[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10120]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4581-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Colorado; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4581-DR), dated January 15,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued January 15, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 15, 2021, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Colorado resulting from wildfires during the period of September
6 to November 5, 2020, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Colorado.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jon K. Huss, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Colorado have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Grand and Larimer Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Colorado are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03320 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7549-7550]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket Number: DOT-OST-2017-0043]

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
(OST-R); Agency Information Collection Activity; Notice of
Reinstatement To Collect Information: Barrier Failure Reporting in Oil
and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf; OMB Number
Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: 30-Day notice/revised.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) BTS published
a 30-day comment period notice in the Federal Register Notice (82 FR
56116) on November 27, 2017 and a 60-day comment period Notice 82 FR
15787 on March 30, 2017. The notices were published using the wrong
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Number, 2139-0046. The correct
OMB Number is 2138-0046. Therefore, BTS is reissuing the 30-day notice
and extending the comment period accordingly. Comments submitted during
the first notice will be considered.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: This notice announces the intention of the BTS to request
the OMB to reinstate OMB Number 2138-0046. BTS seeks public comments on
its proposed reinstatement of information collection. Comments should
address whether the information will have practical utility; the
accuracy of the estimated burden hours of the proposed information
collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: BTS Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demetra V. Collia, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of Transportation,
Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis (OSEA), RTS-31, E36-302,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone

No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Data Confidentiality Provisions: This data collection is protected
under the BTS confidentiality statute (49 U.S.C. 6307(b)) and the
Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act
(CIPSEA) of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, Title V). In accordance with these
confidentiality statutes, only statistical and non-identifying data
will be made publicly available through reports. Further, BTS will not
release to Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement (BSEE) or any
other public or private entity any information that might reveal the
identity of individuals or organizations mentioned in SafeOCS reports.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Data Collection

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; as
amended) and 5 CFR part 1320 require each Federal agency to obtain OMB
approval to continue an information collection activity. BTS is seeking
OMB approval for the following BTS information collection activity:
    Title: Barrier Failure Reporting in Oil and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf.
    OMB Control Number: 2138-0046.
    Type of Review: Approval of data collection.
    Respondents: Oil and Gas Operators on the Outer Continental Shelf.
    Number of Respondents: As a request to be authorized repository for
previously collected information, BTS has identified BSEE as the sole
respondent reporting to BTS at the annual frequency of one.
    Estimated Time per Response: 60 minutes.
    Frequency: Once.
    Total Annual Burden: 1 hour.
    BTS has agreed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
BSEE to undertake the information collection identified in the
previously approved BSEE notice for OMB Control Number(s) 1014-0028,
expiration 4/30/2019 and the BSEE notice with OMB Control Number 1014-
0003, expiration 8/31/2019, to ensure the confidentiality of
submissions under CIPSEA. The information collection is limited to the
establishment of BTS as an authorized repository. This information
collection request does not create any additional burden for
respondents.

II. Public Participation and Request for Public Comments

    On November 27, 2017, the DOT published a 30-day comment period
notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 56116) seeking comment to
reinstate previously approved information collection entitled ``Barrier
Failure Reporting in Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental
Shelf.'' On March 30, 2017, BTS published a notice (82 FR 15787)
encouraging interested parties to submit comments to docket number DOT-
OST-2017-0043 and allowing for a 60-day comment period. DOT published
both the 30 and 60-day notices using the wrong OMB Number, 2139-0046.
The correct OMB Number is 2138-0046. Therefore, BTS is reissuing the
30-day notice and extending the comment period accordingly. Comments
submitted during the first notice will be considered. To view comments,
go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, ``DOT-
OST-2017-0043'' in the ``Search'' box and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose document listed to review. If
you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the U.S. DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    All comments the BTS received were posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-03-30/pdf/2017-06272.pdf.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and BTS Responses

    BTS announced on March 30, 2017 in a Federal Register Notice (82 FR
15788) its intention to request that OMB approve the following
continuation of information collection: Barrier Failure Reporting in
Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. BTS received no
comments during the 60-day public comment period. The March 30th notice
stated that the BTS was seeking to renew the previously approved
collection. The 60-day notice referenced the wrong OMB Number, the
correct number is 2138-0046. On November 27, 2017, the DOT published a
30-day comment period notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 56116)
seeking comment to reinstate previously approved information collection
entitled ``Barrier Failure Reporting in Oil and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf,'' also referencing the wrong OMB Number.
Comments submitted in response to the November 27, 2017 notice will be
considered along with comments to this notice.
    The 30-day notice clarifies that BTS is seeking reinstatement of
the expired collection and is requesting OMB authorize the collection
for three years. DOT is issuing a revised notice with the correct OMB
Number and extending the comment period 30 days from the publication of
the corrected notice.

