Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Pinal County; PM10, 32024-32033 [2012-13185]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
32024
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal requirement, and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established
in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing Section 111(d)/129 plan
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior
existing requirement for the State to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a
Section 111(d)/129 plan submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a Section 111(d)/
129 plan submission, to use VCS in
place of a Section 111(d)/129 plan
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
and adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
§ 62.3350 Identification of plan—negative
declaration.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
*
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by July 30, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
approving Illinois’ Section 111(d)/129
negative declaration and request for
EPA withdrawal of the LMWC plan
approval may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Large municipal
waste combustors, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 16, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:
PART 62—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 62
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart P—Illinois
2. Section 62.3350 is amended by
revising the section heading,
designating the existing paragraph as (a)
■
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
(b) On February 1, 2012, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
submitted a negative declaration that
there are no large municipal waste
combustors in the State of Illinois
subject to part 60, subpart Cb emission
guidelines and requested withdrawal of
its State Plan for LMWC units approved
under paragraph (a) of this section.
■ 3. A new § 62.3351 is added to read
as follows:
§ 62.3351
Effective date.
The Federal effective date of the
negative declaration and withdrawal of
Illinois’ State Plan for LMWC units is
July 30, 2012.
[FR Doc. 2012–13205 Filed 5–30–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0491; FRL–9679–7]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; State of Arizona;
Pinal County; PM10
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)
of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is
redesignating from ‘‘unclassifiable’’ to
‘‘nonattainment’’ an area in western
Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987
national ambient air quality standard for
particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM10), and therefore also
revising the boundaries of the existing
‘‘rest of state’’ unclassifiable area. The
EPA’s establishment of this new PM10
nonattainment area, referred to as ‘‘West
Pinal,’’ is based on numerous recorded
violations of the PM10 standard at
various monitoring sites within the
county. With the exception of Indian
country and certain Federal lands, the
EPA’s nonattainment area boundaries
generally encompass the land
geographically located within Pinal
County north of the east-west line
defined by the southern line of
Township 9 South, Gila and Salt River
Baseline and Meridian, and west of the
north-south line defined by the eastern
line of Range 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther east in the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Florence and Picacho Peak areas. The
effect of this action is to establish and
delineate a new PM10 nonattainment
area within Pinal County and thereby to
impose certain planning requirements
on the State of Arizona to reduce PM10
concentrations within this area,
including, but not limited to, the
requirement to submit, within 18
months of redesignation, a revision to
the Arizona state implementation plan
that provides for attainment of the PM10
standard as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year after redesignation.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 2,
2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0491 for
this action. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at
https://www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be
available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information
(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:
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Proposed Action
III. Public Comment and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
I. Background
On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for particulate
matter (52 FR 24634), replacing total
suspended particulates as the indicator
for particulate matter with a new
indicator called PM10 that includes only
those particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal
10 micrometers.1 In order to attain the
1 The 1987 p.m.
10 standard included a 24-hour
(150 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) and an
annual standard (50 mg/m3). In 2006, EPA revoked
the annual standard. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17,
2006) and 40 CFR 50.6.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
NAAQS for 24-hour PM10, an air quality
monitor cannot measure levels of PM10
greater than 150 micrograms per cubic
meter (mg/m3) more than once per year
on average over a consecutive three-year
period. The rate of expected
exceedances indicates whether a
monitor attains the air quality standard.
Most of Pinal County, Arizona,
including the area that is the subject of
today’s action, was included in the ‘‘rest
of state’’ area, which was designated
‘‘unclassifiable’’ for PM10 by operation
of law upon enactment of the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’).2 See section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii).
The PM10 designations established by
operation of law under the CAA, as
amended in 1990, are known as
‘‘initial’’ designations. The CAA grants
the EPA the authority to change the
designation of, or ‘‘redesignate,’’ such
areas in light of changes in
circumstances. More specifically, CAA
section 107(d)(3) authorizes the EPA to
revise the designation of areas (or
portions thereof) on the basis of air
quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air-qualityrelated considerations that the EPA
deems appropriate. Pursuant to CAA
section 107(d)(3), the EPA in the past
has redesignated certain areas in
Arizona to nonattainment for the PM10
NAAQS, including the Payson and
Bullhead City areas. See 56 FR 16274
(April 22, 1991); and 58 FR 67334
(December 21, 1993).
On October 14, 2009, under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(A), the EPA notified
the Governor of Arizona and tribal
leaders of the four Indian Tribes (whose
Indian country is located entirely, or in
part, within Pinal County) that the
designation for Pinal County, and any
nearby areas that may be contributing to
the monitored violations in Pinal
County, should be revised (‘‘EPA’s
notification’’). Our decision to initiate
the redesignation process stemmed from
review of 2006–2008 ambient PM10
monitoring data from PM10 monitoring
2 While most of Pinal County was designated
‘‘unclassifiable,’’ two PM10 planning areas that
extend into Pinal County were designated under the
CAA, as amended in 1990, as ‘‘nonattainment:’’ the
Phoenix planning area, which includes the Apache
Junction area within Pinal County; and the Hayden/
Miami planning area, which includes the
northeastern portion of the county. See 56 FR 11101
(March 15, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991);
and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992). In 2007, we
approved a redesignation request by the State of
Arizona to split the Hayden/Miami PM10
nonattainment area into two separate PM10
nonattainment areas. See 72 FR 14422 (March 28,
2007). Today’s proposed action would not affect
these pre-existing PM10 nonattainment areas. EPA
codifies area designations in 40 CFR part 81. The
area designations for the State of Arizona are
codified at 40 CFR 81.303.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32025
stations within the county that showed
widespread, frequent, and in some
instances, severe, violations of the PM10
standard.3
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the
Act, in a letter dated March 23, 2010,
the Governor of Arizona responded to
the EPA’s notification with a
recommendation for a partial-county
nonattainment area.4
The boundaries of the prospective
PM10 nonattainment area recommended
by the Governor of Arizona encompass
a portion of central and western Pinal
County, and form an area that resembles
a backwards ‘‘L.’’ 5 See figure 2 of the
EPA’s Technical Support Document 6
(TSD) for a map of both the State’s
recommended boundaries as well as the
EPA’s proposed boundaries. The staterecommended area includes all or most
of the cities of Maricopa, Coolidge, Casa
Grande, and the Pinal County portion of
the town of Queen Creek, as well as the
western-most portion of the town of
Florence and the northern-most portion
of the city of Eloy. The State
recommends including an area that at
its western-most boundary includes
nearly all of the City of Maricopa. The
State-recommended southern boundary
is defined by a line that coincides
approximately with Interstate 8. The
area recommended by the State
continues to the east for approximately
35 miles where it extends to the north,
including portions of Florence and
Coolidge, and the Pinal County portion
of Queen Creek, and terminates just
south of Apache Junction. The Staterecommended eastern boundary is
defined by the north-south line between
Range 8 East and Range 9 East. The
northern boundary follows the county
line south from the Apache Junction
area and then follows the boundary of
the Gila River Indian Reservation to
close back around to the recommended
western boundary. See the Governor’s
3 In a letter dated October 14, 2009, EPA notified
the State of Arizona that the PM10 designation in
Pinal County should be revised. EPA notified the
tribal leaders of the Ak-Chin Indian Community,
Gila River Indian Community, San Carlos Apache
Tribe, and Tohono O’odham Nation by letters dated
December 30, 2009.
4 Letter from Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, dated March 23, 2010.
5 The Governor expressly recommended
excluding Indian country from the nonattainment
area. EPA finds this appropriate, given that the
State of Arizona is not authorized to administer
programs under the CAA in the affected Indian
country. The ‘‘backwards L’’ shape of the
recommended area is partly explained by this
exclusion because the recommended area partially
surrounds Indian country.
6 EPA Region 9, ‘‘Pinal County, Arizona, Area
Designation for the 1987 24-hour PM10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ Technical Support
Document, September 21, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
32026
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
March 23, 2010 letter for the legal
description of the State’s recommended
boundaries by township and range and
for an enclosed map illustrating this
area.
In a letter dated February 11, 2010,
the Tohono O’odham Nation (TON)
responded to the EPA’s December 30,
2009 letter concerning the PM10
designation in Pinal County with a
recommendation that the TON land
within Pinal County be designated
attainment/unclassifiable for PM10. In a
letter dated September 2, 2010 the AkChin Indian Community responded to
the EPA’s December 30, 2009 letter
concerning the PM10 designation of
Pinal County with a recommendation
that the Ak-Chin lands be designated
attainment/unclassifiable. The Gila
River Indian Community and the San
Carlos Apache Tribe did not submit
recommendations.
II. Proposed Action
On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60680),
pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the
CAA, the EPA proposed to redesignate
from ‘‘unclassifiable’’ to
‘‘nonattainment’’ an area generally
covering the western half of Pinal
County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10
NAAQS, and to make a corresponding
revision to the boundaries of the
existing ‘‘rest of state’’ unclassifiable
area. The EPA’s proposed boundaries
for the nonattainment area encompassed
all of the area recommended by the
State of Arizona, but extended farther to
the east and south, and to a lesser
degree, to the north and west. The EPA’s
proposed boundaries encompassed all
land geographically located within Pinal
County west of the north-south line
defined by the boundary between Range
10 East and Range 11 East, but excluded
TON’s main reservation and the Apache
Junction portion of the existing Phoenix
PM10 nonattainment area. See figure 2 of
the EPA’s TSD for a map showing our
proposed boundaries.
As explained in our October 1, 2010
proposed rule (75 FR at 60686), and
more fully in the TSD for the proposal,
we believe that the State’s
recommended boundaries would not
encompass the full geographic area from
which emissions-generating activities
contribute to the monitored PM10
violations. More specifically, EPA’s
proposal stated that the Governor’s
recommended boundaries, which cut
through municipalities and contiguous
expanses of agricultural fields, excluded
sources that have been identified as
dominant sources of PM10 and that are
contributing to elevated levels of PM10
at violating monitors. In our October 1,
2010 proposal, EPA stated that its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
proposed boundaries, described above,
would encompass the areas in which
PM10 violations are being monitored, as
well as the areas that contribute to the
monitored violations, and that they
were thus consistent with the definition
of nonattainment areas in CAA section
107(d)(1)(A). Our proposal was based on
the EPA’s analysis of the factors as set
forth in the proposed rule (75 FR at
60682–60686) and in further detail in
the TSD for the proposed rule.
With respect to the affected Indian
Tribes, for the reasons given in the
proposed rule, we proposed to exclude
the main TON reservation and the San
Carlos Apache Reservation from the
PM10 nonattainment area boundaries,
but we indicated that we were deferring
action on the status of certain other
tribal lands located within the area,
including the tribal lands of the AkChin Indian Community and the Gila
River Indian Community, as well as
TON’s Florence Village and San Lucy
Farms, pending consultation with the
affected tribes.
