designation to nonattainment. Because the designation of nonattainment 
areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on 
December 14, 2009, the presumptive sixth year attainment date for 
Moderate nonattainment areas would be no later than December 2015.
    To determine attainment with a NAAQS, EPA commonly uses three 
calendar years of complete air quality data available for the 
nonattainment area. The criteria for determining if an area is 
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are set out in 40 CFR 
50.13 and appendix N. In summary, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS is met when the 24-hour design value is less than or equal to 35 
[mu]g/m\3\. Three years of valid annual 98th percentile 24-hour average 
PM2.5 concentration values are required to produce a valid 
24-hour PM2.5 design value. A year meets data completeness 
requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days 
for each quarter have valid data.

C. EPA's Clean Data Policy

    Under EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy interpretation, a 
determination that a nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS suspends 
the state's obligation to submit attainment-related planning 
requirements of the CAA for so long as the area continues to attain the 
standard.\4\ These include requirements to submit an attainment 
demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures, because the purpose 
of these provisions is to help reach attainment, a goal which has 
already been achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For an EPA memorandum discussing interpretation that three 
years of data showing attainment of a NAAQS suspends requirements to 
submit certain attainment plan SIP requirements including those in 
section 172 of the CAA, see Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 
Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA 
Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning Standards, May 10, 1995 (Seitz Memorandum), located at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy interpretation in both its 
8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.918 and in its 1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.1004(c). See 72 FR 
20585, 20665 (April 25, 2007). While the D.C. Circuit in its January 4, 
2013 decision remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 
the Court did not address the merits of that regulation regarding our 
Clean Data Policy in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), nor cast any doubt on EPA's 
existing interpretation of the statutory provisions for the Clean Data 
Policy. In this section of the proposed rulemaking action, EPA is 
addressing the effect of a final determination of attainment under the 
Clean Data Policy for the Liberty-Clairton Area, as a moderate 
nonattainment area under subpart 4.
1. Background on Clean Data Policy
    Over the past two decades, EPA has consistently applied its ``Clean 
Data Policy'' interpretation to attainment-related provisions of 
subparts 1, 2 and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several 
EPA memoranda such as the Seitz Memorandum and regulations. In 
addition, numerous individual rulemakings published in the Federal 
Register have applied the interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS, 
including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, coarse particulate matter 
(PM10), PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO) and lead (Pb) 
standards. The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Clean Data Policy 
interpretation as embodied in EPA's 1997 8-Hour Ozone Implementation 
Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.\5\ NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 
Other U.S. Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed EPA's 
Clean Data Policy interpretation have upheld it and the rulemakings 
applying EPA's interpretation. 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); and Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06-
75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).'' See 70 
FR 71612, 71645-46 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit decision in NRDC v. 
EPA, EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4 is set 
forth here, for the purpose of identifying the effects of a 
determination of attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
for the Liberty-Clairton Area. EPA has previously articulated its Clean 
Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4 in implementing the 
PM10 standard. See, e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) 
(determination of attainment of the PM10 standard in Coso 
Junction, California); 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); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) (Miami, 
Arizona Area).
    EPA has recently articulated as well its Clean Data Policy 
interpretation under subpart 4 in implementing the PM2.5 
standard, including specifically the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. See 79 FR 25014 (May 2, 2014) (determination of attainment of 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 
Area, Pennsylvania) and 78 FR 63881 (October 25, 2013) (determination 
of attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in Liberty-
Clairton Area, Pennsylvania). Thus, EPA has established that, under 
subpart 4, an attainment determination suspends the obligations to 
submit an attainment

[[Page 22669]]

demonstration, RACM, RFP contingency measures, and other measures 
related to attainment.
2. Application of the Clean Data Policy to Attainment-Related 
Provisions of Subpart 4
    EPA initially set forth at length its rationale for applying the 
Clean Data Policy to PM10 under subpart 4 in EPA's proposed 
and final rulemaking actions determining that the San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment area attained the PM10 standard. The Ninth 
Circuit upheld EPA's final rulemaking, and specifically EPA's Clean 
Data Policy, in the context of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 
supra. Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum Opinion, March 
2, 2009. In rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the Clean Data 
Policy under subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit stated, 
``As the EPA explained, if an area is in compliance with 
PM10 standards, then further progress for the purpose of 
ensuring attainment is not necessary.''
    The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the 
more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not 
superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1 
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated 
as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4, itself, contains 
specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10 
nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013 decision in 
NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general 
guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making 
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for 
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See ``State Implementation Plans; General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). 
In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 
and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 
requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related to, 
the more specific PM10 requirements.'' Id. These subpart 1 
requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment 
demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency 
measures.
    EPA has long interpreted the provisions of subpart 1 (sections 171 
and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP for an area already 
attaining the ozone NAAQS.\6\ For an area that is attaining, showing 
that the state will make RFP towards attainment ``will, therefore, have 
no meaning at that point.'' Id. See also 71 FR 40952 and 71 FR 63642 
(proposed and final determination of attainment for San Joaquin 
Valley); 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944 (proposed and final determination 
of attainment for Coso Junction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Seitz Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 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 [section 171(1)] of this 
title, toward attainment by the applicable date.