    Issued on: February 14, 2018.
Patricia Hu,
Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2018-03508 Filed 2-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72999-73007]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28709]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0708; FRL-9920-19-Region 9]

Clean Data Determination for 1997 PM[bdi2].[bdi5]
Standards; California--South Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the South Coast air quality planning area in California
has attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour fine particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This
proposed determination is based upon complete (or otherwise validated),
quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that
the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards based on the 2011-2013 monitoring period.
The EPA is further proposing that, if the EPA finalizes this
determination of attainment, the requirements for the area to submit
certain State implementation plan revisions shall be suspended for so
long as the area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2014-0708 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov, please
follow the on-line instructions;
    2. Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    3. Mail or delivery to Wienke Tax, 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 the 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, the 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 the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the 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: Wienke Tax,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA. We are providing the following outline to aid
in locating information in this proposal.

Table of Contents

I. What determination is the EPA proposing to make?
II. What is the background for this action?
    A. PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. South Coast PM2.5 Designations, Classifications,
and SIP Revisions
    C. How does the EPA make attainment determinations?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

    A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
    B. Monitoring Method Considerations
    C. Evaluation of Current Attainment
IV. What is the effect of a determination of attainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of the Clean Air Act?
    A. Background for the Clean Data Policy
    B. Application of the Clean Data Policy to the Attainment-
Related Provisions of Subpart 4
V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What determination is the EPA proposing to make?

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin (``South Coast'') nonattainment area has clean data for the
1997 annual and 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS
or ``standards'') for fine particles (generally referring to particles
less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter,
PM2.5).\1\ This determination is based upon complete (or
otherwise validated), quality-assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing the area has monitored attainment of the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2011-2013 monitoring
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this proposed clean data 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 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''), the EPA
has established NAAQS 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 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), the EPA revised the particulate
matter NAAQS, replacing the indicator of total suspended particulate
matter (TSP) (i.e., particles roughly 30 micrometers or less), with a
new indicator that includes only those particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10).
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), the EPA revised the NAAQS for
particulate matter by establishing new NAAQS for particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5). The EPA established primary and secondary annual
and 24-hour standards for PM2.5.\2\ The annual primary and
secondary standards were 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 primary and secondary standards were
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
monitoring site within an area. See 40 CFR 50.7. Collectively, we refer
herein to the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS as the
``1997 PM2.5 NAAQS'' or ``1997 PM2.5 standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' NAAQS are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public health,
allowing an adequate margin of safety, and ``secondary'' standards
are those determined by the 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), the EPA revised the level of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and on January 15,
2013 (78 FR 3086), the EPA revised the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to
a level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\. Even though the EPA has lowered the 24-hour
and annual PM2.5 standards, the original 1997
PM2.5 standards remain in effect and represent the standards
for which today's proposed attainment determination is made.

B. South Coast PM2.5 Designations, Classifications, and SIP
Revisions

    Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA established the initial air
quality designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944
(January 5, 2005). The South Coast was designated nonattainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time, with an attainment deadline
of April 5, 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Originally, the EPA designated nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 of part D (of title I) of the CAA, not under subpart 4,
but as discussed later in this document, the EPA has now established
classifications for areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 under subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within three years of the effective date of designations, states
with areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS were 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 April 5,
2010) unless the state justified up to a five-year attainment date
extension, as well as contingency measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2),
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9).
    On November 28, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
State) submitted the ``Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June
2007'' (``South Coast 2007 AQMP''), which was prepared by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District). The South
Coast 2007 AQMP included a PM2.5 attainment demonstration
for the South Coast for the 1997 NAAQS. In order to meet relevant CAA
requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the South Coast 2007 AQMP
includes base and projected year PM2.5 emissions inventories
for the South Coast nonattainment area; air quality monitoring data;
short-, medium- and long-term District control measures; a summary of
CARB's control measures; transportation control measures (TCMs); a
demonstration of reasonable further progress (RFP); a modeled
attainment demonstration; a demonstration of reasonably available
control measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT);
RFP and attainment contingency measures for the South Coast
PM2.5 nonattainment area; and a request to extend the
attainment date for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to April 5, 2015.
    To demonstrate attainment, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relied in part
on measures in CARB's State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan (``2007 State Strategy''). The 2007 State Strategy
discussed CARB's overall approach to addressing, in conjunction with
local plans, attainment of both the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour
ozone NAAQS not only in the South Coast nonattainment area, but also in
California's other nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley
and the Sacramento area. It also included CARB's commitments to propose
15 defined State measures and to obtain specific amounts of aggregate
emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, sulfur oxides
(SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) in the South Coast from sources under the
State's jurisdiction, such as on- and off-road motor vehicles, engines,
and fuels.
    On November 9, 2011, we approved the portions of the South Coast
2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as revised in 2009 and 2011, that
addressed attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South
Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area, except for the attainment
contingency measures, which we disapproved. (see 76 FR 69928, November
9, 2011). On October 29, 2013, we approved SIP revisions addressing the
attainment contingency

measure requirements for the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment
area (see 78 FR 64402, October 29, 2013).