Please see our October 1, 2010
proposed rule and our related TSD for
more information about our proposed
action and the rationale for our
proposed boundaries.
III. Public Comment and EPA
Responses
Our October 1, 2010 proposed rule
provided for a 30-day comment period,
and the EPA received 11 comment
letters in response to the proposal,
including letters from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ), the Arizona Game and Fish
Department, the Pinal County Air
Quality Department, the City of Casa
Grande, the Central Arizona Irrigation
and Drainage District, the Arizona
Public Service Company, several
agricultural groups, the Sierra Club, and
a member of the general public.
None of the commenters disagreed
with the need to redesignate a portion
of Pinal County nonattainment for the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and none
disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that
sources outside of Pinal County and in
the eastern half of Pinal County,
including San Carlos Apache lands, do
not contribute to violations in the
western portion of the county. In
addition, none of the commenters
disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that
the activities occurring on the main
Tohono O’odham Nation (TON)
reservation do not contribute to these
violations. Most commenters, however,
suggested that the nonattainment area
should be smaller than that proposed by
the EPA. Nine commenters supported
the Governor’s recommended boundary,
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
one commenter supported the EPA’s
proposed boundary, and one commenter
suggested that the boundary should
include only developed areas that have
a relatively high density of human
population.
As discussed in more detail below
and in our Response to Comments (RTC)
document,7 the EPA is taking final
action today to redesignate from
‘‘unclassifiable’’ to ‘‘nonattainment’’ an
area generally covering the western half
of Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987
PM10 NAAQS, and correspondingly, to
revise the boundaries of the existing
‘‘rest of state’’ unclassifiable area. In our
final action, however, based on our
consideration of the comments,
including the building permit data
provided by Pinal County that
documents the extent to which the
national recession has slowed growth in
Pinal County, and after further review of
other relevant factors, such as the
geographic distribution of sources of
PM10, the EPA is modifying the
boundaries it had proposed for the
nonattainment area. EPA’s final action
modifies its previously proposed
boundaries in such a way as to reduce
the size of the nonattainment area
(relative to the area the EPA had
proposed) by approximately 36 percent
(about 735 square miles). This reduction
is principally accounted for by
establishing the final boundaries for the
nonattainment area so as to exclude the
Tonto National Forest (including the
Superstition Wilderness Area), portions
of the Sonoran Desert National
Monument (including the Table Top
Wilderness Area), the Ironwood Forest
National Monument, and certain lessdeveloped areas. EPA’s proposal had
included these areas within the
nonattainment area boundaries.
In the following paragraphs of this
section, we summarize our responses to
significant comments that we received
on our October 1, 2010 proposed rule.
Our full responses to all the comments
received can be found in the previouslycited RTC document, which is included
in the docket for this rulemaking.
Air Quality Data
Comment: Disagreement over the size
of the nonattainment area was primarily
based on commenters’ views that certain
areas should be excluded from the
nonattainment area because they are not
themselves violating the standard, or
because they are not ‘‘significantly’’
7 EPA Region 9, ‘‘Response to Comments on the
Proposed Action to Redesignate West Pinal County
to Nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ May
2012.
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
contributing to violations in nearby
areas.
Response: CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i)
defines a nonattainment area to include
‘‘any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet)’’ the
NAAQS. Thus, a location is designated
nonattainment if its emissions
contribute to the air quality in a nearby
area that violates the NAAQS, even if
that location is not the main cause of
violations, and even if it does not
contribute to every measured violation.
The absence of a violation at a particular
monitor does not preclude the
possibility of elevated levels of
particulate in the vicinity of that
monitor or the transport of particulate to
a nearby violating area, even if levels do
not cause a violation at the monitor
itself. A contiguous area can be
nonattainment if it is within several
miles of a violating monitor and has
emissions that travel to that monitor,
even if its contribution is not as large as
those of locations nearer the monitor.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
Exceptional Events
Comment: Two commenters noted
that some of the measured exceedances
have been flagged as exceptional
events 8 and suggested that the EPA
should not consider a monitor to be
violating if all of the exceedances have
been flagged as exceptional events.
ADEQ stated that its analysis of the
most recent monitoring data indicated
that if flagged exceptional events were
excluded from the monitoring record,
four monitors (Casa Grande, Combs
School, Coolidge, and Maricopa) would
be attaining the standard.
Response: Based on the most recent
certified data (2009–2011), seven
monitors in Pinal County are violating
the 24-hour PM10 standard. EPA
regulations do provide that a State may
request EPA to exclude data showing
exceedances or violations of the
national ambient air quality standard
that are directly due to an exceptional
event from use in determinations, by
demonstrating to the EPA’s satisfaction
that such event caused a specific air
pollution concentration at a particular
air quality monitoring location. (40 CFR
58.14) However, as indicated in the
proposed rule (75 FR at 60684–60685),
even if we were to concur and to
8 On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule,
Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional
Events, (EER), to govern the review and handling of
certain air quality monitoring data for which the
normal planning and regulatory processes are not
appropriate. Under the rule, EPA may exclude data
from use in determinations of NAAQS exceedances
and violations if a state demonstrates that an
‘‘exceptional event’’ caused the exceedances. See 72
FR 13560.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
exclude from use in determining
attainment all of the flagged
exceedances, a number of monitors
would still violate the standard.
Moreover, the emissions sources in the
vicinities of the non-violating monitors
(i.e., presuming exclusion of the flagged
exceedances as caused by exceptional
events) are those, such as traffic on
paved and unpaved roads, cattle
operations, agricultural sources, and
construction-generated emissions, that
we have determined contribute to
violations of the standard elsewhere in
the County. Thus, EPA action on State
flagged exceptional event claims is not
a prerequisite to finalizing this
redesignation and establishing
appropriate boundaries for the new
West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area.
Geographic Distribution of Emissions
Sources
Comment: A number of commenters
objected to EPA’s proposed boundary
because, in their view, sources of PM10
emissions leading to monitored
violations are located in the western
regions of Pinal County, not the east or
south [of the Governor’s recommended
nonattainment area 9]. They argued that
the Governor’s recommended boundary
included all of the emissions sources
that contribute significantly to the PM10
violations, plus an adequate buffer to
the south and east.
Commenters pointed to differences in
activity levels and the degree of
urbanization in areas within and outside
the Governor’s recommended boundary
and argued that the State’s preliminary
emissions inventory showed that
sources in the eastern and/or southern
regions of the county do not
significantly contribute to violations in
other regions of the county.
Response: Arizona’s preliminary PM10
inventory and the 2005 National
Emissions Inventory, version 2, along
with source apportionment studies,
identify the sources that contribute to
elevated concentrations of PM10. These
sources include on-road emissions,
cattle operations, agriculture, and
construction. According to ADEQ’s
technical report, these sources of PM10
are located throughout the western
portion of Pinal County, including areas
to the east and south of the Governor’s
recommended boundary. See Figures 3–
9 Commenters referring to the ‘‘eastern’’ and
‘‘southern’’ portions of Pinal County appear to be
referring to the areas to the east and south of the
Governor’s recommended nonattainment boundary.
In our TSD and in the RTC, EPA’s references to the
eastern and western portions of Pinal County mean
those portions of Pinal County that lie to the east
and west of the eastern boundary of EPA’s proposed
nonattainment area.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32027
3 and 3–4 of ADEQ’s technical report.10
The EPA’s review of meteorological data
indicates that emissions from these
areas are transported to the violating
monitors 35 to 40% of the time. See the
wind rose data collected at the Pinal Air
Park as illustrated in Figure 10 of the
TSD for the proposal and note the
absence of topographic barriers as
shown in Figure 11 of the TSD.
As stated above, CAA defines a
nonattainment area to include a nearby
area that contributes to air quality in the
area where violations are measured. To
identify nearby areas that contribute to
the measured violations of PM10 in Pinal
County, we have used a multi-factor
analysis that accounts for, among other
factors, emissions data, meteorology,
and topography, as described in detail
in EPA’s TSD for the proposed rule and
in the RTC document prepared for this
final rule. The use of a multi-factor test
in determining which areas contribute
to violations in a nearby area was
upheld in a case involving designations
and nonattainment area boundaries for
the PM2.5 standard, Catawba County v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 38–40 (D.C. Cir.
2009), and we believe such a test is
appropriate in determining the
boundaries of an area to be redesignated
to nonattainment for the PM10 standard.
Moreover, the Catawba County court
rejected arguments that ‘‘contributes,’’
for the purposes of interpreting the
geographic extent of nonattainment
areas under section 107(d)(1)(A),
necessarily connotes a significant causal
relationship and upheld EPA’s
interpretation of ‘‘contribute’’ to mean
‘‘sufficiently contribute’’ and then
applying a presumption and multifactor test precisely to identify those
areas that meet the definition. Id. In the
context of this action, we have not
applied any presumption but otherwise
have identified the boundaries of the
area to be redesignated to nonattainment
for the PM10 standard to include areas
determined to be sufficiently
contributing through application of a
multi-factor test.
Off-Highway Vehicles
Comment: The Arizona Game and
Fish Department argued that because
ADEQ’s technical report states that offhighway vehicle emissions are relatively
low and there were no grid cells over
the 20 ton per year threshold, the
nonattainment area boundary should
not include undeveloped lands where
off-highway vehicle recreation occurs.
10 ADEQ, ‘‘Arizona Air Quality Designations,
Technical Support Document, Boundary
Recommendation for the Pinal County 24-hour
PM10 Nonattainment Area,’’ March 15, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
32028
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
Response: Upon consideration of
public comments, the EPA has revised
our proposed nonattainment area
boundary to minimize the inclusion of
areas where available information
indicates emissions are relatively low.
We have established a final
nonattainment area that we believe
encompasses the areas in which PM10
violations are being monitored, as well
as the areas that contribute to the
monitored violations, consistent with
the definition of nonattainment areas in
CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). While this
might result in the inclusion of some
lands where off-highway vehicle
recreation occurs, it does not dictate the
application of controls on or regulation
of emissions generated by such
activities. Arizona will be required to
develop a plan that demonstrates
attainment of the PM10 standard, and
the relative contribution of various
sources and options for control will be
considered in that process. That plan
will be subject to public review and
comment, both at the state level and
again when the EPA evaluates the plan
for approval or disapproval as a revision
to the Arizona state implementation
plan (SIP).
Wilderness Areas
Comment: Four commenters objected
to the inclusion of the Table Top and
Superstition Wilderness areas within
the nonattainment area, noting that such
areas are generally closed to
mechanized equipment and do not
include sources that could be
contributing to exceedances at the
violating monitors. The Arizona Game
and Fish Department and ADEQ also
argued that, EPA had not adequately
justified including these wilderness
areas and the Tonto National Forest in
the nonattainment area. The Arizona
Game and Fish Department requested
that the EPA remove these areas and
other largely undeveloped, rural areas
from the nonattainment boundary.
