# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 72 Fed. Reg. 14422 2007

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jul 11 18:17:52 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### 14422 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March 28, 2007/Rules and Regulations

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a "significant energy action" under that orderbecause it is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator ofthe Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement ofEnergy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications ofmaterials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we didnot consider the use ofvoluntary consensus standards.
Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department ofHomeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321- 4370f0, and have concluded that there

are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), ofthe Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This regulation establishes a security zone. A final "Environmental Analysis Check List" and a final "Categorical Exclusion Determination" are available in the docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES. List ofSubjects in 33 CFRPart165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

mForthereasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0 1. The authoritycitation forpart 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0 2. Add § 165.507 to read asfollows: §165.507 Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.

(a) Definitions.The Captainofthe Port, Baltimore,Marylandmeans the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain ofthe Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act

onhis or her behalf.

(b) Location.The following area is a security zone: All waters ofthe Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the bottom, within 250 yards north ofthe north (westbound) span of. the William P. LaneJr. Memorial Bridge, and 250 yards south ofthe south (eastbound) span ofthe William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland.

(c) Regulations.(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in § 165.33 ofthis part.

(2) Entry into or remaining in this

zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

(3) Persons orvessels requiring entry into or passage through the security

zone must first request authorization fromthe Captain of the Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted attelephone number (410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted onVHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels mustcomply with the instructions ofthe Captain ofthe Port, Baltimore, Maryland and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.

(d) Enforcement.The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies. (e) Enforcement period.This section willbe enforced annually on the first Sunday in May from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. local time.

Dated: March 16, 2007. BrianD. Kelley, Captain,U.S. CoastGuard,Captainofthe Port, Baltimore,Maryland. [FRDoc. 

### E7-5718 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81 (EPA-R09-OAR-2006-AZ-0558; FRL-8292- 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas forAir Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Boundary Redesignation; Finding of Attainment for Miami Particulate Matter of 10 Microns or Less(PM 1 o) Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding Applicabilityof Certain Clean Air Act Requirements; Correction
AGENCY: Environmerital Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve the State ofArizona's boundary redesignation of the Hayden/ Miami PM1ononattainment area into two separate PM10 nonattainment areas: Hayden and Miami. EPA is also finding that the Miami PM10 nonattainment area is attaining the PM1onational ambient air quality standard, and, based on this attainment finding, EPA is determining that certain Clean Air Act reqlirements

are not applicable for so long as the Miami area shows continued attainment ofthe standard based on current, publicly available, quality-assured monitoring data. EPA is taking this action consistent with obligations under the Clean AirAct to act on State redesignations. Lastly, EPA is correcting two errors in previous rulemakings that involved the designations ofPM10 areas within the State of Arizona. DATES: This rule is effective onMay 29, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 27, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14422 2007

### Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March 28, 2007/Rules and Regulations

withdrawal ofthe direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2006-AZ-0558 by one ofthe following methods:

9 Federal eRulemaking portal:http:// www.regulations.gov.Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

* E-mail:tax.wienke@epa.gov. * Fax:(415) 947-3579 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ifyou are faxing comments).

* Mail:Wienke Tax, Office ofAir Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.

9 HandDelivery:Wienke Tax, Office ofAirPlanning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55
p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2006-: AZ-0558. EPA's policy is that all
comments received willbe included in the public docket without change and
may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider tobe CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.govore-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know your identity

or contact information unless you provide itin the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included s part ofthe comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment andwith any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoidthe use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free ofany defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit.the EPA Docket Center homepage athttp:// www.epa.goviepahome/dockets.htm.

Docket:All documents in the docket

are listed in the http:// www.regulations.govindex.Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, willbe publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the Office ofAir Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. EPA requests that ifat all possible, you contact the individual listed inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy ofthe docket. You may view the hard copy ofthe docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office ofAir Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901, (520) 622-1622,
tax. wienke@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever "we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean the EPA.
Table ofContents I.Background

A. What NAAQS are Considered inthis

Action? B.What istheDesignation and

Classification ofthis PM 1 o Nonattainment Area? II. Boundary Redesignation

A. WhatDid the State Submit? B.HowDoes EPA Evaluate Boundary

Redesignations? C. What isEPA's Evaluation ofthe State's

Submittal? D. What Are theImplications ofEPA's

Approval ofthe State's Boundary Redesignation? III. Finding ofAttainment for Miami Area

and Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements A. How do we Make Attainment

Determinations? B.What isthe Basis for EPA's

Determination that theMiami Area is Attaining the PMloNAAQS? C.What Are the Applicable Planning

Requirements for theMiami Area as a Result ofEPA's Attainment Determination? IV. Corrections to the Arizona PM,o Table in 40 CFR Part 81 V. EPA's Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. WhatNAAQS Are Consideredin this
Action?