    With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of 
part D, 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.
    Although section 189(c) 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, EPA 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Thus, EPA believes 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 
CAA. 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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 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, in 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 5.

[[Page 22670]]

    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of 
section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B) in subpart 4, 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, 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 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 section 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted the contingency measure 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) \8\ 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 and Seitz Memorandum, pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See section 182(c)(9) for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas:

shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be 
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or 
to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this 
part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as 
contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further 
action by the State or [EPA].

    The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the 
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements. 
Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress 
targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the 
attainment date.
     Where an area has already achieved attainment by the attainment 
date, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into 
attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in 
the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for 
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the 
applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer 
apply when an area has attained the standard.
    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 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 
13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no 
additional RACM measures are required.\9\ EPA is interpreting section 
189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA's interpretation that the statute requires 
implementation only of RACM measures that would advance attainment 
was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit in 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 in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions 
concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency 
measures and other related requirements exists only for as long as the 
area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA 
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has 
monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements 
being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area 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 if and 
when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved 
of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the 
Clean Data Policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to 
attainment in the area, such as provisions to address nonattainment 
area permitting requirements, emission inventory requirements, and 
pollution transport. See 79 FR 77911 (December 29, 2014) (discussion of 
remaining attainment plan SIP requirements in CAA section 172(c) in the 
final determination of attainment rulemaking for the Lyons, 
Pennsylvania lead nonattainment area).
    For this proposed rulemaking action, EPA has evaluated 
PM2.5 air quality data to propose to determine that the 
Liberty-Clairton Area is attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Liberty-Clairton 
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Air Quality Data

    The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) submitted quality-
assured and certified air quality monitoring data into the EPA Air 
Quality System (AQS) database for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. 
There are two PM2.5 monitors in the Liberty-Clairton Area--
one in Liberty Borough and one in the City of Clairton. Both monitors 
had complete data for all quarters in the calendar years 2012 through 
2014.
    This proposed determination of attainment for the Liberty-Clairton 
Area is based on EPA's evaluation of quality-controlled, quality 
assured, certified PM2.5 air quality data for 2012-2014, as 
summarized in Table 1.

                                   Table 1--2012-2014 Liberty-Clairton Area Daily PM2.5 Monitoring Data & Completeness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         98th percentile                    2012-2014
          Monitor name               AQS site ID          Location      ------------------------------------------------  Design value    Complete data?
                                                                              2012            2013            2014        ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty.........................       42-003-0064  Liberty Borough....            42.5            31.1            32.2              35  Yes.
Clairton........................       42-003-3007  City of Clairton...            19.2            17.1            31.2              23  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22671]]

    As shown, the design values for both monitors in the Liberty-
Clairton Area are 35 [mu]g/m\3\ or less for the 2012-2014 monitoring 
period. Thus, in accordance with EPA's requirements in 40 CFR part 50, 
the monitors in the Liberty-Clairton Area are showing attainment of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the 2012-2014 quality-
assured and certified air quality data, the most recent three years of 
data for the Area.
    Based on our review of the Liberty-Clairton Area's PM2.5 
ambient air monitoring data, EPA proposes to determine that the 
Liberty-Clairton Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS during the 2012-2014 monitoring period, in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 50. Additional information on air quality data for the Liberty-
Clairton Area can be found in the technical support document (TSD) 
prepared for this proposed action.

IV. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine, based on the most recent three years 
of complete quality-assured, and certified data for 2012-2014 meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, that the Liberty-
Clairton Area is currently attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. In accordance with our Clean Data Policy, based upon this 
proposed determination of attainment, EPA also proposes to determine 
that the obligation to submit the following attainment-related planning 
requirements for the Liberty-Clairton Area are not applicable for so 
long as the Area continues to monitor attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS: Subpart 4 obligations 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 related 
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, and contingency measure provisions 
requirements of subpart 1, section 172. If in the future, EPA 
determines after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the Liberty-
Clairton Area again violates the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 
the basis for suspending these requirements would no longer exist. This 
proposed rulemaking action, if finalized, would not constitute a 
redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). In addition, 
this determination, if finalized, does not relieve the requirement for 
Pennsylvania to submit for the Liberty-Clairton Area an emissions 
inventory as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) or to have a 
nonattainment area permitting program pursuant to CAA sections 
172(c)(5) and 173. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues 
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before 
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, 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 proposed rule, proposing to determine that the 
Liberty-Clairton Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not 
approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes 
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments 
or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 10, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-09416 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P