Response: The EPA agrees that,
because the wilderness areas and the
Tonto National Forest are generally
closed to mechanized equipment and
lacking in emissions sources, the areas
do not contribute to violations at the
monitors elsewhere in Pinal County. As
a result, we have finalized boundaries
that do not include either of the
wilderness areas or any portion of the
Tonto National Forest, and we have
sought to minimize the inclusion of
undeveloped land.
Traffic and Commuting Patterns
Comment: Several commenters
believe that EPA’s inclusion in the
proposed nonattainment area of lands in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
the western half of Pinal County that lie
to the east and south of the Governor’s
recommended boundary is not justified
given the traffic patterns and
concentration of roads in this area.
Commenters stated that the largest
category of PM10 emissions in Pinal
County is on-road sources, and noted
that current traffic and commuterrelated emissions are located primarily
in the western portions of the county in
the more populated regions of Casa
Grande and Maricopa. Another
commenter asserted that the number of
commuters traveling between Pima and
Pinal Counties is significantly less than
the number traveling between Maricopa
and Pinal counties. One commenter
contended that the area south of
Interstate 8 does not have any roads that
lead to major urban centers, except for
Interstate 10, and contended that
proximity to Interstate 10 does not cause
the Pinal Air Park or Eloy monitors to
violate.
Response: Although the EPA and
ADEQ inventories differed with respect
to the quantity of emissions generated
by on-road sources (traveling on paved
and unpaved roads), EPA and ADEQ
agree that this is the largest category of
PM10 emissions in Pinal County. EPA
TSD Figure 8 and ADEQ technical
report Figure 3–5 illustrate the
distribution of commuter traffic and
emissions generated by traffic on paved
roads. Taken together with the overall
distribution of on-road emissions shown
in ADEQ’s technical report (Figure 3–4),
it is evident that on-road traffic
(including paved and unpaved roads) is
a significant source of emissions in the
western half of Pinal County, including
areas to the south and east of the
Governor’s recommended boundary.
The EPA believes that the distribution
of emissions from on-road traffic
requires extending Arizona’s
recommended boundary; however, upon
further review, we concluded that the
comments submitted and further review
of available data provide a persuasive
case for modifying EPA’s proposed
boundary. For the final nonattainment
area boundaries, we reduced emphasis
on the growth and commuting patterns
and increased the weight given to
emissions- and land-use-related data
and thus are not including the southernmost portion of Pinal County, the Table
Top and Superstition Wilderness areas,
and the largely undisturbed desert areas
east of Township 8 East, except where
the boundary extends farther to the east
to include the Florence area and the
Picacho Peak area.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Growth Rates and Patterns
Comment: Several commenters argued
that growth forecasts made prior to the
economic downturn are no longer
reliable given current economic
conditions, and that future growth is
uncertain. Others noted that actual
growth in the area south of the
Governor’s recommended boundary has
been modest, and that this area is
unlikely to become a major employment
center. These commenters questioned
the view EPA expressed in its proposal
that future employment and population
growth in Pinal County justify including
the southern portion of the county in
the nonattainment area.
Response: In our final action, after
considering the comments submitted on
our proposal, EPA has reduced the size
of the nonattainment area, relative to
what was proposed. As noted above in
our response to the previous comment,
the final nonattainment boundaries do
not include the southern-most portion
of Pinal County, the Table Top and
Superstition Wilderness areas, and the
largely undisturbed desert areas east of
Township 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther to the east to
include the Florence area and the
Picacho Peak area. We are persuaded to
shrink the boundary in part based on
the building permit data provided by
Pinal County that documents the extent
to which the national recession has
slowed growth generally in Pinal
County, and particularly in the
Interstate 8 and Interstate 10 corridors.
We agree that the recession and the
number of homes already in foreclosure
will likely delay significant growth in
the corridors beyond the five-year
horizon for reaching attainment of the
standard. The Pinal Air Park monitor,
located southwest of Interstate 10 near
the southern border of Pinal County, is
not included within the final boundary.
However, as EPA proposed, the Eloy
monitor, is part of the final
nonattainment area, because EPA
continues to believe that the sources in
the Eloy area contribute to violations of
the PM10 NAAQS farther north.
Meteorology and Transport
Comment: ADEQ and Pinal County
Air Quality (PCAQ) asserted that the
meteorological data do not support the
EPA’s inclusion of the southeastern
portion of the nonattainment area. In
brief, the comments are: (1) The
southeast should not be included, since
the Eloy monitor there is not violating;
(2) the meteorological data relied on by
the EPA do not substantiate transport
from the southeast; (3) meteorological
data show the cause of PM10 violations
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
is local, not transport from the
southeast; and (4) the limited data
showing instances where measured
exceedances have coincided with
southeast winds does not justify
including the southeast portion.
Response: EPA has included areas to
the southeast of the State’s
recommended boundary, including
those near the Eloy monitor, because of
the contribution of southeast emissions
to violations recorded at the Casa
Grande and Pinal County Housing
monitors. The EPA does not agree with
the commenters’ implicit assumption
that the southeast portion must be the
sole or main cause of violations in order
for it to be included in the
nonattainment area. While emissions
from the southeast may not cause a
violation at Eloy, they still contribute to
violations farther northwest.
Our conclusion that the area southeast
of the State’s boundary in and around
Eloy contributes to the violations farther
northwest is based on (1) emissions
inventory data (see table 3 of the TSD
for the proposed rule) that shows that
PM10 emissions from traffic on paved
and unpaved roads, and agricultural and
agricultural activities account for most
of the overall inventory in Pinal County;
(2) maps illustrating the locations of
agricultural uses and paved and
unpaved roads (see figure 4 and figure
9 of the TSD, respectively) and showing
a concentration of such uses and roads
in and around Eloy; (3) a map
illustrating the distribution of overall
PM10 emissions in the county (see figure
5 of the TSD) and showing similar rates
of emissions generated in and around
Eloy as the area where violations of the
standard occur; meteorological data
showing a strong component of winds
from the southeast (see figure 10 of the
TSD); and the absence of significant
topographical barriers to transport from
the area in and around Eloy to the area
where violations occur (see figure 11 of
the TSD). This contribution to violations
warrants inclusion of this portion of the
county in the nonattainment area.
As discussed in EPA’s proposal and
in the Meteorology section of the TSD,
we agree that it would be desirable to
have additional meteorological data
available. Nonetheless, EPA believes
that there are sufficient meteorological
data from the AZMET (Arizona
Meteorological Network) stations within
and around the proposed area to show
that flow from the southeast toward the
violating monitors occurs often. The
EPA believes that this pattern exists
even during the exceedance days
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
discounted by ADEQ and PCAQ.11 The
available meteorological data, along
with the topography and the geographic
distribution of sources of PM10
emissions, provide evidence that
emissions sources in the southeast
contribute to NAAQS violations. EPA
has concluded that the nonattainment
area boundary should lie further to the
southeast than the Governor’s
recommended boundary, though we
have reduced the extent relative to the
area we had proposed to include.
Comment: Both ADEQ and PCAQ
examined HYSPLIT 12 back-trajectories
for several high-wind exceedance days,
along with hourly concentrations and
wind data. From the abrupt changes in
wind direction and increases in wind
speed that often coincided with large
increases in PM10 concentrations, they
concluded that the PM10 is due to nearfield impacts rather than to long-range
transport.
Response: While the analyses
performed by ADEQ and Pinal County
provide useful information for
evaluating the PM10 exceedances, as
discussed above, establishing
nonattainment area boundaries requires
us to take into account more than the
sole or main cause of an exceedance.
Even if the commenters are correct that
on certain occasions ‘‘wind-transport
from the southeast is not a dominant
contributing factor’’ (ADEQ comments,
p.4) and that the data ‘‘suggest a typical
monsoon storm where local weather
contributed to local impacts’’ (Pinal
County comments, p.3), EPA remains
convinced by the available evidence
that transported emissions from the
southeast nonattainment area
nevertheless do contribute to
exceedances. As discussed in more
detail in the TSD for the EPA’s proposal
and in the RTC document, the EPA
believes that the meteorological data
provide evidence for such a
contribution. Other factors, including
the geographic distribution of sources of
emissions and the topography of Pinal
County also reinforce EPA’s
determination to include this portion in
the nonattainment area.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons provided in the
proposed rule and TSD, insofar as not
modified here, the Response to
11 In their transport analyses, PCAQ and ADEQ
focused on days with the wind trajectory’s ending
hour oriented from the southeast, but this does not
consider other hours during the day that may have
had flow from the southeast.
12 The HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle
Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model is used to
compute simple air parcel trajectories, dispersion
characteristics, and deposition simulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32029
Comments document, and this final
rule, the EPA is taking final action
pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the
Clean Air Act to redesignate an area in
western Pinal County, Arizona from
‘‘unclassifiable’’ to ‘‘nonattainment’’ for
the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard and is
therefore also revising the boundaries of
the existing ‘‘rest of state’’ unclassifiable
area. EPA’s establishment of this new
PM10 nonattainment area, referred to as
‘‘West Pinal,’’ is based on numerous
recorded violations of the PM10 standard
at various monitoring sites within the
western portion of the county. With the
exception of Indian country and certain
Federal lands, the EPA’s nonattainment
area boundaries generally encompass
the land geographically located within
Pinal County north of the east-west line
defined by the southern line of
Township 9 South, Gila and Salt River
Baseline and Meridian, and west of the
north-south line defined by the eastern
line of Range 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther east in the
Florence and Picacho Peak areas.13 In
taking this action, the EPA concludes
that the State’s recommended
boundaries do not encompass the full
geographic area from which emissionsgenerating activities contribute to the
monitored PM10 violations. See figure 1
in the RTC document for a map that
compares the State’s recommended
boundaries to the EPA’s final
boundaries.
For this final action, we reduced the
size of the nonattainment area relative
to the area for which we proposed
redesignation and believe that the final
boundaries more closely align the
nonattainment area boundaries with the
areas in which PM10 violations are being
monitored, as well as the areas that
contribute to the monitored violations.
Our conclusion is based on our analysis
of the factors as set forth in the
proposed rule and related TSD, and RTC
document, with particular weight being
given to the locations of those sources,
including vehicle travel over paved and
unpaved roads, and agricultural and
construction activities, that comprise
most of the overall PM10 inventory, the
frequent occurrence of southeast winds,
and the absence of topographical
barriers.
We are continuing to defer our
decision regarding redesignation of the
Ak-Chin and Gila River Indian
Community lands, as well as TON’s
Florence Village and San Lucy Farms,
pending consideration of issues unique
13 Townships to the east of the north-south line
defined by the eastern line of Range 8 East that are
included in the West Pinal PM10 nonattainment
area are: T3S, R9E; T4S, R9E; T4S, R10E; T5S, R9E;
and T5S, R10E.
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
32030
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
to tribal lands, completion of formal
consultation with the tribal
governments, and (in the case of the
Gila River Indian Community) further
review of air quality monitoring data
including an evaluation of exceptional
event claims. The existing Phoenix PM10
nonattainment area (including the
Apache Junction portion of western
Pinal County) is unaffected by this
action.
