Document ID: EPA-R02-OAR-2009-0659-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: New York; New Jersey; and Connecticut; Determination of Attainment of 1997 Fine Particle Standard
Posted Date: 2010-08-02T04:00Z

[Federal Register: August 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 147)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 45076-45080]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02au10-10]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2009-0659; FRL-9183-4]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; Determination of Attainment of 
the 1997 Fine Particle Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
determine that the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT fine 
particle (PM2.5) nonattainment area has attained the 1997 
annual fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 
This proposed determination is based upon quality assured, quality 
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that shows the 
area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. If this proposed determination is 
made final, the requirements for this area to submit an attainment 
demonstration, reasonably available control measures, reasonable 
further progress plan, and contingency measures related to attainment 
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as 
the area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2009-0659, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
     Fax: 212-637-3901.
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,

[[Page 45077]]

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2009-0659. 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 e-mail. 
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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov 
your e-mail 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. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all 
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning 
today's proposed action related to New York or New Jersey, please 
contact Henry Feingersh, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, 
telephone number (212)637-3382, fax number (212) 637-3901, e-mail 
feingersh.henry@epa.gov.
    If you have questions concerning today's proposed action related to 
Connecticut, please contact Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-02, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, e-
mail simcox.alison@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For detailed information regarding this 
proposal, EPA prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD). The TSD can 
be viewed at http://www.regulations. gov.
    The following table of contents describes the format of this 
notice:

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?
V. How Did EPA Address Missing Data?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the New York-N. New Jersey-Long 
Island, NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT PM2.5 nonattainment area, 
referred to from this point forward as the NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT 
PM2.5 nonattainment area, has attained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed determination is based upon 
quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air 
monitoring data that show that the area has monitored attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. 
The New York portion of the NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT PM2.5 
nonattainment area contains the counties of Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New 
York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland,\1\ Suffolk, and Westchester. 
The New Jersey portion of the NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT PM2.5 
nonattainment area contains the counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, 
Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union. The 
Connecticut portion of the NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT PM2.5 
nonattainment area includes the counties of Fairfield and New Haven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 7, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
DC Circuit rendered its decisions in the PM2.5 
Designations Litigation, Catawba County, NC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (DC 
Cir. 2009). The Court denied all of the petitions for review except 
Rockland County, New York and remanded the designation of Rockland 
County to EPA for further explanation of its designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Is the Effect of This Action?

    If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA's 
PM2.5 implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the 
requirements for the NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT PM2.5 nonattainment 
area to submit an attainment demonstration, reasonably available 
control measures, reasonable further progress plan, and contingency 
measures related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS will be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut submitted their 
attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control measures, 
reasonable further progress plan and contingency measures SIP for 
this area on October 27, 2009, April 1, 2009, and November 18, 2008, 
respectively. EPA has not yet taken action on these submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further discussed below, the proposed determination, if 
finalized, would: (1) Suspend the requirements for the 
NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT PM2.5 nonattainment area to submit an 
attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures, 
reasonable further progress plan, and contingency measures related to 
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) continue until such 
time, if any, that EPA subsequently determines that the area has 
violated the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) be separate from 
the designation determination or requirements for the 
NY[dash]NJ[dash]CT PM2.5 nonattainment area based on the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect regardless of 
EPA's designation of this area as a nonattainment area for purposes of 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as described below, any 
such final determination would not be equivalent to the redesignation 
of the area to attainment based on the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, 
after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the 
area has violated the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for 
the suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR 
51.1004(c), would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have 
to address the pertinent requirements.

[[Page 45078]]