National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are thresholds for certain ambient airpollutants setby EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") to protect public health and welfare. Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers, orPM 10,is the subject of this action. PMo is amongthe ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS. PM1ocauses adverse health effects by penetrating deep in the lungs, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.

In 1971, EPA promulgated the first NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and defined the standard in terms ofan indicator referred to as "total suspended particulate," or "TSP," which roughly included all particles with diameters of 30 microns or less. In 1987, EPA established newPM NAAQS and defined the new standards in terms of PM10o instead ofTSP. See 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). Ten years later, in 1997, EPA established another PM NAAQS and defined thisnew standard interms ofparticulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 micrometers, orPM2.5,but in our 1997 final rule, we decided to retain a PM1oNAAQS as well. See 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). In 2006, EPA completed

a review ofboth the PM2. 5 NAAQS and PM1oNAAQS and, among other actions, decided to retain the 24-hour-average PM1o standard at its current level but to revoke the annual-average PM 1 0 standard. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The level ofthe primary (i.e., public health) PMio standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (ig/m 3), 24-hour average concentration.' See 40 CFR 50.6. The secondary PM 1ostandard, promulgated to protect against adverse welfare effects, isidentical to the primary standard.

iThe effective date ofEPA's October 17, 2006
final rule revoking the annual-average standard was December 18, 2006. Thus, we make no finding in this direct final rulerelative to the annual-average PMjo NAAQSbut have included annual-average PM1o concentration data forinformational purposes only. The now-revoked annual-average PMlo NAAQS was set at a level of50 Ig/m 3

. 

### 14423

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14423 2007

### 14424 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 59

### /Wednesday, March 28, 2007/Rules and Regulations

B. Whatis theDesignation and ClassificationofthisPM 1o Nonattainment Area?
Under the Clean Air Act Amendrr of 1977, and due to recorded violatii ofthe former TSP-defined NAAQS E the location ofmajor industrial sour EPA designated one township in ea( the Hayden and Miami areas as sepi nonattainment areas forTSP (44 FR 21261, April 10, 1979, as corrected FR 53081, September 12, 1979).2 As noted above, in 1987, we revised th NAAQS to include only particulate
matter ofa size range less than or eq to a nominal 10 microns (PM1o). As ofthe implementation policy for the

new standards, where insufficient P data were available, EPA categorizec

areas based on theirprobability of violating the standard using TSP dal The categories were: Group I, areas
a highprobability ofviolating the standards; Group II, areas with a moderate probability ofviolating; an Group III, areas that were likely to bi attaining the standards.

In 1987, EPA identified the "Hayd Miami area" as one ofthe Group I ar forPM. See 52 FR 29383 (August 7 1987). In a 1990 clarification, we defined the geographic area ofthe combined Hayden/Miami Group I ar
as including all or part of26 contigu townships in and around the towns Hayden and Miami (55 FR45799, October 31, 1990). 3 Subsequent to our 1990 clarificatii and upon enactment ofthe Clean Ai Act Amendments of 1990, all "Grou
areas, such as the Hayden/Miami planning area, were designated as "nonattainment" for the PM 10 NAA( by operation oflaw and classified as "moderate." See CAA sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a). In March 19 EPA announced the designations an classifications ofareas With respect I PMioNAAQS that occurred by operation of law upon enactment of 1990 Amendments to the CAA. See FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). In Augu 1991, EPA rejected challenges made

. 2Hayden and Miami are towns located near significant mining and copper smelting activiti
east central Arizona, roughly 70 to 80 miles eal southeast ofPhoenix.Miami is located in Gila County; Hayden straddles theboundary betwe Gila County and Pinal County approximately 2 miles south ofMiami.

3The Hayden/Miami "Group I" area encompassed the following townships: TiN, R TIN, R14E; TiN,R15E; TlS,R3E; TiS, Ri4E; R141/2E; TiS,R15E; T2S, R3E; T2S, R14E; T2 R15E; T3S, R13E; T3S,R14E; T3S,R15E; T3S,I (except that portion inthe San Carlos Indian Reservation); T4S, R13E; T4S, R14E; T4S, R15F T4S,R16E; T5S, R13E; T5S, R14E; T5S,R15E;' R16E; T6S, R13E; T6S, R4E; T6S, R15E; and T R16E. the State ofArizona and industry to the geographic size ofthe Hayden/Miami PM 1 o nonattainment area. See 56 FR

tents 37654 (August 8, 1991). Later that same

ons year, we codified the PM1o
and nonattainment designations and
ces, moderate area classifications in 40 CFR