Areas redesignated as nonattainment
are subject to the applicable
requirements of part D, title I of the Act
and will be classified as moderate by
operation of law (see section 188(a) of
the Act). Within 18 months of the
effective date of this redesignation
action, the State of Arizona must submit
to the EPA an implementation plan for
the area containing, among other things,
the following requirements: (1)
Provisions to assure that reasonably
available control measures (including
reasonably available control technology)
are implemented within 4 years of the
redesignation; (2) a permit program
meeting the requirements of section 173
governing the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM10; (3)
quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years until the area is
redesignated attainment and which
demonstrates reasonable further
progress, as defined in section 171(1),
toward timely attainment; and (4) either
a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan will provide for
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the end of the sixth calendar year
after the area’s designation as
nonattainment, or a demonstration that
attainment by such date is impracticable
(see, e.g., section 188(c), 189(a), 189(c),
and 172(c) of the Act). We have issued
detailed guidance on the statutory
requirements applicable to moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas [see 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992), and 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992)].
The State will also be required to
submit contingency measures (for the
new PM10 nonattainment area),
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the Act,
which are to take effect without further
action by the State or the EPA, upon a
determination by the EPA that an area
has failed to make reasonable further
progress or attain the PM10 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date (see 57
FR 13510–13512, 13543–13544).
Pursuant to section 172(b) of the Act,
the EPA is establishing a deadline for
submission of contingency measures to
coincide with the submittal date
requirement for the other SIP elements
discussed above, i.e., 18 months after
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
the effective date of redesignation.
Lastly, the new PM10 nonattainment
area will be subject to the EPA’s general
and transportation conformity
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subparts A
and B) one year from the effective date
of redesignation. See section 176(c)(6) of
the Act.14
Specifically, this section of the CAA
provides areas, that for the first time are
designated nonattainment for a given air
quality standard, with a one-year grace
period before conformity applies with
respect to that standard. Because this is
the first time that this portion of Pinal
County is being designated
nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS, it
will have a one-year grace period before
conformity applies for the PM10
NAAQS.15
The new West Pinal PM10
nonattainment area would be
considered to be a ‘‘donut area’’ because
portions of the area in Queen Creek and
Apache Junction are within the area
covered by a metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), the Maricopa
Association Governments (MAG) and a
portion lies outside of MAG’s
boundaries. For the purposes of
transportation conformity, a donut area
is the geographic area outside a
metropolitan planning area boundary,
but inside the boundary of a designated
nonattainment/maintenance area. The
transportation conformity requirements
for donut areas are generally the same
as those for metropolitan areas.
However, the MPO would include any
projects occurring in the donut area in
its regional emissions analysis of the
metropolitan transportation plan and
Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). Therefore, the one-year grace
period applies to donut areas in much
the same way that it applies to
metropolitan areas. That is, within one
14 The
proposed rule mistakenly stated that any
new PM10 nonattainment area would be subject to
the EPA’s general and transportation conformity
regulations upon the effective date of redesignation.
See 75 FR at 60688. However, CAA section
176(c)(6) provides a one-year grace period for newly
designated (in this case, newly redesignated)
nonattainment areas, i.e., for the pollutant for
which the area is newly designated (or
redesignated) nonattainment. See also, 40 CFR
93.102(d) in EPA’s transportation conformity
regulation and 40 CFR 93.153(k) in the EPA’s
general conformity regulation.
15 For more information on how the one-year
grace period applies for transportation conformity
purposes, please see the proposed and final
rulemaking entitled, ‘‘Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments: Minor Revision of 18-Month
Requirement for Initial SIP Submissions and
Addition of Grace Period for Newly Designated
Nonattainment Areas,’’ published October 5, 2001
(66 FR 50954); and August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808),
respectively. (The proposed and final rule can be
found on EPA’s transportation conformity Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
conf-regs-c.htm).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
year of the effective date of an area’s
designation, a donut area’s projects
must be included in the MPO’s
conformity determination for the
metropolitan plan and TIP for those
projects to be funded or approved. If, at
the conclusion of the one-year grace
period, the donut area’s projects have
not been included in an MPO’s
conformity determination, the entire
nonattainment area’s conformity would
lapse.16
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA has
determined that redesignation to
nonattainment, as well as the
establishment of SIP submittal
schedules, would result in none of the
effects identified in Executive Order
12866, section 3(f). Under section
107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to
nonattainment are based upon air
quality considerations. The
redesignation, based upon air quality
data showing that West Pinal is not
attaining the PM10 standard and upon
other air-quality-related considerations,
does not, in and of itself, impose any
new requirements on any sectors of the
economy. Similarly, the establishment
of new SIP submittal schedules would
merely establish the dates by which
SIPs must be submitted, and would not
adversely affect entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., a
redesignation to nonattainment under
section 107(d)(3), and the establishment
of a SIP submittal schedule for a
redesignated area, do not, in and of
themselves, directly impose any new
requirements on small entities. See MidTex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC,
773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency’s
certification need only consider the
rule’s impact on entities subject to the
16 For more information on transportation
conformity requirements in donut areas refer to
Conformity Implementation in Multi-jurisdictional
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing
and New Air Quality Standards. In particular refer
to question 4 in Part 1 and Part 2 of the guidance.
The document is available at: https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b04012.
pdf.
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of the rule). Instead, this
rulemaking simply makes a factual
determination and establishes a
schedule to require the State to submit
SIP revisions, and does not directly
regulate any entities. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA
certifies that today’s action does not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of those terms for
RFA purposes.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104–4, the EPA has
concluded that this rule is not likely to
result in the promulgation of any
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or for the private sector,
in any one year. It is questionable
whether a redesignation would
constitute a federal mandate in any case.
The obligation for the state to revise its
State Implementation Plan that arises
out of a redesignation is not legally
enforceable and at most is a condition
for continued receipt of federal highway
funds. Therefore, it does not appear that
such an action creates any enforceable
duty within the meaning of section
421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)(a)(i)), and if it does the duty
would appear to fall within the
exception for a condition of Federal
assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I).
Even if a redesignation were
considered a Federal mandate, the
anticipated costs resulting from the
mandate would not exceed $100 million
to either the private sector or state, local
and tribal governments. Redesignation
of an area to nonattainment does not, in
itself, impose any mandates or costs on
the private sector, and thus, there is no
private sector mandate within the
meaning of section 421(7) of UMRA (2
U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting
from the redesignation itself is the cost
to the State of Arizona of developing,
adopting, and submitting any necessary
SIP revision. Because that cost will not
exceed $100 million, this action (if it is
a federal mandate at all) is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535).
The EPA has also determined that this
action would not result in regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments
because only the State would take any
action as result of today’s rule, and thus
the requirements of section 203 (2
U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ This rule
will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132,
because it merely redesignates an area
for Clean Air Act planning purposes and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ The area redesignated in
today’s action does not include Indian
country, and the EPA is deferring action
on the Indian country that lies within or
adjacent to the newly redesignated area,
including the Ak-Chin Indian
Reservation, the Pinal County portion of
the Gila River Indian Reservation, and
TON’s Florence Village and San Lucy
Farms. In formulating its further action
on these areas, the EPA has been
communicating with and plans to
continue to consult with representatives
of the Tribes, as provided in Executive
Order 13175. Accordingly, the EPA has
addressed Executive Order 13175 to the
extent that it applies to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (‘‘Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks’’) (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32031
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. The EPA believes that the
requirements of NTTAA are
inapplicable to this action because they
would be inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Today’s action redesignates an area to
nonattainment for an ambient air quality
standard. It will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
effects on any communities in the area,
including minority and low-income
communities.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by July 30, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
32032
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Particulate
Matter, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment
Status Designations
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
■
PART 81—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
2. In § 81.303, the ‘‘Arizona–PM–10’’
table is amended by adding a new entry
for ‘‘Pinal County’’ after the entry for
‘‘Mohave County (part)’’ and before the
entry for ‘‘Rest of State’’ to read as set
forth below.
§ 81.303
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
*
Arizona.
*
*
*
ARIZONA–PM–10
Designation
Classification
Designated Area
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
Date
*
*
*
*
Pinal County (part)
West Pinal
1. Commencing at a point which is the intersection of the
western line of Range 2 East, Gila and Salt River Baseline
and Meridian, and the northern line of Township 4 South,
which is the point of beginning:
2. Thence, proceed easterly along the northern line of Township 4 South to a point where the northern line of Township 4 South intersects the western line of Range 7 East;
3. Thence, northerly along the western line of Range 7 East
to a point where the western line of Range 7 East intersects the northern line of Township 3 South;
4. Thence, easterly along the northern line of Township 3
South to a point where the northern line of Township 3
South intersects the western line of Range 8 East;
5. Thence, northerly along the western line of Range 8 East
to a point where the western line of Range 8 East intersects the northern line of Township 1 South;
6. Thence, easterly along the northern line of Township 1
South to a point where the northern line of Township 1
South intersects the eastern line of Range 8 East;
7. Thence southerly along the eastern line of Range 8 East
to a point where the eastern line of Range 8 East intersects the Northern line of Township 3 South;
8. Thence easterly along the northern line of Township 3
South to a point where the northern line of Township 3
South intersects the eastern line of Range 9 East;
9. Thence southerly along the eastern line of Range 9 east
to a point where the eastern line of Range 9 East intersects the northern line of Township 4 South;
10. Thence easterly along the northern line of Township 4
South to a point where the northern line of Township 4
South intersects the eastern line of Range 10 East;
11. Thence southerly along the eastern line of Range 10
East to a point where the eastern line of Range 10 East
intersects the southern line of Township 5 South;
12. Thence westerly along the southern line of Township 5
South to a point where the southern line of Township 5
South intersects the eastern line of Range 8 East;
13. Thence southerly along the eastern line of Range 8 East
to a point where the eastern line of Range 8 East intersects the northern line of Township 8 South;
14. Thence easterly along the northern line of Township 8
South to a point where the northern line of Township 8
South intersects the eastern line of Range 9 East;
15. Thence southerly along the eastern line of Range 9 east
to a point where the eastern line of Range 9 East intersects the northern line of Township 9 South;
16. Thence easterly along the northern line of Township 9
South to a point where the northern line of Township 9
South intersects the eastern line of Range 10 East;
17. Thence southerly along the eastern line of Range 10
East to a point where the eastern line of Range 10 East
intersects the southern line of Township 9 South;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Type
Date
*
7/2/12
Sfmt 4700
*
Nonattainment ...........
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
Type
*
7/2/12
Moderate.