C. How does the 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 ambient air monitors
operated by state/local agencies in compliance with the EPA monitoring
requirements must be submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).\4\
Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to
the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on
data in AQS when determining the attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR
50.7; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA's repository of ambient
air quality data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.7 and in
accordance with appendix N, the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m
\3\ (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at
each eligible monitoring site within the area.\5\ 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 annual PM2.5 standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual mean concentration, and the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the annual standard design value
at each eligible monitoring site is less than or equal to 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.7 and in
accordance with appendix N, the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 65 [micro]g/m\3\
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at
each eligible monitoring site within the area.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values
recorded at each eligible monitoring site, and the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24-hour standard design value
at each monitoring site is less than or equal to 65 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

    The SCAQMD is the governmental agency with the authority and
responsibility under state law for collecting ambient air quality data
within the South Coast nonattainment area. Annually, SCAQMD submits
monitoring network plans to EPA. These plans discuss the status of the
air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58. The EPA
reviews these annual network plans for compliance with the applicable
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With respect to
PM2.5, we have found that SCAQMD's annual network plans meet
the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58.\7\ Furthermore, we
concluded in our Technical System Audit Report concerning SCAQMD's
ambient air quality monitoring program that SCAQMD's ambient air
monitoring network currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the
minimum number of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS for
PM2.5 in the South Coast nonattainment area.\8\ Also, SCAQMD
annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are quality-
assured.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air
Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Dr. Matt Miyasato, Deputy
Executive Officer, SCAQMD, dated September 30, 2014.
    \8\ EPA Region IX, Technical System Audit Report, South Coast
Air Quality Management District, September 24-25, 2013, dated
September 2014.
    \9\ See, e.g., letter from Dr. Matt Miyasato, Deputy Executive
Officer, SCAQMD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administration, EPA
Region IX, dated May 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCAQMD operated 18 PM2.5 SLAMS during the 2011-2013
period within the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area. Nine
of the sites are located in the Los Angeles County portion of the South
Coast (Azusa, Burbank, Los Angeles (Main Street), Reseda, Compton, Pico
Rivera, Pasadena, Long Beach (North), and South Long Beach); four are
located in the San Bernardino County portion of the South Coast
(Ontario Fire Station, Fontana, Big Bear, and San Bernardino); three
are located in the Riverside portion of the South Coast (Riverside
(Magnolia), Rubidoux, and Mira Loma (Van Buren)); and two are located
in Orange County (Anaheim and Mission Viejo).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Please see figure 8 in appendix A of SCAQMD's Annual Air
Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 2014) for a map showing
PM2.5 ambient monitoring locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this proposed action, we have reviewed the data
for the most recent three-year period (2011-2013) for completeness, and
we determined that the data collected by the SCAQMD meets the
completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at most PM2.5
monitoring sites. Of the 18 PM2.5 monitoring sites, five
monitoring sites did not meet the 75% completeness requirements in 40
CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.1 and 4.2(b) for the annual and 24-
hour PM2.5 standards, respectively. Specifically, the
Pasadena, Riverside (Magnolia), Ontario Fire Station, Big Bear, and San
Bernardino monitoring sites had less that 75% data completeness in one
or more quarters during the 2011-2013 period.
    For the Riverside (Magnolia), Ontario Fire Station, Big Bear, and
San Bernardino monitoring sites, the EPA has performed the maximum
quarterly value data substitution test procedure in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N, section 4.1(c)(ii) and 4.2(c)(ii) for the annual and 24-
hour standards, respectively, and determined that these monitoring
sites pass the data substitution diagnostic test for both the annual
and 24-hour standards.\11\ The EPA concludes that the design values for
these monitoring sites are valid for NAAQS comparison purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Please see files entitled ``Maximum Quarterly Value Data
Substitution Test for the 24-hour 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS'' and ``Maximum
Quarterly Value Data Substitution Test for the Annual 1997 p.m.2.5
NAAQS'' for documentation regarding the maximum quarterly value data
substitution test in the docket for today's proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining monitoring site, Pasadena, is not eligible for the
maximum quarterly value data substitution test due to having less than
50% completeness during the first quarter of 2011, the fourth quarter
of 2012, and the first and second quarters of 2013. The provisions in
40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.1(c)(ii) and 4.2(c)(ii) state
that, if any quarter has less than 50% data capture, then the
substitution test cannot be used. While the Pasadena monitoring site is
not eligible for the substitution test, per 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 4.1(d) and 4.2(d), the design value may also be considered
valid with the approval of the EPA Administrator, who may consider
factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence,
the consistency and levels of the daily values that are available, and
nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.
    The Pasadena monitoring site had 47% completeness in the first
quarter of 2011 due to poor quality assurance results and sampler
operational issues, and 71% completeness in the third quarter of 2012
due to multiple different sampler operational issues and site

