
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65651-65656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26629]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0800; FRL-9746-9]


Determination of Attainment for the Chico Nonattainment Area for 
the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination Regarding 
Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment 
area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 
proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and 
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this area has 
monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based 
on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. EPA is further proposing that, if 
EPA finalizes this determination of attainment, the requirements for 
this area to submit an attainment demonstration, together with 
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further 
progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP 
and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so long as the area 
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 29, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0800 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov, please 
follow the on-line instructions;
    2. Email to ungvarsky.john@epa.gov; or
    3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR-2, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, California 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: John Ungvarsky, (415) 972-3963, or by 
email at ungvarsky.john@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. What determination is EPA making?
II. What is the background for this action?
    A. PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
    C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
    A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
    B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?
    A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 
p.m.2.5 NAAQS
    B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy
V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What determination is EPA making?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment area has 
clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles (generally 
referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in 
diameter, PM2.5). This determination is based upon complete, 
quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing the 
area has monitored attainment of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS 
based on 2009-2011 monitoring data. Preliminary data in EPA's Air 
Quality System (AQS) for 2012 indicate that the area continues to 
attain the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS. Based on this determination, 
we are also proposing to suspend the obligations on the State of 
California to submit certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions 
related to attainment of this standard for the Chico nonattainment area 
for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.

II. What is the background for this action?

A. PM2.5 NAAQS

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA has 
established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or 
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as 
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to 
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be 
established.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to 
add new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as the 
indicator for the pollutant. EPA

[[Page 65652]]

established primary and secondary \1\ annual and 24-hour standards for 
PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The annual standard was set at 15.0 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of 
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour standard 
was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of the 98th 
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 
population-oriented monitor within an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' national ambient air 
quality standards are those determined by EPA as requisite to 
protect the public health, and ``secondary'' standards are those 
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from 
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the 
presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section 
109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average 
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the 
1997 annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, but with 
tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air 
quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November 13, 2009). 
Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the Chico 
\2\ area in California as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ The boundaries for this area are described 
in 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the 
southwestern two-thirds of Butte County, California. Butte County 
lies in the central portion of northern California's Sacramento 
Valley Air Basin, which stretches from Sacramento County in the 
south to Shasta County in the north.
    \3\ With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this area 
is designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within three years of the effective date of designations, states 
with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS are required to submit SIP revisions that, among other elements, 
provide for implementation of reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment of the standard 
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years from the 
nonattainment designation (in this instance, no later than December 14, 
2014), as well as contingency measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2), 
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for 
submittal of these SIP revisions, the State of California requested 
that EPA make determinations that the Chico \4\ nonattainment area has 
attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment-related 
SIP submittal requirements are not applicable for as long as the area 
continues to attain the standard. Today's proposal responds to the 
State's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On June 2, 2011, James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the 
California Air Resources Board, submitted a request to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the 
Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?

    A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets 
the PM2.5 NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent 
three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established 
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area 
and entered into the AQS database. Data from air monitors operated by 
state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements 
must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify 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 areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR 
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E. 
All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.
    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in 
accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard 
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at 
each monitoring site within the area.\5\ The PM2.5 24-hour 
average is considered valid when 75 percent of the hourly averages for 
the 24-hour period are available. Data completeness requirements for a 
given year are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling 
days for each quarter have valid data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The PM2.5 24-hour standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values 
recorded at each monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, 
section 1.0(c)], and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when 
the 24-hour standard design value at each monitoring site is less 
than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local Air Pollution 
Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts (``Districts'') 
operate ambient monitoring stations throughout the State. CARB is the 
lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization 
\6\ (PQAO) that includes all the monitoring agencies in the State with 
a few exceptions.\7\ CARB is responsible for monitoring ambient air 
quality within the Chico nonattainment area. In addition, CARB oversees 
the quality assurance of all data collected within the CARB PQAO. CARB 
submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA that describe the 
monitoring sites CARB operates. These plans discuss the status of the 
air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Primary quality assurance organization means a monitoring 
organization or other organization that is responsible for a set of 
stations that monitor the same pollutant and for which data quality 
assessments can be pooled (40 CFR 58.1).
    \7\ The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the South 
Coast Air Quality Management District, and the San Diego Air 
Pollution Control District are each designated as the PQAO for their 
respective ambient air monitoring programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed these annual plans for 
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 
58. With respect to PM2.5, EPA has found that CARB's network 
plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA 
letters to CARB approving its annual network plans for years 2009, 
2010, and 2011.\8\ EPA also concluded \9\ from its Technical System 
Audit of the CARB PQAO (conducted during the summer of 2007) that the