32033
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ARIZONA–PM–10—Continued
Designation
Classification
Designated Area
Date
Type
Date
Type
18. Thence westerly along the southern line of Township 9
South to a point where the southern line of Township 9
South intersects the western line of Range 7 East;
19. Thence northerly along the western line of Range 7 East
to a point where the western line of Range 7 East intersects the southern line of Township 8 South;
20. Thence westerly along the southern line of Township 8
South to a point where the southern line of Township 8
South intersects the western line of Range 6 East;
21. Thence northerly along the western line of Range 6 East
to a point where the western line of Range 6 East intersects the southern line of Township 7 South;
22. Thence, westerly along the southern line of Township 7
South to a point where the southern line of Township 7
South intersects the quarter section line common to the
southwestern southwest quarter section and the southeastern southwest quarter section of section 34, Range 3
East and Township 7 South;
23. Thence, northerly along the along the quarter section line
common to the southwestern southwest quarter section
and the southeastern southwest quarter section of sections
34, 27, 22, and 15, Range 3 East and Township 7 South,
to a point where the quarter section line common to the
southwestern southwest quarter section and the southeastern southwest quarter section of sections 34, 27, 22,
and 15, Range 3 East and Township 7 South, intersects
the northern line of section 15, Range 3 East and Township 7 South;
24. Thence, westerly along the northern line of sections 15,
16, 17, and 18, Range 3 East and Township 7 South, and
the northern line of sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18,
Range 2 East and Township 7 South, to a point where the
northern line of sections 15, 16, 17, and 18, Range 3 East
and Township 7 South, and the northern line of sections
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Range 2 East and Township 7
South, intersect the western line of Range 2 East, which is
the common boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties, as described in Arizona Revised Statutes sections
11–109 and 11–113;
25. Thence, northerly along the western line of Range 2 East
to the point of beginning which is the point where the western line of Range 2 East intersects the northern line of
Township 4 South;
26. Except that portion of the area defined by paragraphs 1
through 25 above that lies within the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation, Gila River Indian Reservation, and the Tohono
O’odham Nation’s Florence Village and San Lucy Farms.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–13185 Filed 5–30–12; 8:45 am]
*
*
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
47 CFR Parts 22 and 90
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1
[DA 12–643]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
and Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau Suspend Acceptance
and Processing of Certain Applications
for 470–512 MHz Spectrum
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; limited suspension of
specific applications.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 May 30, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) announce a limited
suspension of the acceptance and
processing of certain applications for
certain services operating in the 470–
512 MHz (T–Band) spectrum band in
order to maintain a stable spectral
landscape while the Commission
determines how to implement recent
spectrum legislation contained in the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012. The suspension
applies only to applications for new or
expanded use of T–Band frequencies.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31MYR1.SGM
31MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32024-32033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13185]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0491; FRL-9679-7]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Arizona; Pinal County; PM10
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is
redesignating from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' an area in
western Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987 national ambient air
quality standard for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10), and therefore
also revising the boundaries of the existing ``rest of state''
unclassifiable area. The EPA's establishment of this new
PM10 nonattainment area, referred to as ``West Pinal,'' is
based on numerous recorded violations of the PM10 standard
at various monitoring sites within the county. With the exception of
Indian country and certain Federal lands, the EPA's nonattainment area
boundaries generally encompass the land geographically located within
Pinal County north of the east-west line defined by the southern line
of Township 9 South, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, and
west of the north-south line defined by the eastern line of Range 8
East, except where the boundary extends farther east in the
[[Page 32025]]
Florence and Picacho Peak areas. The effect of this action is to
establish and delineate a new PM10 nonattainment area within
Pinal County and thereby to impose certain planning requirements on the
State of Arizona to reduce PM10 concentrations within this
area, including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit, within
18 months of redesignation, a revision to the Arizona state
implementation plan that provides for attainment of the PM10
standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of
the sixth calendar year after redesignation.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 2, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0491 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (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: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Proposed Action
III. Public Comment and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for particulate matter (52 FR
24634), replacing total suspended particulates as the indicator for
particulate matter with a new indicator called PM10 that
includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers.\1\ In order to attain the NAAQS for
24-hour PM10, an air quality monitor cannot measure levels
of PM10 greater than 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) more than once per year on average over a consecutive three-year
period. The rate of expected exceedances indicates whether a monitor
attains the air quality standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1987 p.m.10 standard included a 24-hour (150
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) and an annual standard (50
[mu]g/m\3\). In 2006, EPA revoked the annual standard. See 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of Pinal County, Arizona, including the area that is the
subject of today's action, was included in the ``rest of state'' area,
which was designated ``unclassifiable'' for PM10 by
operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``Act'').\2\ See section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii). The
PM10 designations established by operation of law under the
CAA, as amended in 1990, are known as ``initial'' designations. The CAA
grants the EPA the authority to change the designation of, or
``redesignate,'' such areas in light of changes in circumstances. More
specifically, CAA section 107(d)(3) authorizes the EPA to revise the
designation of areas (or portions thereof) on the basis of air quality
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air-quality-
related considerations that the EPA deems appropriate. Pursuant to CAA
section 107(d)(3), the EPA in the past has redesignated certain areas
in Arizona to nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS, including
the Payson and Bullhead City areas. See 56 FR 16274 (April 22, 1991);
and 58 FR 67334 (December 21, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While most of Pinal County was designated
``unclassifiable,'' two PM10 planning areas that extend
into Pinal County were designated under the CAA, as amended in 1990,
as ``nonattainment:'' the Phoenix planning area, which includes the
Apache Junction area within Pinal County; and the Hayden/Miami
planning area, which includes the northeastern portion of the
county. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991); and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992). In 2007, we approved a
redesignation request by the State of Arizona to split the Hayden/
Miami PM10 nonattainment area into two separate
PM10 nonattainment areas. See 72 FR 14422 (March 28,
2007). Today's proposed action would not affect these pre-existing
PM10 nonattainment areas. EPA codifies area designations
in 40 CFR part 81. The area designations for the State of Arizona
are codified at 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 14, 2009, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), the EPA
notified the Governor of Arizona and tribal leaders of the four Indian
Tribes (whose Indian country is located entirely, or in part, within
Pinal County) that the designation for Pinal County, and any nearby
areas that may be contributing to the monitored violations in Pinal
County, should be revised (``EPA's notification''). Our decision to
initiate the redesignation process stemmed from review of 2006-2008
ambient PM10 monitoring data from PM10 monitoring
stations within the county that showed widespread, frequent, and in
some instances, severe, violations of the PM10 standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In a letter dated October 14, 2009, EPA notified the State
of Arizona that the PM10 designation in Pinal County
should be revised. EPA notified the tribal leaders of the Ak-Chin
Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, San Carlos Apache
Tribe, and Tohono O'odham Nation by letters dated December 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the Act, in a letter dated
March 23, 2010, the Governor of Arizona responded to the EPA's
notification with a recommendation for a partial-county nonattainment
area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated March 23,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The boundaries of the prospective PM10 nonattainment
area recommended by the Governor of Arizona encompass a portion of
central and western Pinal County, and form an area that resembles a
backwards ``L.'' \5\ See figure 2 of the EPA's Technical Support
Document \6\ (TSD) for a map of both the State's recommended boundaries
as well as the EPA's proposed boundaries. The state-recommended area
includes all or most of the cities of Maricopa, Coolidge, Casa Grande,
and the Pinal County portion of the town of Queen Creek, as well as the
western-most portion of the town of Florence and the northern-most
portion of the city of Eloy. The State recommends including an area
that at its western-most boundary includes nearly all of the City of
Maricopa. The State-recommended southern boundary is defined by a line
that coincides approximately with Interstate 8. The area recommended by
the State continues to the east for approximately 35 miles where it
extends to the north, including portions of Florence and Coolidge, and
the Pinal County portion of Queen Creek, and terminates just south of
Apache Junction. The State-recommended eastern boundary is defined by
the north-south line between Range 8 East and Range 9 East. The
northern boundary follows the county line south from the Apache
Junction area and then follows the boundary of the Gila River Indian
Reservation to close back around to the recommended western boundary.
See the Governor's
[[Page 32026]]
March 23, 2010 letter for the legal description of the State's
recommended boundaries by township and range and for an enclosed map
illustrating this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Governor expressly recommended excluding Indian country
from the nonattainment area. EPA finds this appropriate, given that
the State of Arizona is not authorized to administer programs under
the CAA in the affected Indian country. The ``backwards L'' shape of
the recommended area is partly explained by this exclusion because
the recommended area partially surrounds Indian country.
\6\ EPA Region 9, ``Pinal County, Arizona, Area Designation for
the 1987 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard,'' Technical Support Document, September 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated February 11, 2010, the Tohono O'odham Nation
(TON) responded to the EPA's December 30, 2009 letter concerning the
PM10 designation in Pinal County with a recommendation that
the TON land within Pinal County be designated attainment/
unclassifiable for PM10. In a letter dated September 2, 2010
the Ak-Chin Indian Community responded to the EPA's December 30, 2009
letter concerning the PM10 designation of Pinal County with
a recommendation that the Ak-Chin lands be designated attainment/
unclassifiable. The Gila River Indian Community and the San Carlos
Apache Tribe did not submit recommendations.
II. Proposed Action
On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60680), pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of
the CAA, the EPA proposed to redesignate from ``unclassifiable'' to
``nonattainment'' an area generally covering the western half of Pinal
County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, and to make a
corresponding revision to the boundaries of the existing ``rest of
state'' unclassifiable area. The EPA's proposed boundaries for the
nonattainment area encompassed all of the area recommended by the State
of Arizona, but extended farther to the east and south, and to a lesser
degree, to the north and west. The EPA's proposed boundaries
encompassed all land geographically located within Pinal County west of
the north-south line defined by the boundary between Range 10 East and
Range 11 East, but excluded TON's main reservation and the Apache
Junction portion of the existing Phoenix PM10 nonattainment
area. See figure 2 of the EPA's TSD for a map showing our proposed
boundaries.
As explained in our October 1, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR at 60686),
and more fully in the TSD for the proposal, we believe that the State's
recommended boundaries would not encompass the full geographic area
from which emissions-generating activities contribute to the monitored
PM10 violations. More specifically, EPA's proposal stated
that the Governor's recommended boundaries, which cut through
municipalities and contiguous expanses of agricultural fields, excluded
sources that have been identified as dominant sources of
PM10 and that are contributing to elevated levels of
PM10 at violating monitors. In our October 1, 2010 proposal,
EPA stated that its proposed boundaries, described above, would
encompass the areas in which PM10 violations are being
monitored, as well as the areas that contribute to the monitored
violations, and that they were thus consistent with the definition of
nonattainment areas in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). Our proposal was based
on the EPA's analysis of the factors as set forth in the proposed rule
(75 FR at 60682-60686) and in further detail in the TSD for the
proposed rule.
With respect to the affected Indian Tribes, for the reasons given
in the proposed rule, we proposed to exclude the main TON reservation
and the San Carlos Apache Reservation from the PM10
nonattainment area boundaries, but we indicated that we were deferring
action on the status of certain other tribal lands located within the
area, including the tribal lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community and
the Gila River Indian Community, as well as TON's Florence Village and
San Lucy Farms, pending consultation with the affected tribes.