operator error. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2012 through the
second quarter of 2013, the Pasadena site had less than 50%
completeness due to site repairs (i.e. SCAQMD was working to replace
the monitoring site shelter from mid-November 2012 until the beginning
of June 2013).
    Per 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.1(d) and 4.2(d), the EPA
evaluated the location of the Pasadena monitoring site relative to the
historical design value site for the area, the historical annual and
24-hour PM2.5 design values trends over the past 12 years at
nearby monitoring sites, and causes of incomplete data when determining
whether the 2011-2013 design value at the Pasadena monitoring site
could be considered valid for the purposes of this action. First, the
Pasadena monitoring site is not located near the previous and current
design value sites for the area. Historically, the Rubidoux and the
Mira Loma (Van Buren) monitoring sites have been the design value sites
for the area for both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The Rubidoux monitoring site was the design value site for both the
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 2001 to 2006, while the
Mira Loma (Van Buren) monitoring site was the design value site for
both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 2006 to 2013.
The Pasadena monitoring site is located in the center of Los Angeles
County, while the Rubidoux and Mira Loma (Van Buren) monitoring sites
are located approximately 38 miles to the east in Riverside County,
where higher values are typically measured.
    Second, an assessment of the long-term trends at the Pasadena
monitoring site and nearby monitoring sites shows nearby sites have
design values below both the annual and 24-hour 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and the Pasadena monitoring site has the lowest design value
compared to these nearby sites. For example, during the 2001 to 2013
period, the Pasadena monitoring site has consistently measured lower
design values for both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
than the Azusa, Burbank, Pico Rivera (AQS ID: 06-037-1601), Pico Rivera
#2, and Los Angeles (Main Street) monitoring sites, which are all
located within an approximately 12-mile radius from the Pasadena
monitoring site. These four sites all have complete annual and 24-hour
design values below the 1997 NAAQS for the 2011-2013 period and provide
appropriate characterization of air quality for the area surrounding
the Pasadena monitoring site.
    Based on the location of the Pasadena monitoring site and the
historical design value concentrations relative to both the annual and
24-hour 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at the site and nearby locations,
the incomplete data should not preclude the EPA from determining the
area has attained the NAAQS. Therefore, we consider the
PM2.5 data set for the 2011-2013 period from the Pasadena
monitor to be valid for the purposes of determining whether the area
has attained the standards.
    For the reasons discussed above, we consider the PM2.5
data set for 2011-2013 from the 18 PM2.5 monitoring sites to
be valid for the purposes of determining whether the area has attained
the standards.