    The determination that EPA proposes with this Federal Register 
action, that the air quality data shows attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, is not equivalent to the redesignation of the 
area to attainment. This proposed action, if finalized, would not 
constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), because we would not yet have approved a 
maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the 
CAA, nor a determination that the area has met the other requirements 
for redesignation. The designation status of the area would remain 
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such 
time as EPA determines that it meets the CAA requirements for 
redesignation to attainment.
    This proposed action, if finalized, is limited to a determination 
that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
became effective on September 16, 1997 (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997) and 
are set forth at 40 CFR 50.7. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS became 
effective on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006) and are set 
forth at 40 CFR 50.13.\3\ Effective December 14, 2009, EPA made 
designation determinations, as required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13, 2009). Of 
relevance to the proposed rulemaking herein, in 74 FR 58688 EPA 
clarified the designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 
relabeling the existing designation tables to identify designations for 
the annual 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\) and 
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 65 [micro]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In response to legal challenges against the annual standard 
promulgated in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia remanded this standard to EPA for further consideration. 
(See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers 
Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (DC. Cir. 2009).) However, 
given that the 1997 and 2006 annual standards are essentially 
identical, attainment of the 1997 annual standard would also signify 
attainment of the remanded 2006 annual standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed determination that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 
nonattainment area has attained the annual 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
and any final determination, will have no effect on, and is not related 
to, the designation determination that EPA has made based on the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Conversely, the designation based on the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, will not have any effect on the determination 
proposed by this action.
    If this proposed determination is made final and the NY-NJ-CT 
PM2.5 nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the area 
to submit attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control 
measures, reasonable further progress plans, and contingency measures 
related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would remain 
suspended, even though EPA designated this area as a nonattainment area 
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated for 
the 2006 NAAQS will have to meet all applicable requirements for that 
designation.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established a health-based 
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) 
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 
concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA 
established the standards 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. EPA and state air quality agencies 
initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 
1999, and developed all air quality monitors by January 2001. On 
January 5, 2005, (70 FR 944), EPA published its air quality 
designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar 
years 2001-2003. These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.
    On November 13, 2009, EPA clarified the designations for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688), stating that the NY-NJ-CT 
PM2.5 nonattainment area is designated nonattainment for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and attainment/unclassifiable for 
the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 81.333). This 
proposed determination addresses the 1997 annual standard only. On 
April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA promulgated its PM2.5 
implementation rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, in which 
the Agency provided guidance for state and tribal plans to implement 
the 1997 PM2.5 standard. This rule, at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), 
specifies some of the regulatory consequences of a determination of 
attainment of the standard.

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for 
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR 
part 50 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System database for the NY-
NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area from 2001 through the present 
time.
    On the basis of that review, EPA has concluded that this area has 
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on data for the 
2007-2009 monitoring period.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7: The annual primary and 
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic 
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Table 1 shows the design values by county (i.e., the 3-year average 
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment 
area monitors for the years 2001 through 2009.

  Table 1--Design Values by County for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT Monitors in Micrograms per
            Cubic Meter ([mu]g/m\3\). The Standard for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  County                    01-03 DV  02-04 DV  03-05 DV  04-06 DV  05-07 DV  06-08 DV  07-09 DV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronx.....................................      15.7      15.2      15.7      15.1      15.5      14.3      13.9
Kings.....................................      14.7      14.2      14.6      14.0      14.0      12.9      12.2
Nassau....................................      12.2      11.7      12.1      11.5      11.4      10.9      10.3
New York \4\..............................      17.5      16.7      17.0      15.7      15.9      14.9      14.0
Orange....................................      11.5      11.1      11.4      10.8      10.8      10.0       9.3
Queens....................................       INC      12.8      12.7      12.1      11.8      11.3      10.6
Richmond..................................      12.0      11.5      11.8      13.4      13.2      12.4      11.6
Rockland..................................        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM

[[Page 45079]]

Suffolk...................................      12.1      11.3      11.5       INC       INC      10.5       9.7
Westchester...............................      12.3      11.7      11.9      11.6      11.7      11.2      10.6
Bergen....................................       INC      12.8      13.3      12.8      13.2      12.2      11.3
Essex \5\.................................       INC      13.5       INC      13.2      13.3       INC       INC
Hudson....................................      14.7      14.3      14.7      14.1      14.0      14.1      13.1
Mercer....................................      13.8      13.0      13.0      12.7      12.5      11.9      10.8
Middlesex.................................      12.4      11.8      12.5      11.8      12.1      11.3      10.4
Monmouth..................................        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM
Morris....................................       INC      11.6      11.9      11.2      11.3      10.3       9.6
Passaic...................................       INC      12.9      13.1      12.6      12.9      12.3      11.3
Somerset..................................        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM        NM
Union.....................................      15.5      15.3      15.5      14.8      14.4      13.6      12.6
Fairfield.................................      13.1      12.7      13.3      13.2      13.2      12.4      11.3
New Haven.................................      13.9      13.4      13.5      13.0      12.8      12.2      11.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM--No monitor located in county.
INC--All counties listed as INC for time period did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement, and had
  not previously shown violations of the NAAQS from years 2001-2003 to present.