Please see our October 1, 2010 proposed rule and our related TSD
for more information about our proposed action and the rationale for
our proposed boundaries.
III. Public Comment and EPA Responses
Our October 1, 2010 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment
period, and the EPA received 11 comment letters in response to the
proposal, including letters from the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the
Pinal County Air Quality Department, the City of Casa Grande, the
Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District, the Arizona Public
Service Company, several agricultural groups, the Sierra Club, and a
member of the general public.
None of the commenters disagreed with the need to redesignate a
portion of Pinal County nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS, and none disagreed with EPA's conclusion that
sources outside of Pinal County and in the eastern half of Pinal
County, including San Carlos Apache lands, do not contribute to
violations in the western portion of the county. In addition, none of
the commenters disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the activities
occurring on the main Tohono O'odham Nation (TON) reservation do not
contribute to these violations. Most commenters, however, suggested
that the nonattainment area should be smaller than that proposed by the
EPA. Nine commenters supported the Governor's recommended boundary, one
commenter supported the EPA's proposed boundary, and one commenter
suggested that the boundary should include only developed areas that
have a relatively high density of human population.
As discussed in more detail below and in our Response to Comments
(RTC) document,\7\ the EPA is taking final action today to redesignate
from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' an area generally covering
the western half of Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10
NAAQS, and correspondingly, to revise the boundaries of the existing
``rest of state'' unclassifiable area. In our final action, however,
based on our consideration of the comments, including the building
permit data provided by Pinal County that documents the extent to which
the national recession has slowed growth in Pinal County, and after
further review of other relevant factors, such as the geographic
distribution of sources of PM10, the EPA is modifying the
boundaries it had proposed for the nonattainment area. EPA's final
action modifies its previously proposed boundaries in such a way as to
reduce the size of the nonattainment area (relative to the area the EPA
had proposed) by approximately 36 percent (about 735 square miles).
This reduction is principally accounted for by establishing the final
boundaries for the nonattainment area so as to exclude the Tonto
National Forest (including the Superstition Wilderness Area), portions
of the Sonoran Desert National Monument (including the Table Top
Wilderness Area), the Ironwood Forest National Monument, and certain
less-developed areas. EPA's proposal had included these areas within
the nonattainment area boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA Region 9, ``Response to Comments on the Proposed Action
to Redesignate West Pinal County to Nonattainment for the 1987 24-
hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' May
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following paragraphs of this section, we summarize our
responses to significant comments that we received on our October 1,
2010 proposed rule. Our full responses to all the comments received can
be found in the previously-cited RTC document, which is included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Air Quality Data
Comment: Disagreement over the size of the nonattainment area was
primarily based on commenters' views that certain areas should be
excluded from the nonattainment area because they are not themselves
violating the standard, or because they are not ``significantly''
[[Page 32027]]
contributing to violations in nearby areas.
Response: CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) defines a nonattainment area
to include ``any area that does not meet (or that contributes to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)'' the NAAQS.
Thus, a location is designated nonattainment if its emissions
contribute to the air quality in a nearby area that violates the NAAQS,
even if that location is not the main cause of violations, and even if
it does not contribute to every measured violation. The absence of a
violation at a particular monitor does not preclude the possibility of
elevated levels of particulate in the vicinity of that monitor or the
transport of particulate to a nearby violating area, even if levels do
not cause a violation at the monitor itself. A contiguous area can be
nonattainment if it is within several miles of a violating monitor and
has emissions that travel to that monitor, even if its contribution is
not as large as those of locations nearer the monitor.
Exceptional Events
Comment: Two commenters noted that some of the measured exceedances
have been flagged as exceptional events \8\ and suggested that the EPA
should not consider a monitor to be violating if all of the exceedances
have been flagged as exceptional events. ADEQ stated that its analysis
of the most recent monitoring data indicated that if flagged
exceptional events were excluded from the monitoring record, four
monitors (Casa Grande, Combs School, Coolidge, and Maricopa) would be
attaining the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, Treatment of
Data Influenced by Exceptional Events, (EER), to govern the review
and handling of certain air quality monitoring data for which the
normal planning and regulatory processes are not appropriate. Under
the rule, EPA may exclude data from use in determinations of NAAQS
exceedances and violations if a state demonstrates that an
``exceptional event'' caused the exceedances. See 72 FR 13560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: Based on the most recent certified data (2009-2011),
seven monitors in Pinal County are violating the 24-hour
PM10 standard. EPA regulations do provide that a State may
request EPA to exclude data showing exceedances or violations of the
national ambient air quality standard that are directly due to an
exceptional event from use in determinations, by demonstrating to the
EPA's satisfaction that such event caused a specific air pollution
concentration at a particular air quality monitoring location. (40 CFR
58.14) However, as indicated in the proposed rule (75 FR at 60684-
60685), even if we were to concur and to exclude from use in
determining attainment all of the flagged exceedances, a number of
monitors would still violate the standard. Moreover, the emissions
sources in the vicinities of the non-violating monitors (i.e.,
presuming exclusion of the flagged exceedances as caused by exceptional
events) are those, such as traffic on paved and unpaved roads, cattle
operations, agricultural sources, and construction-generated emissions,
that we have determined contribute to violations of the standard
elsewhere in the County. Thus, EPA action on State flagged exceptional
event claims is not a prerequisite to finalizing this redesignation and
establishing appropriate boundaries for the new West Pinal
PM10 nonattainment area.
Geographic Distribution of Emissions Sources
Comment: A number of commenters objected to EPA's proposed boundary
because, in their view, sources of PM10 emissions leading to
monitored violations are located in the western regions of Pinal
County, not the east or south [of the Governor's recommended
nonattainment area \9\]. They argued that the Governor's recommended
boundary included all of the emissions sources that contribute
significantly to the PM10 violations, plus an adequate
buffer to the south and east.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Commenters referring to the ``eastern'' and ``southern''
portions of Pinal County appear to be referring to the areas to the
east and south of the Governor's recommended nonattainment boundary.
In our TSD and in the RTC, EPA's references to the eastern and
western portions of Pinal County mean those portions of Pinal County
that lie to the east and west of the eastern boundary of EPA's
proposed nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters pointed to differences in activity levels and the degree
of urbanization in areas within and outside the Governor's recommended
boundary and argued that the State's preliminary emissions inventory
showed that sources in the eastern and/or southern regions of the
county do not significantly contribute to violations in other regions
of the county.
Response: Arizona's preliminary PM10 inventory and the
2005 National Emissions Inventory, version 2, along with source
apportionment studies, identify the sources that contribute to elevated
concentrations of PM10. These sources include on-road
emissions, cattle operations, agriculture, and construction. According
to ADEQ's technical report, these sources of PM10 are
located throughout the western portion of Pinal County, including areas
to the east and south of the Governor's recommended boundary. See
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 of ADEQ's technical report.\10\ The EPA's review of
meteorological data indicates that emissions from these areas are
transported to the violating monitors 35 to 40% of the time. See the
wind rose data collected at the Pinal Air Park as illustrated in Figure
10 of the TSD for the proposal and note the absence of topographic
barriers as shown in Figure 11 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ADEQ, ``Arizona Air Quality Designations, Technical Support
Document, Boundary Recommendation for the Pinal County 24-hour
PM10 Nonattainment Area,'' March 15, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, CAA defines a nonattainment area to include a
nearby area that contributes to air quality in the area where
violations are measured. To identify nearby areas that contribute to
the measured violations of PM10 in Pinal County, we have
used a multi-factor analysis that accounts for, among other factors,
emissions data, meteorology, and topography, as described in detail in
EPA's TSD for the proposed rule and in the RTC document prepared for
this final rule. The use of a multi-factor test in determining which
areas contribute to violations in a nearby area was upheld in a case
involving designations and nonattainment area boundaries for the
PM2.5 standard, Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 38-40
(D.C. Cir. 2009), and we believe such a test is appropriate in
determining the boundaries of an area to be redesignated to
nonattainment for the PM10 standard. Moreover, the Catawba
County court rejected arguments that ``contributes,'' for the purposes
of interpreting the geographic extent of nonattainment areas under
section 107(d)(1)(A), necessarily connotes a significant causal
relationship and upheld EPA's interpretation of ``contribute'' to mean
``sufficiently contribute'' and then applying a presumption and multi-
factor test precisely to identify those areas that meet the definition.
Id. In the context of this action, we have not applied any presumption
but otherwise have identified the boundaries of the area to be
redesignated to nonattainment for the PM10 standard to
include areas determined to be sufficiently contributing through
application of a multi-factor test.
Off-Highway Vehicles
Comment: The Arizona Game and Fish Department argued that because
ADEQ's technical report states that off-highway vehicle emissions are
relatively low and there were no grid cells over the 20 ton per year
threshold, the nonattainment area boundary should not include
undeveloped lands where off-highway vehicle recreation occurs.
[[Page 32028]]
Response: Upon consideration of public comments, the EPA has
revised our proposed nonattainment area boundary to minimize the
inclusion of areas where available information indicates emissions are
relatively low. We have established a final nonattainment area that we
believe encompasses the areas in which PM10 violations are
being monitored, as well as the areas that contribute to the monitored
violations, consistent with the definition of nonattainment areas in
CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). While this might result in the inclusion of
some lands where off-highway vehicle recreation occurs, it does not
dictate the application of controls on or regulation of emissions
generated by such activities. Arizona will be required to develop a
plan that demonstrates attainment of the PM10 standard, and
the relative contribution of various sources and options for control
will be considered in that process. That plan will be subject to public
review and comment, both at the state level and again when the EPA
evaluates the plan for approval or disapproval as a revision to the
Arizona state implementation plan (SIP).
Wilderness Areas
Comment: Four commenters objected to the inclusion of the Table Top
and Superstition Wilderness areas within the nonattainment area, noting
that such areas are generally closed to mechanized equipment and do not
include sources that could be contributing to exceedances at the
violating monitors. The Arizona Game and Fish Department and ADEQ also
argued that, EPA had not adequately justified including these
wilderness areas and the Tonto National Forest in the nonattainment
area. The Arizona Game and Fish Department requested that the EPA
remove these areas and other largely undeveloped, rural areas from the
nonattainment boundary.
Response: The EPA agrees that, because the wilderness areas and the
Tonto National Forest are generally closed to mechanized equipment and
lacking in emissions sources, the areas do not contribute to violations
at the monitors elsewhere in Pinal County. As a result, we have
finalized boundaries that do not include either of the wilderness areas
or any portion of the Tonto National Forest, and we have sought to
minimize the inclusion of undeveloped land.