B. Monitoring Method Considerations

    The monitoring requirements are specified by regulation in 40 CFR
part 58. These requirements are applicable to State, and where
delegated, local air monitoring agencies that operate criteria
pollutant monitors. In section 4.7 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, the
EPA specifies minimum monitoring requirements for PM2.5 to
operate at State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). SLAMS
produce data comparable to the NAAQS, and therefore, the monitor must
be an approved federal reference method (FRM), federal equivalent
method (FEM), or approved regional method (ARM). The minimum number of
SLAMS required is described in section 4.7.1, and can be met by either
filter-based or continuous FRMs or FEMs. The monitoring regulations
also provide that each core-based statistical area (CBSA) must operate
a minimum number of PM2.5 continuous monitors (section
4.7.2); however, this requirement can be met by either an FEM or a non-
FEM continuous monitor, and the continuous monitors can be located with
other SLAMS or at a different location. Consequently, the monitoring
requirements for PM2.5 can be met with a filter-based FRMs/
FEMs, continuous FEMs, continuous non-FEMs, or a combination of
monitors at each required SLAMS.
    In 2006, the EPA published performance criteria and field testing
requirements for approval of PM2.5 continuous FEMs and
PM2.5 continuous ARMs in 40 CFR part 53. Subsequently,
several PM2.5 continuous monitors have been approved \12\ as
FEMs. As monitoring agencies implemented PM2.5 continuous
FEMs in their networks, the EPA assessed the available data from these
monitors and included a summary of that assessment in the PM Policy
Assessment in April of 2011.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA maintains a list of designated FRMs and FEMs on the
web at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
    \13\ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Policy
Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, EPA 452/R-11-003, April 2011. This report is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that in some cases monitoring agencies were still
testing and working to optimize the performance of their
PM2.5 continuous FEMs, but were beyond the 24-month period
that allows data from an approved method to be set aside using the
provisions described in 40 CFR 58.20 on Special Purpose Monitoring
(SPMs), the EPA proposed and finalized a new provision to allow
PM2.5 FEM data to be considered not eligible for comparison
to the NAAQS under certain conditions, even if more than 24 months of
data are collected.
    This provision was part of the PM NAAQS final rule published on
January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), and included criteria for monitoring
agencies to use, if they choose, that allow for PM2.5
continuous FEM or ARM data to be set aside and not used for determining
NAAQS calculations, if certain performance criteria are not met (40 CFR
58.11(e)).
    This provision to allow PM2.5 continuous FEM data to be
excluded from comparison to the NAAQS is applicable, when in accordance
with Annual Monitoring Network Plan provisions described in 40 CFR
58.10(b)(13), the monitoring agency has assessed the data to determine
if it meets the criteria described in 40 CFR 58.11(e), and has also
sought and received approval from the applicable EPA Regional office.
    As noted above, the SCAQMD operated 18 PM2.5 SLAMS
within the South Coast during the 2011-2013 period. At these sites,
SCAQMD operates manual filter-based FRMs to measure PM2.5.
At seven of the 18 sites, SCAQMD also measured PM2.5 using
(automated) continuous FEM monitors: Anaheim, Burbank, Los Angeles
(Main Street), Long Beach (North), South Long Beach, Rubidoux, and Mira
Loma (Van Buren). SCAQMD's primary purpose in operating the continuous
FEM monitors at these sites is to support forecasting and reporting of
the Air Quality Index (AQI). However, under EPA's monitoring
regulations, data from continuous FEM monitors is generally considered
valid for NAAQS comparison purposes, unless the applicable monitoring
agency justifies excluding the data for NAAQS comparison purposes under
40 CFR 58.11(e).

    In this instance, as part of its 2013 and 2014 annual air quality
monitoring network plans, SCAQMD requested that the data from the
continuous FEM monitors at the seven monitoring sites in the
PM2.5 monitoring network be considered not eligible for
comparison to the NAAQS.\14\ The EPA evaluated SCAQMD's request per 40
CFR 58.11(e), confirmed that the acceptable bias criteria were not met
during the 2010-2012 and 2011-2013 periods, and therefore approved the
request for the continuous FEM monitor data from the sites listed above
to be considered not eligible for comparison to the NAAQS.\15\ As a
result, the monitoring data presented in the next section of this
document reflects data collected by filter-based PM2.5 FRMs
operated by the SCAQMD at the 18 PM2.5 SLAMS within the
South Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See appendix C (``PM2.5 Continuous Monitor
Comparability Assessment and Request for Waiver'') of SCAQMD's
Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (July 2013); and appendix
C with the same title of SCAQMD's Annual Air Quality Monitoring
Network Plan (July 2014).
    \15\ See letter, Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Jason Low, Ph.D., South Coast
Air Quality Management District, dated September 9, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Evaluation of Current Attainment

    EPA's evaluation of whether the South Coast PM2.5
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring data
and takes into account the adequacy of the PM2.5 monitoring
network in the nonattainment area and the reliability of the data
collected by the network as discussed in the previous sections of this
document.
    Table 1 and table 2 show the annual and 24-hour PM2.5
design values, respectively, at each of the 18 SLAMS monitoring sites
within the South Coast nonattainment area for the most recent three-
year period (2011-2013). The data show that the design value for the
2011-2013 period was equal to or less than 65 [micro]g/m\3\ (for the
24-hour standard) and 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ (for the annual standard) at
all monitors. Therefore, we are proposing to determine, based on
complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured, and certified data
for 2011-2013, that the South Coast area has attained the 1997 annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. At the present time, AQS
includes no PM2.5 data for year 2014 for the South Coast,
but several quarters of preliminary data are expected to be uploaded to
AQS prior to EPA's final action on the proposed determination of
attainment. The EPA will review the preliminary 2014 data prior to
taking final action to ensure that they are consistent with the
determination of attainment.