    EPA's review of these data indicates that the NY-NJ-CT 
PM2.5 nonattainment area has met and continues to meet the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments 
on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The monitor in New York County located at Public School 59 
(PS 59) was the highest reading monitor at the time EPA made 
designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005. 
Midway through 2008, the monitor at PS 59 was shut down due to the 
demolition of the building site. Therefore, the data up until 2008 
was from PS 59. Missing 2008 data had an effect on calculating the 
design value for the annual standard. EPA developed an alternative 
procedure to determine the design value for the annual standard. 
This procedure used data representative of PS 59 based on EPA's 
statistical analysis. A description of the alternate procedure can 
be found in Section V. Detailed information on this alternative 
procedure can be found in the Technical Support Document.
    \5\ The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center station in Essex 
County was discontinued on July 24, 2008 due to an unexpected loss 
of access, and replaced with a new monitor at the Newark Firehouse. 
PM2.5 monitoring was established at the firehouse on May 
13, 2009. Since three years of data was not collected at either 
monitoring site for 2006-08, and 2007-09, Essex County is listed as 
INC for the most recent three year periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. How did EPA address missing data?

    Data handling conventions and computations necessary for 
determining whether areas have met the PM2.5 NAAQS, 
including requirements for data completeness, are listed in Appendix N 
of 40 CFR part 50. A year meets data completeness requirements when at 
least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have 
valid data. The use of less than complete data is subject to the 
approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as monitoring site 
closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in 
determining whether to use such data as set forth at 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix N, section 4.1(c).
    The building on which the design value monitor (PS 59) for the NY-
NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area was located was demolished 
midway through 2008. This was a planned shutdown and although New York 
could have shut it down at the beginning of the year, the state chose 
to continue it as long as possible to collect data. Unfortunately, the 
monitor at this location can not be replaced, because the roof of the 
new building is too far above sidewalk level to serve as a valid 
monitoring site under 40 CFR part 86 appendix E. NY and EPA tried but 
could not locate a suitable replacement monitoring site in the 
immediate vicinity of PS 59 that would also meet siting criteria.
    A method was developed, therefore, to use less than complete data 
to determine if the design value monitor would be in attainment if it 
had continued to operate. The approach summarized in this section, and 
further described in the TSD, may or may not be appropriate for other 
areas with less than complete data. EPA will evaluate the 
appropriateness of this analytical approach for each area with less 
than complete data on a case-by-case basis.

Monitoring Network

    EPA has determined that the PM2.5 monitoring network for 
the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area is adequate. First, 
the number of monitors in the area far exceeds the minimum regulatory 
requirements. While three monitors are required in the nonattainment 
area, the area currently has 39 monitoring locations. The States of New 
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have been very diligent in the number 
and placement of PM2.5 monitors in the nonattainment area. 
Secondly, EPA meets annually with each state to discuss any problems or 
issues concerning the State's air monitoring data and/or network. In 
addition, EPA and the States communicate many times during the year so 
that issues can be addressed as they show up. Thirdly, EPA regulations 
require states to submit annual network plans to their respective 
Regions. These plans outline the current networks and any proposed 
changes in the upcoming 18 months. Regions 1 and 2 have always been 
able to approve these plans due to the high quality of the New York, 
New Jersey and Connecticut monitoring networks. Copies of the approved 
annual network review letters can be seen in the TSD.

Methodology

    The method used to determine the design value for PS 59 involves 
establishing a linear relationship between PS 59 and another site in 
the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area that has more complete 
data for the missing period and has a substantial number of samples in 
common over the period of interest. The monitor in the nonattainment 
area that had the highest correlation with PS 59 was used to develop a 
regression equation. The regression equation was used to estimate 
values for the missing quarters of data for PS 59. The design value for 
PS 59 was then calculated using the estimated values to fill in for the 
missing quarters. The estimated design

[[Page 45080]]

value was then analyzed using a bootstrapping statistical method. 
Bootstrapping involves the use of regression residuals and repeating 
the regression analysis 1,000 times. There were no exceedances of the 
NAAQS as a result of the bootstrapping analysis. The result of the 
analysis determined that the 2007-2009 design value for the NY-NJ-CT 
PM2.5 nonattainment area would be 14.0 [micro]g/m\3\.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 
nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS has 
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the 
standard based on data through 2009. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), 
if EPA finalizes this determination, it would suspend the requirements 
for this area to submit attainment demonstrations, reasonably available 
control measures, reasonable further progress plans, and contingency 
measures related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality 
data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain 
Federal requirements. 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 rule does not have Tribal implications, as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 22, 2010.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
    Dated: June 28, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2010-18885 Filed 7-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P