[[Page 65653]]

ambient air monitoring network operated by CARB currently meets or 
exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for 
PM2.5 in the Chico nonattainment area. Also, CARB annually 
certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-
assured.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis 
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality 
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB (November 
24, 2009) (approving CARB's ``2009 Annual Monitoring Network Report 
for Small Districts in California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin, 
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen 
Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical 
Support Division, CARB (October 29, 2010) (approving CARB's ``2010 
Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small Districts in 
California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality 
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air 
Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB 
(November 1, 2011) (approving CARB's ``2011 Annual Monitoring 
Network Plan for the Small Districts in California'').
    \9\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. 
EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 
transmitting ''Technical System Audit of the California 
Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,'' with 
enclosure, August 18, 2008.
    \10\ See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality 
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying 
calendar year 2011 ambient air quality data and quality assurance 
data, May 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was one PM2.5 SLAMS operating during the 2009-2011 
period in the Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area. The site is 
operated by CARB and has been monitoring PM2.5 
concentrations since 1999. EPA defines specific monitoring site types 
and spatial scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and 
location of required monitors. With respect to the Chico site, the 
spatial scale is neighborhood scale,\11\ and the monitoring objectives 
(site types) are population exposure and highest concentration.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In this context, ``neighborhood'' spatial scale defines 
concentrations within some extended area of the city that has 
relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 
kilometers range. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2.
    \12\ See CARB's 2011 Annual Network Plan Report (June, 2011); 
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description Report, September 
14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we 
have reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM2.5 
ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS for the applicable 
monitoring period collected at the monitoring site in the Chico 
nonattainment area and have found the data to be complete. However, 
under our monitoring regulations in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1), at the Chico 
monitor, CARB should be monitoring on a one-in-three day schedule 
rather than on a one-in-six day schedule. In addition, the 2009-2011 
design value (35 [mu]g/m\3\) is within 5 percent of the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, triggering a daily sampling frequency required 
starting January 2013. See 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii). In response, CARB 
has agreed to increase the sampling frequency.\13\ The increased number 
of samples would provide sufficient information to evaluate the area's 
continued attainment of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS if we 
finalize this proposed determination of attainment for the Chico 
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In CARB's August 15, 2012 letter to Matthew Lakin, Manager, 
Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, Karen Magliano, Chief, 
Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division 
agreed to increase the monitoring frequency to one-in-three day 
beginning on October 1, 2012 and to daily sampling beginning January 
1, 2013 at the Chico monitoring site to ensure that the Chico area 
continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1) for 
monitoring frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment

    EPA's evaluation of whether the Chico PM2.5 
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
is based on our review of the monitoring data and takes into account 
the adequacy \14\ of both the PM2.5 monitoring network in 
the nonattainment area and the reliability of the data collected by the 
network as discussed in the previous section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design value for the Chico 
nonattainment area monitor based on ambient air quality monitoring data 
for the most recent complete three-year period (2009-2011). The data 
show that the design value for the 2009-2011 period was equal to or 
less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at the monitor. Therefore, we are proposing to 
determine, based on the complete, quality-assured data for 2009-2011, 
that the Chico area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standard. Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012 indicate that the 
area continues to attain the standard.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Butte County Air Quality Management District and Butte 
County Department of Public Health issued Joint Air Quality 
Advisories on August 2, 6, 10, and 14, 2012 because of high 
PM2.5 levels in the Butte County foothills region 
apparently caused by smoke from a wildfire (i.e., Chips Fire). EPA's 
proposed determination is based on 2009-2011 data from the Federal 
Reference Method (FRM) monitor at the Chico site. There is a non-
Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor located in Paradise. Because 
the non-FEM monitor in Paradise does not meet federal requirements 
in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L or 40 CFR part 58, the data from the 
Paradise monitor is not appropriate for use in determining if the 
Chico nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS standard. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 3.0(a).

                           Table 1--2009-2011 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Site and Design Value for the Chico Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        AQS site                98th Percentile([micro]g/m\3\)              2009-2011
                         Monitoring site                             identification  ---------------------------------------------------   design value
                                                                          No.               2009             2010             2011       ([micro]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chico............................................................       06-007-0002             30.0             29.0             46.2           \a\ 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The average of the 98th percentile values for 2009-2011 equals 35.1, but consistent with applicable rounding conventions in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
  N, section 4.3, 24-hour standard design values are rounded to the nearest 1 [micro]g/m\3\ (decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to the nearest
  whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the nearest whole number).
Source: Design Value Report, August 31, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action).

IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?

A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5 Implementation Rule 
for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007). 
In March, 2012, EPA published implementation guidance for the 2006 
PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' 
(March 2, 2012). In that guidance, EPA stated its view ``that the 
overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule continues to provide effective and appropriate 
guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general statutory 
requirements that states should address in their SIPs. In general, the 
EPA believes that the interpretations of the statute in the framework 
of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule are relevant to the 
statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS * * 
*.'' Id., page 1. With respect to the statutory provisions applicable 
to 2006 PM2.5 implementation, the guidance emphasized that 
``EPA outlined its interpretation of many of these provisions in the 
2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. In addition to regulatory 
provisions, the EPA provided substantial general guidance for 
attainment plans for PM2.5 in the preamble to the final the 
[sic] 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule.'' Id., page 2. In 
keeping with the principles set forth in the guidance, and with respect 
to the effect of a determination of attainment for the 2006 
PM2.5 standard, EPA is applying the same interpretation with 
respect to the implications of clean data