              Table 1--2011-2013 Annual PM2.5 Design Values for the South Coast Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual mean ([micro]g/m\3\)              2011-2013
                                                 ------------------------------------------------ annual  design
       General location           Site (AQS ID)                                                       values
                                                       2011            2012            2013         ([micro]g/
                                                                                m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES COUNTY:
    East San Gabriel Valley...  Azusa (06-037-              12.1            11.0            10.5            11.2
                                 0002).
    East San Fernando Valley..  Burbank (06-037-            13.2            12.2            12.1            12.5
                                 1002).
    Central Los Angeles.......  Los Angeles                 13.0            12.6            12.0            12.5
                                 (Main St.) (06-
                                 037-1103).
    West San Fernando Valley..  Reseda (06-037-             10.2            10.5             9.9            10.2
                                 1201).
    South Central Los Angeles   Compton (06-037-            13.0            11.7            12.0            12.2
     County.                     1302).
    South San Gabriel Valley..  Pico Rivera #2              12.5            11.9            11.8            12.0
                                 (06-037-1602).
    West San Gabriel Valley...  Pasadena (06-037-         * 10.8          * 10.1          * 10.2            10.4
                                 2005).
    South Coastal Los Angeles   Long Beach                  11.0            10.4            11.3            10.9
     County.                     (North) (06-037-
                                 4002).
    South Coastal Los Angeles   South Long Beach            10.7            10.6            11.0            10.8
     County.                     (06-037-4004).
ORANGE COUNTY:
    Central Orange County.....  Anaheim (06-059-            11.0            10.8            10.1            10.6
                                 0007).
    Saddleback Valley.........  Mission Viejo                8.5             7.9             8.1             8.2
                                 (06-059-2022).
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
    Metropolitan Riverside      Riverside                   11.8          * 11.4            11.3            11.5
     County.                     (Magnolia) (06-
                                 065-1003).
    Metropolitan Riverside      Rubidoux (06-065-           13.6            13.5            12.5            13.2
     County.                     8001).
    Mira Loma.................  Mira Loma (Van              15.3            15.1            14.1            14.8
                                 Buren) (06-065-
                                 8005).
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY:
    Southwest San Bernardino    Ontario Fire                13.3            12.4          * 12.0            12.6
     Valley.                     Station (06-071-
                                 0025).
    Central San Bernardino      Fontana (06-071-            12.6            12.8            12.3            12.6
     Valley.                     2002).
    East San Bernardino         Big Bear (06-071-            8.4           * 8.0             9.7             8.7
     Mountains.                  8001).
    Central San Bernardino      San Bernardino            * 12.2            11.8            11.4            11.8
     Valley.                     (06-071-9004).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The annual standard is set at 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. Annual values not meeting completeness criteria are
  marked with an asterisk (`*') but, as discussed above, the EPA has determined that the data is valid for the
  NAAQS comparison purposes.
Source: EPA, Design Value Report, October 6, 2014.

              Table 2--2011-2013 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values for the South Coast Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          98th Percentile ([micro]g/m\3\)          2011-2013 24-
                                                 ------------------------------------------------  hour  design
       General location           Site (AQS ID)                                                       values
                                                       2011            2012            2013         ([micro]g/
                                                                                m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES COUNTY:

    East San Gabriel Valley...  Azusa (06-037-              30.6            25.6            26.4              28
                                 0002).
    East San Fernando Valley..  Burbank (06-037-            33.5            28.2            30.4              31
                                 1002).
    Central Los Angeles.......  Los Angeles                 31.5            32.0            29.0              31
                                 (Main St.) (06-
                                 037-1103).
    West San Fernando Valley..  Reseda (06-037-             23.6            31.2            23.0              26
                                 1201).
    South Central Los Angeles   Compton (06-037-            31.5            30.3            24.3              29
     County.                     1302).
    South San Gabriel Valley..  Pico Rivera #2              31.5            28.5            28.7              30
                                 (06-037-1602).
    West San Gabriel Valley...  Pasadena (06-037-          *29.8           *25.7           *20.5              25
                                 2005).
    South Coastal Los Angeles   Long Beach                  27.8            26.5            26.1              27
     County.                     (North) (06-037-
                                 4002).
    South Coastal Los Angeles   South Long Beach            26.6            25.6            24.6              26
     County.                     (06-037-4004).
ORANGE COUNTY:
    Central Orange County.....  Anaheim (06-059-            28.1            25.0            22.7              25
                                 0007).
    Saddleback Valley.........  Mission Viejo               28.8            17.6            17.5              21
                                 (06-059-2022).
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
    Metropolitan Riverside      Riverside                   28.0           *26.8            29.2              28
     County.                     (Magnolia) (06-
                                 065-1003).
    Metropolitan Riverside      Rubidoux (06-065-           31.0            33.7            34.6              33
     County.                     8001).
    Mira Loma.................  Mira Loma (Van              36.6            35.1            37.5              36
                                 Buren) (06-065-
                                 8005).
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY:
    Southwest San Bernardino    Ontario Fire                35.3            28.6           *26.8              30
     Valley.                     Station (06-071-
                                 0025).
    Central San Bernardino      Fontana (06-071-            28.2            35.6            33.1              32
     Valley.                     2002).
    East San Bernardino         Big Bear (06-071-           30.6           *27.4            35.1              31
     Mountains.                  8001).
    Central San Bernardino      San Bernardino             *32.5            27.1            33.4              31
     Valley.                     (06-071-9004).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The 24-hour standard is set at 65 [micro]g/m\3\. Daily values not meeting completeness criteria are marked
  with an asterisk (`*') but, as discussed above, the EPA has determined that the data is valid for the NAAQS
  comparison purposes.
Source: EPA, Design Value Report, October 6, 2014.