Traffic and Commuting Patterns
Comment: Several commenters believe that EPA's inclusion in the
proposed nonattainment area of lands in the western half of Pinal
County that lie to the east and south of the Governor's recommended
boundary is not justified given the traffic patterns and concentration
of roads in this area. Commenters stated that the largest category of
PM10 emissions in Pinal County is on-road sources, and noted
that current traffic and commuter-related emissions are located
primarily in the western portions of the county in the more populated
regions of Casa Grande and Maricopa. Another commenter asserted that
the number of commuters traveling between Pima and Pinal Counties is
significantly less than the number traveling between Maricopa and Pinal
counties. One commenter contended that the area south of Interstate 8
does not have any roads that lead to major urban centers, except for
Interstate 10, and contended that proximity to Interstate 10 does not
cause the Pinal Air Park or Eloy monitors to violate.
Response: Although the EPA and ADEQ inventories differed with
respect to the quantity of emissions generated by on-road sources
(traveling on paved and unpaved roads), EPA and ADEQ agree that this is
the largest category of PM10 emissions in Pinal County. EPA
TSD Figure 8 and ADEQ technical report Figure 3-5 illustrate the
distribution of commuter traffic and emissions generated by traffic on
paved roads. Taken together with the overall distribution of on-road
emissions shown in ADEQ's technical report (Figure 3-4), it is evident
that on-road traffic (including paved and unpaved roads) is a
significant source of emissions in the western half of Pinal County,
including areas to the south and east of the Governor's recommended
boundary.
The EPA believes that the distribution of emissions from on-road
traffic requires extending Arizona's recommended boundary; however,
upon further review, we concluded that the comments submitted and
further review of available data provide a persuasive case for
modifying EPA's proposed boundary. For the final nonattainment area
boundaries, we reduced emphasis on the growth and commuting patterns
and increased the weight given to emissions- and land-use-related data
and thus are not including the southern-most portion of Pinal County,
the Table Top and Superstition Wilderness areas, and the largely
undisturbed desert areas east of Township 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther to the east to include the Florence area and
the Picacho Peak area.
Growth Rates and Patterns
Comment: Several commenters argued that growth forecasts made prior
to the economic downturn are no longer reliable given current economic
conditions, and that future growth is uncertain. Others noted that
actual growth in the area south of the Governor's recommended boundary
has been modest, and that this area is unlikely to become a major
employment center. These commenters questioned the view EPA expressed
in its proposal that future employment and population growth in Pinal
County justify including the southern portion of the county in the
nonattainment area.
Response: In our final action, after considering the comments
submitted on our proposal, EPA has reduced the size of the
nonattainment area, relative to what was proposed. As noted above in
our response to the previous comment, the final nonattainment
boundaries do not include the southern-most portion of Pinal County,
the Table Top and Superstition Wilderness areas, and the largely
undisturbed desert areas east of Township 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther to the east to include the Florence area and
the Picacho Peak area. We are persuaded to shrink the boundary in part
based on the building permit data provided by Pinal County that
documents the extent to which the national recession has slowed growth
generally in Pinal County, and particularly in the Interstate 8 and
Interstate 10 corridors. We agree that the recession and the number of
homes already in foreclosure will likely delay significant growth in
the corridors beyond the five-year horizon for reaching attainment of
the standard. The Pinal Air Park monitor, located southwest of
Interstate 10 near the southern border of Pinal County, is not included
within the final boundary. However, as EPA proposed, the Eloy monitor,
is part of the final nonattainment area, because EPA continues to
believe that the sources in the Eloy area contribute to violations of
the PM10 NAAQS farther north.
Meteorology and Transport
Comment: ADEQ and Pinal County Air Quality (PCAQ) asserted that the
meteorological data do not support the EPA's inclusion of the
southeastern portion of the nonattainment area. In brief, the comments
are: (1) The southeast should not be included, since the Eloy monitor
there is not violating; (2) the meteorological data relied on by the
EPA do not substantiate transport from the southeast; (3)
meteorological data show the cause of PM10 violations
[[Page 32029]]
is local, not transport from the southeast; and (4) the limited data
showing instances where measured exceedances have coincided with
southeast winds does not justify including the southeast portion.
Response: EPA has included areas to the southeast of the State's
recommended boundary, including those near the Eloy monitor, because of
the contribution of southeast emissions to violations recorded at the
Casa Grande and Pinal County Housing monitors. The EPA does not agree
with the commenters' implicit assumption that the southeast portion
must be the sole or main cause of violations in order for it to be
included in the nonattainment area. While emissions from the southeast
may not cause a violation at Eloy, they still contribute to violations
farther northwest.
Our conclusion that the area southeast of the State's boundary in
and around Eloy contributes to the violations farther northwest is
based on (1) emissions inventory data (see table 3 of the TSD for the
proposed rule) that shows that PM10 emissions from traffic
on paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural and agricultural
activities account for most of the overall inventory in Pinal County;
(2) maps illustrating the locations of agricultural uses and paved and
unpaved roads (see figure 4 and figure 9 of the TSD, respectively) and
showing a concentration of such uses and roads in and around Eloy; (3)
a map illustrating the distribution of overall PM10
emissions in the county (see figure 5 of the TSD) and showing similar
rates of emissions generated in and around Eloy as the area where
violations of the standard occur; meteorological data showing a strong
component of winds from the southeast (see figure 10 of the TSD); and
the absence of significant topographical barriers to transport from the
area in and around Eloy to the area where violations occur (see figure
11 of the TSD). This contribution to violations warrants inclusion of
this portion of the county in the nonattainment area.
As discussed in EPA's proposal and in the Meteorology section of
the TSD, we agree that it would be desirable to have additional
meteorological data available. Nonetheless, EPA believes that there are
sufficient meteorological data from the AZMET (Arizona Meteorological
Network) stations within and around the proposed area to show that flow
from the southeast toward the violating monitors occurs often. The EPA
believes that this pattern exists even during the exceedance days
discounted by ADEQ and PCAQ.\11\ The available meteorological data,
along with the topography and the geographic distribution of sources of
PM10 emissions, provide evidence that emissions sources in
the southeast contribute to NAAQS violations. EPA has concluded that
the nonattainment area boundary should lie further to the southeast
than the Governor's recommended boundary, though we have reduced the
extent relative to the area we had proposed to include.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In their transport analyses, PCAQ and ADEQ focused on days
with the wind trajectory's ending hour oriented from the southeast,
but this does not consider other hours during the day that may have
had flow from the southeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Both ADEQ and PCAQ examined HYSPLIT \12\ back-trajectories
for several high-wind exceedance days, along with hourly concentrations
and wind data. From the abrupt changes in wind direction and increases
in wind speed that often coincided with large increases in
PM10 concentrations, they concluded that the PM10
is due to near-field impacts rather than to long-range transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
Trajectory) model is used to compute simple air parcel trajectories,
dispersion characteristics, and deposition simulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: While the analyses performed by ADEQ and Pinal County
provide useful information for evaluating the PM10
exceedances, as discussed above, establishing nonattainment area
boundaries requires us to take into account more than the sole or main
cause of an exceedance. Even if the commenters are correct that on
certain occasions ``wind-transport from the southeast is not a dominant
contributing factor'' (ADEQ comments, p.4) and that the data ``suggest
a typical monsoon storm where local weather contributed to local
impacts'' (Pinal County comments, p.3), EPA remains convinced by the
available evidence that transported emissions from the southeast
nonattainment area nevertheless do contribute to exceedances. As
discussed in more detail in the TSD for the EPA's proposal and in the
RTC document, the EPA believes that the meteorological data provide
evidence for such a contribution. Other factors, including the
geographic distribution of sources of emissions and the topography of
Pinal County also reinforce EPA's determination to include this portion
in the nonattainment area.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and TSD, insofar as
not modified here, the Response to Comments document, and this final
rule, the EPA is taking final action pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of
the Clean Air Act to redesignate an area in western Pinal County,
Arizona from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' for the 1987 24-
hour PM10 standard and is therefore also revising the
boundaries of the existing ``rest of state'' unclassifiable area. EPA's
establishment of this new PM10 nonattainment area, referred
to as ``West Pinal,'' is based on numerous recorded violations of the
PM10 standard at various monitoring sites within the western
portion of the county. With the exception of Indian country and certain
Federal lands, the EPA's nonattainment area boundaries generally
encompass the land geographically located within Pinal County north of
the east-west line defined by the southern line of Township 9 South,
Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, and west of the north-south
line defined by the eastern line of Range 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther east in the Florence and Picacho Peak
areas.\13\ In taking this action, the EPA concludes that the State's
recommended boundaries do not encompass the full geographic area from
which emissions-generating activities contribute to the monitored
PM10 violations. See figure 1 in the RTC document for a map
that compares the State's recommended boundaries to the EPA's final
boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Townships to the east of the north-south line defined by
the eastern line of Range 8 East that are included in the West Pinal
PM10 nonattainment area are: T3S, R9E; T4S, R9E; T4S,
R10E; T5S, R9E; and T5S, R10E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this final action, we reduced the size of the nonattainment
area relative to the area for which we proposed redesignation and
believe that the final boundaries more closely align the nonattainment
area boundaries with the areas in which PM10 violations are
being monitored, as well as the areas that contribute to the monitored
violations. Our conclusion is based on our analysis of the factors as
set forth in the proposed rule and related TSD, and RTC document, with
particular weight being given to the locations of those sources,
including vehicle travel over paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural
and construction activities, that comprise most of the overall
PM10 inventory, the frequent occurrence of southeast winds,
and the absence of topographical barriers.
We are continuing to defer our decision regarding redesignation of
the Ak-Chin and Gila River Indian Community lands, as well as TON's
Florence Village and San Lucy Farms, pending consideration of issues
unique
[[Page 32030]]
to tribal lands, completion of formal consultation with the tribal
governments, and (in the case of the Gila River Indian Community)
further review of air quality monitoring data including an evaluation
of exceptional event claims. The existing Phoenix PM10
nonattainment area (including the Apache Junction portion of western
Pinal County) is unaffected by this action.
Areas redesignated as nonattainment are subject to the applicable
requirements of part D, title I of the Act and will be classified as
moderate by operation of law (see section 188(a) of the Act). Within 18
months of the effective date of this redesignation action, the State of
Arizona must submit to the EPA an implementation plan for the area
containing, among other things, the following requirements: (1)
Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(including reasonably available control technology) are implemented
within 4 years of the redesignation; (2) a permit program meeting the
requirements of section 173 governing the construction and operation of
new and modified major stationary sources of PM10; (3)
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrates reasonable
further progress, as defined in section 171(1), toward timely
attainment; and (4) either a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as
nonattainment, or a demonstration that attainment by such date is
impracticable (see, e.g., section 188(c), 189(a), 189(c), and 172(c) of
the Act). We have issued detailed guidance on the statutory
requirements applicable to moderate PM10 nonattainment areas
[see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)].