[[Page 65654]]

determinations that it set forth in the preamble to the 1997 
PM2.5 standard and in the regulation that embodies this 
interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).\16\ EPA has long applied this 
interpretation in regulations and individual rulemakings for the 1-hour 
ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM-10 standard, and the lead 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) does not itself 
expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the statutory 
interpretation that it embodies is identical and is applicable to 
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated 
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in 
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA 
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has 
become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10, 
1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data 
Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page, 
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean 
Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards'' (December 14, 2004).
    Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data 
Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related 
planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of 
attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis 
Counties, Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21, 1996) (Grand 
Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000) 
(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094 
(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1-hour 
ozone); 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1-
hour ozone); 69 FR 21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco Bay Area, 
California, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, 
California, PM10).
    EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data 
Policy in several implementation rules. See Clean Air Fine Particle 
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); Final Rule To 
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld EPA's rule embodying 
the Clean Data Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. NRDC v. EPA, 
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have reviewed and 
considered individual rulemakings applying EPA's Clean Data Policy, and 
have consistently upheld them in every case. 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 v. EPA, Nos. 
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).
    EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory 
interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the 
discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings, 
including the 1997 PM2.5 implementation rulemaking. See 72 
FR 20586, at 20603-20605 (April 25, 2007). See also 75 FR 31288 (June 
3, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR 62470 
(October 12, 2010) (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR 
53219 (August 31, 2010) (Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour ozone); 
75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8-hour 
ozone); 75 FR 64949 (October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 
8-hour ozone); 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and 
Sheboygan Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76 FR 31237 (May 31, 
2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76 
FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour 
ozone); 76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011) (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, 
North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone); 77 FR 31496 (May 29, 
2012) (Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone). 
See also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High 
Point, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 75 FR 230 (January 5, 
2010) (Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina, 1997 
PM2.5); 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville, Kentucky-
Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 18650 (April 5, 2011) (Rome, 
Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011) 
(Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia-Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 
31858 (June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 
36873 (June 23, 2011) (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 
38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 
FR 55542 (September 7, 2011) (Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-
Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 60373 (September 29, 2011) 
(Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 77 FR 18922 
(March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown, 
Johnstown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1997 PM2.5).
    The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain 
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not 
applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.\17\ As 
explained below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an 
area attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that 
provides for: Attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all reasonably 
available control measures; reasonable further progress (RFP); and 
implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet deadlines 
for RFP and attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subpart 1 
contains the requirements relating to attainment of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment 
demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs ``shall provide for 
attainment of the [NAAQS].'' EPA has interpreted this requirement as 
not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an 
area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan 
demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General 
Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide 
for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to 
attainment since ``attainment will have been reached.'' See also 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992), at page 6.
    A component of the attainment plan specified under section 
172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for ``the implementation of all 
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable'' 
(RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration, see 
General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment 
demonstration no

[[Page 65655]]

longer applies by its own terms, RACM also no longer applies to areas 
that EPA has determined have clean air. Furthermore, EPA has 
consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation 
of such potential RACM measures that could advance attainment.\18\ 
Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional 
RACM measures are required. EPA's interpretation that the statute 
requires only implementation of the 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). See also 
the final rulemakings for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 
53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418 
(May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble, 
see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data 
Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v. 
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 
155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment 
areas must require ``reasonable further progress.'' The term 
``reasonable further progress'' is defined in section 171(1) as ``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, by definition, the 
``reasonable further progress'' provision under subpart 1 requires only 
such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If 
an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has 
been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that 
the State will make RFP towards attainment ``[has] no meaning at that 
point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    CAA 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].'' This 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, 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.
    It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006 
PM2.5 standard based on three years of data, its obligation 
to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions 
is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the 
standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, that the area has violated the NAAQS, the requirements for 
the State to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements 
would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area 
remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation 
action.

V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment area in 
California has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard 
based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured, and 
certified data for 2009-2011. Preliminary data available in AQS for 
2012 show that the area continues to attain the standard.
    EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of 
attainment is made final, the requirements for the Chico nonattainment 
area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP 
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to 
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so 
long as the area continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping with its long-held 
interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations 
for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR 51.918) and the 1997 
fine particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)). As described 
below, any such determination would not be equivalent to the 
redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS.
    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 Chico nonattainment 
area 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 nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA 
determines that California has met the CAA requirements for 
redesignating the Chico nonattainment area to attainment.
    If the Chico nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that the requirements for 
the area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a 
RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements 
related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will remain 
suspended. If this proposed rulemaking is finalized and EPA 
subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the 
Federal Register, that the area has violated the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of these attainment planning 
requirements for the Chico nonattainment area would no longer exist, 
and the area would thereafter have to address such requirements.
    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.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on 
air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus, 
would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     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

[[Page 65656]]

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 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 this proposed action 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, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-26629 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