IV. What is the effect of a determination of attainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of the Clean Air Act?

    This section of the EPA's proposal addresses the effects of a final
determination of attainment for the South Coast nonattainment area.
    For the 1997 PM2.5 standard, 40 CFR 51.1004(c) of the
EPA's Implementation Rule embodies the EPA's ``Clean Data Policy''
interpretation under subpart 1. The provisions of section 51.1004(c)
set forth the effects of a determination of attainment for the 1997
PM2.5 standard.\16\ 72 FR 20585, 20665 (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section 51.004(c)
states: ``Upon a determination by EPA that an area designated
nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS has attained the
standard, the requirements for such area to submit attainment
demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures,
reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
shall be suspended until such time as the area is redesignated to
attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA
determines that that area has violated the PM2.5 NAAQS,
at which time the area is again required to submit such plans.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
the DC Circuit remanded to the EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle
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 (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule'' or ``Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). The Court found that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than
the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of
title I. The Court remanded the EPA's Implementation Rule for further
proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.
    In light of the Court's decision and its remand of the
Implementation Rule, the EPA in this proposed rulemaking addresses the
effect of a final determination of attainment for the South Coast
nonattainment area as a moderate nonattainment area under subpart
4.\17\ As set forth in more detail below, under the EPA's Clean Data
Policy interpretation, a determination that the area has attained the
standard suspends the State's obligation to submit attainment-related
plan revisions under subpart 4 (and the applicable provisions of
subpart 1) for so long as the area continues to attain the standard.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In response to the court's ruling, the EPA published a
final rule on June 2, 2014 classifying all 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 areas as moderate, and setting a December 31, 2014
deadline for submittal of any remaining subpart 4 SIP requirements
(see 79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background for the Clean Data Policy

    Over the past two decades, the 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 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, PM10, PM2.5, CO and lead standards. The DC
Circuit has upheld the Clean Data Policy interpretation as embodied in

EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, 40 CFR 51.918.\18\ Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Other U.S. Circuit 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)), Latino Issues Forum, v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2,'' 70 FR 71612,
71645-46 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy
interpretation in both its 1997 8-hour ozone implementation rule (40
CFR 51.918) and in its PM2.5 Implementation Rule (40 CFR
51.1004(c)). 70 FR 71612, 71702 (November 29, 2005) (1997 8-hour ozone)
and 72 FR 20585, 20665 (April 25, 2007)(1997 PM2.5). While
the DC Circuit, in its January 4, 2013 decision, remanded the 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the court did not address the
merits of that regulation, nor cast doubt on the EPA's existing
interpretation of the statutory provisions.
    However, in light of the Court's decision, we set forth here the
EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4, for the purpose
of identifying the effects of a determination of attainment for the
1997 PM2.5 standard for the South Coast nonattainment area.
The EPA has previously articulated its Clean Data interpretation under
subpart 4 in implementing the 2006 PM2.5 and the
PM10 standard. See, e.g., 78 FR 41901 (July 12, 2013) and 78
FR 54394 (September 4, 2013) (proposed and final determination of
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard in West Central Pinal
area, Arizona); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (determination of attainment
of the PM10 standard in Coso Junction, California); 71 FR
6352 (February 8, 2006) (determination of attainment of the
PM10 standard in Ajo, Arizona); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 2006)
(determination of attainment of the PM10 standard in Yuma,
Arizona); 71 FR 44920 (August 8, 2006) (determination of attainment of
the PM10 standard in Rillito, Arizona); 71 FR 63642 (October
30, 2006) (determination of attainment of the PM10 standard
in San Joaquin Valley, California); and 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007)
(determination of attainment of the PM10 standard in Miami,
Arizona). Thus, the EPA has established that, under subpart 4, an
attainment determination suspends the obligations to submit an
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures, and other
measures related to attainment.