The State will also be required to submit contingency measures (for
the new PM10 nonattainment area), pursuant to section
172(c)(9) of the Act, which are to take effect without further action
by the State or the EPA, upon a determination by the EPA that an area
has failed to make reasonable further progress or attain the
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (see 57 FR
13510-13512, 13543-13544). Pursuant to section 172(b) of the Act, the
EPA is establishing a deadline for submission of contingency measures
to coincide with the submittal date requirement for the other SIP
elements discussed above, i.e., 18 months after the effective date of
redesignation. Lastly, the new PM10 nonattainment area will
be subject to the EPA's general and transportation conformity
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subparts A and B) one year from the
effective date of redesignation. See section 176(c)(6) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The proposed rule mistakenly stated that any new
PM10 nonattainment area would be subject to the EPA's
general and transportation conformity regulations upon the effective
date of redesignation. See 75 FR at 60688. However, CAA section
176(c)(6) provides a one-year grace period for newly designated (in
this case, newly redesignated) nonattainment areas, i.e., for the
pollutant for which the area is newly designated (or redesignated)
nonattainment. See also, 40 CFR 93.102(d) in EPA's transportation
conformity regulation and 40 CFR 93.153(k) in the EPA's general
conformity regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, this section of the CAA provides areas, that for the
first time are designated nonattainment for a given air quality
standard, with a one-year grace period before conformity applies with
respect to that standard. Because this is the first time that this
portion of Pinal County is being designated nonattainment for the
PM10 NAAQS, it will have a one-year grace period before
conformity applies for the PM10 NAAQS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For more information on how the one-year grace period
applies for transportation conformity purposes, please see the
proposed and final rulemaking entitled, ``Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments: Minor Revision of 18-Month Requirement for Initial
SIP Submissions and Addition of Grace Period for Newly Designated
Nonattainment Areas,'' published October 5, 2001 (66 FR 50954); and
August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808), respectively. (The proposed and final
rule can be found on EPA's transportation conformity Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/conf-regs-c.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area would be
considered to be a ``donut area'' because portions of the area in Queen
Creek and Apache Junction are within the area covered by a metropolitan
planning organization (MPO), the Maricopa Association Governments (MAG)
and a portion lies outside of MAG's boundaries. For the purposes of
transportation conformity, a donut area is the geographic area outside
a metropolitan planning area boundary, but inside the boundary of a
designated nonattainment/maintenance area. The transportation
conformity requirements for donut areas are generally the same as those
for metropolitan areas. However, the MPO would include any projects
occurring in the donut area in its regional emissions analysis of the
metropolitan transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). Therefore, the one-year grace period applies to donut areas in
much the same way that it applies to metropolitan areas. That is,
within one year of the effective date of an area's designation, a donut
area's projects must be included in the MPO's conformity determination
for the metropolitan plan and TIP for those projects to be funded or
approved. If, at the conclusion of the one-year grace period, the donut
area's projects have not been included in an MPO's conformity
determination, the entire nonattainment area's conformity would
lapse.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For more information on transportation conformity
requirements in donut areas refer to Conformity Implementation in
Multi-jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for
Existing and New Air Quality Standards. In particular refer to
question 4 in Part 1 and Part 2 of the guidance. The document is
available at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b04012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
has determined that redesignation to nonattainment, as well as the
establishment of SIP submittal schedules, would result in none of the
effects identified in Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Under
section 107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to nonattainment are based
upon air quality considerations. The redesignation, based upon air
quality data showing that West Pinal is not attaining the
PM10 standard and upon other air-quality-related
considerations, does not, in and of itself, impose any new requirements
on any sectors of the economy. Similarly, the establishment of new SIP
submittal schedules would merely establish the dates by which SIPs must
be submitted, and would not adversely affect entities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.,
a redesignation to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3), and the
establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for a redesignated area, do
not, in and of themselves, directly impose any new requirements on
small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider
the rule's impact on entities subject to the
[[Page 32031]]
requirements of the rule). Instead, this rulemaking simply makes a
factual determination and establishes a schedule to require the State
to submit SIP revisions, and does not directly regulate any entities.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA certifies that today's
action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities within the meaning of those terms for RFA purposes.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, the EPA has concluded that this rule is not likely to
result in the promulgation of any Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any one
year. It is questionable whether a redesignation would constitute a
federal mandate in any case. The obligation for the state to revise its
State Implementation Plan that arises out of a redesignation is not
legally enforceable and at most is a condition for continued receipt of
federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such an
action creates any enforceable duty within the meaning of section
421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and if it does the duty
would appear to fall within the exception for a condition of Federal
assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)(a)(i)(I).
Even if a redesignation were considered a Federal mandate, the
anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not exceed $100
million to either the private sector or state, local and tribal
governments. Redesignation of an area to nonattainment does not, in
itself, impose any mandates or costs on the private sector, and thus,
there is no private sector mandate within the meaning of section 421(7)
of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting from the
redesignation itself is the cost to the State of Arizona of developing,
adopting, and submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost
will not exceed $100 million, this action (if it is a federal mandate
at all) is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). The EPA has also determined that this
action would not result in regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because only the
State would take any action as result of today's rule, and thus the
requirements of section 203 (2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' This rule will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely redesignates an area for
Clean Air Act planning purposes and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' The area
redesignated in today's action does not include Indian country, and the
EPA is deferring action on the Indian country that lies within or
adjacent to the newly redesignated area, including the Ak-Chin Indian
Reservation, the Pinal County portion of the Gila River Indian
Reservation, and TON's Florence Village and San Lucy Farms. In
formulating its further action on these areas, the EPA has been
communicating with and plans to continue to consult with
representatives of the Tribes, as provided in Executive Order 13175.
Accordingly, the EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent
that it applies to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks'') (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. The EPA believes
that the requirements of NTTAA are inapplicable to this action because
they would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Today's action redesignates an area to nonattainment for an ambient
air quality standard. It will not have disproportionately high and
adverse effects on any communities in the area, including minority and
low-income communities.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 30, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
[[Page 32032]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Particulate Matter, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
2. In Sec. 81.303, the ``Arizona-PM-10'' table is amended by adding a
new entry for ``Pinal County'' after the entry for ``Mohave County
(part)'' and before the entry for ``Rest of State'' to read as set
forth below.
Sec. 81.303 Arizona.
* * * * *
Arizona-PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated Area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Pinal County (part)
West Pinal 7/2/12 Nonattainment............... 7/2/12 Moderate.
1. Commencing at a
point which is the
intersection of the
western line of Range
2 East, Gila and Salt
River Baseline and
Meridian, and the
northern line of
Township 4 South,
which is the point of
beginning:
2. Thence, proceed
easterly along the
northern line of
Township 4 South to a
point where the
northern line of
Township 4 South
intersects the
western line of Range
7 East;
3. Thence, northerly
along the western
line of Range 7 East
to a point where the
western line of Range
7 East intersects the
northern line of
Township 3 South;
4. Thence, easterly
along the northern
line of Township 3
South to a point
where the northern
line of Township 3
South intersects the
western line of Range
8 East;
5. Thence, northerly
along the western
line of Range 8 East
to a point where the
western line of Range
8 East intersects the
northern line of
Township 1 South;
6. Thence, easterly
along the northern
line of Township 1
South to a point
where the northern
line of Township 1
South intersects the
eastern line of Range
8 East;
7. Thence southerly
along the eastern
line of Range 8 East
to a point where the
eastern line of Range
8 East intersects the
Northern line of
Township 3 South;
8. Thence easterly
along the northern
line of Township 3
South to a point
where the northern
line of Township 3
South intersects the
eastern line of Range
9 East;
9. Thence southerly
along the eastern
line of Range 9 east
to a point where the
eastern line of Range
9 East intersects the
northern line of
Township 4 South;
10. Thence easterly
along the northern
line of Township 4
South to a point
where the northern
line of Township 4
South intersects the
eastern line of Range
10 East;
11. Thence southerly
along the eastern
line of Range 10 East
to a point where the
eastern line of Range
10 East intersects
the southern line of
Township 5 South;
12. Thence westerly
along the southern
line of Township 5
South to a point
where the southern
line of Township 5
South intersects the
eastern line of Range
8 East;
13. Thence southerly
along the eastern
line of Range 8 East
to a point where the
eastern line of Range
8 East intersects the
northern line of
Township 8 South;
14. Thence easterly
along the northern
line of Township 8
South to a point
where the northern
line of Township 8
South intersects the
eastern line of Range
9 East;
15. Thence southerly
along the eastern
line of Range 9 east
to a point where the
eastern line of Range
9 East intersects the
northern line of
Township 9 South;
16. Thence easterly
along the northern
line of Township 9
South to a point
where the northern
line of Township 9
South intersects the
eastern line of Range
10 East;
17. Thence southerly
along the eastern
line of Range 10 East
to a point where the
eastern line of Range
10 East intersects
the southern line of
Township 9 South;
[[Page 32033]]
18. Thence westerly
along the southern
line of Township 9
South to a point
where the southern
line of Township 9
South intersects the
western line of Range
7 East;
19. Thence northerly
along the western
line of Range 7 East
to a point where the
western line of Range
7 East intersects the
southern line of
Township 8 South;
20. Thence westerly
along the southern
line of Township 8
South to a point
where the southern
line of Township 8
South intersects the
western line of Range
6 East;
21. Thence northerly
along the western
line of Range 6 East
to a point where the
western line of Range
6 East intersects the
southern line of
Township 7 South;
22. Thence, westerly
along the southern
line of Township 7
South to a point
where the southern
line of Township 7
South intersects the
quarter section line
common to the
southwestern
southwest quarter
section and the
southeastern
southwest quarter
section of section
34, Range 3 East and
Township 7 South;
23. Thence, northerly
along the along the
quarter section line
common to the
southwestern
southwest quarter
section and the
southeastern
southwest quarter
section of sections
34, 27, 22, and 15,
Range 3 East and
Township 7 South, to
a point where the
quarter section line
common to the
southwestern
southwest quarter
section and the
southeastern
southwest quarter
section of sections
34, 27, 22, and 15,
Range 3 East and
Township 7 South,
intersects the
northern line of
section 15, Range 3
East and Township 7
South;
24. Thence, westerly
along the northern
line of sections 15,
16, 17, and 18, Range
3 East and Township 7
South, and the
northern line of
sections 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, and 18, Range
2 East and Township 7
South, to a point
where the northern
line of sections 15,
16, 17, and 18, Range
3 East and Township 7
South, and the
northern line of
sections 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, and 18, Range
2 East and Township 7
South, intersect the
western line of Range
2 East, which is the
common boundary
between Maricopa and
Pinal Counties, as
described in Arizona
Revised Statutes
sections 11-109 and
11-113;
25. Thence, northerly
along the western
line of Range 2 East
to the point of
beginning which is
the point where the
western line of Range
2 East intersects the
northern line of
Township 4 South;
26. Except that
portion of the area
defined by paragraphs
1 through 25 above
that lies within the
Ak-Chin Indian
Reservation, Gila
River Indian
Reservation, and the
Tohono O'odham
Nation's Florence
Village and San Lucy
Farms.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-13185 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