B. Application of the Clean Data Policy to the Attainment-Related
Provisions of Subpart 4

    In the EPA's proposed and final rulemakings determining that the
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM10
standard, the EPA set forth at length its rationale for applying the
Clean Data Policy to PM10 under subpart 4. 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, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)). In
rejecting 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
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, these same statutory
requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The
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) (the ``General Preamble''). In the General Preamble, the 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.'' 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). These
subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for
attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
    The EPA has long interpreted the provisions of part D, subpart 1 of
the Act (sections 171 and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP
for an area already attaining the ozone NAAQS. For an area that is
attaining, showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment
``will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.'' 57 FR at 13564. See
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).
    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, we noted with respect to section 189(c)
that the purpose of the milestone requirement ``is `to provide for
emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable
attainment date' (H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267
(1990)).'' 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992). If an area has in fact
attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will
have already been fulfilled.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without a
difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement as
one to be achieved until an area is ``redesignated attainment,'' as
opposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which
the requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment area RFP
requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the
RFP requirements as applying until the ``attainment date,'' since
section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the
Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the general
RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific
requirements may only be required ``for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard
by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). As discussed in the
text of this rulemaking, the 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 the 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 May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum\20\ with respect to the requirements
of section 182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, the
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
memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, EPA 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,'' dated May 10, 1995 (``Seitz memorandum'').

    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 revision either.

1995 Seitz memorandum at page 5.

    With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads
to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide
for ``a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP]
will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date . . ..''
As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring
attainment of the standard, The 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 the EPA in the General
Preamble, the Page memorandum,\21\ and the section 182(b) and (c)
requirements set forth in the Seitz memorandum. As the EPA stated in
the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would
be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since
``attainment will have been reached.'' 57 FR at 13564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Memorandum from Stephen D. 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
(``Page memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of sections 172(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency measure
requirements of section 172(c)(9) (and section 182(c)(9) for ozone) 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.'' 57 FR at 13564; Seitz memorandum, pages 5-6.
    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 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 the 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 the 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. The 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 at 13498. Thus, where an area is already
attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required.\22\
The EPA is interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its
interpretation of section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 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 (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002),
and by the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (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 the 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 the 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 pollution transport.
    As set forth above, based on our proposed determination that the
South Coast area is currently attaining the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, we propose to find that the obligations to submit any remaining
attainment-related provisions that may be necessary to satisfy the
requirements applicable to moderate areas under subpart 4 of part D (of
title I of the Act) are suspended for so long as the area continues to
monitor attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If, in the
future, the EPA determines after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the
area again violates the 1997 annual or 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
the basis for suspending any remaining SIP obligations would no longer
apply.

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

    The EPA proposes to determine, based on the most recent three years
(2011-2013) of complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured, and
certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
that the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained
the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In conjunction with and based upon our proposed determination that
the South Coast area has attained and is currently attaining the
standard, the EPA proposes to determine that the obligation to submit
any remaining attainment-related SIP revisions arising from
classification of the South Coast as a moderate nonattainment area
under subpart 4 of part D (of title I of the Act) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS is not applicable for so long as the area
continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These attainment-
related requirements include, but are not limited to, the part D,
subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant
to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C),
and the RFP provisions of section 189(c). This proposed action, if
finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA
section 107(d)(3).
    The 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 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 the 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 20, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-28709 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 10698]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04441]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form S-1, SEC File No. 270-058, OMB Control No. 3235-0065.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') this request for an extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form S-1 (17 CFR 239.11) is the form used by issuers to register
the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) when no other form is authorized or prescribed. The
information collected is intended to ensure that the information
required to be filed by the Commission permits verification of
compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability of such information. Form S-1 takes approximately 667
hours per response and is filed by approximately 901 respondents. We
estimate that 25% of the 667 hours per response (166.75 hours) is
prepared by the registrant for a total annual reporting burden of
150,242 hours (166.75 hours per response x 901 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

     Dated: February 24, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04441 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 17583]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-06126]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0675, SEC File No. 270-620]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Correction

    In notice document 2014-06126, appearing on page 15616 in the issue
of Thursday, March 20, 2014, make the following correction:
    On page 15616, in the second column, immediately following the
subject, insert the following text:

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington,
DC 20549-0213.
[FR Doc. C1-2014-06126 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D