ch of part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, re of 1991). For "moderate" nonattainment Lrate areas such as the Hayden/Miami PM10
it 44 nonattainment area, CAA section 188(c) ofthe 1990 Amended Act establishes an attainment date ofDecember 31, 1994. PM Along with the new designations, classifications, and attainment dates, the ual CAA as amended in 1990 also part established new planning requirements.
In accordance with section 189(a) ofthe M10 CAA, Arizona was required to submit a 'stateimplementation plan (SIP) revision by November 15, 1991 demonstrating :a. attainment ofthe PM10 standards and with providing for implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM) by December 31, 1994 for the id Hayden/Miami area. The State of
E Arizona relied upon a SIP revision ("Final PM-10 State Implementation en/ Plan for the Hayden Group IArea"

eas dated September 1989) that ithad submitted on October 16, 1989 to meet the requirements ofthe CAA as amended in 1990 for "moderate" PM1o ea nonattainment areas.
ous In 1994, we proposed a limited of approval and limited disapproval of Arizona's 1989 SIP revision. See 59 FR 36116 (July 15, 1994). The primary )n reason for the proposed limited

r disapproval was that the plan addressed p I" only the Hayden portion ofthe Hayden/ Miami PM1o nonattainment area. In response, by letter dated November 10, S 1994, the Governor's designee forCAA matters, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 91, submitted aformal petition for d rulemaking to realign the Hayden/

:t Miami PM1ononattainment area boundary. Specifically, ADEQrequested the that EPA.correct the purported error the 56 Agency had made in including the st Miami area in the original Group I area by in 1987 and called forexclusion ofthe northern third ofthe-area (i.e., the Miami portion) from the nonattainment
es in area. We have nottaken final action on our 1994 proposed limited approval/ limited disapproval ofADEQ's 1989 SIP

7 revision. Intoday's direct final rule, we again aretaking no action on ADEQ's
1989 SIP revision but will address 13j; applicable CAA requirements for the S, Hayden area in a future rulemaking. For RU6E the Miami area, inthis direct final rule,

we are making an attainment finding and a determination regarding
6S, applicability ofcertain CAA requirements (see section III, below). On June 20, 2006, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), ADEQ submitted arequest for a boundary redesignation ofthe Hayden/Miami PM1ononattainment

area to EPA for approval. In contrast with ADEQ's 1994 petition, ADEQ's 2006 boundary redesignation would not reduce the overall size ofthe area designated as nonattainment for PM10 but would simply divide a single PM1o nonattainment area into two PM1o nonattainment areas. We consider ADEQ'sJune 20, 2006 boundary redesignation (discussed inthe following section ofthis direct final rule) to supersede the State's 1994 petition and thus plan no further action

onthat earlier request.
II. Boundary Redesignation

A. WhatDidthe StateSubmit?

On June 20, 2006, ADEQ submitted to EPA under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) a request for aboundary redesignation of the Hayden/Miami PM1ononattainment

area into two separate, but adjoining, PMio nonattainment areas, namely, the Hayden nonattainment area and the Miami nonattainment area. ADEQ enclosed a technical justification report entitled, "Request to Revise the Hayden/ Miami PM 10 Nonattainment Area Boundary" (May 2006), in support of this boundary redesignation. ADEQ's technical justification report includes a discussion ofthe regulatory background and the topographical and meteorological characteristics ofthe Hayden and Miami areas. The report also includes tables summarizing emission inventory and ambient air quality data and maps showing the existing nonattainment areaboundaries, topographical features, the locations of permitted emissions sources, and the boundary delineating the new Miami and Hayden PM10 nonattainment areas. Together, these two new PM1o nonattainment areas would cover the

same geographic area as the original Hayden/Miami PM nonattainment

area. ADEQ's boundary separating the Miami and Hayden PM10 areas runs east-west in steps using township and section identifiers to roughly trace the ridgeline ofthe Pinal Mountains.

B. HowDoesEPAEvaluateBoundary Redesignations?

Under section 107(d)(3)(D) ofthe CAA, the Governor ofany State may, on the Governor's own motion, submit to EPA a revised designation of any area or portion thereofwithin the State.4 EPAis required to approve or deny a submittal

4Boundary changes are aninherent part ofa designation or redesignation ofan area under the CAA. See CAA section 107(d)(i)B)(ii).

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14424 2007. Federal Register/ Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

forr~designation within 18months of receipt. The type ofredesignation that ADEQ submitted on June 20, 2006 involves just a boundary change and does not involve a change in status (i.e., does not involve a change from "nonattainment," forexample, to "attainment" or "unclassifiable") ofany
area. In this notice, we refer to the former type ofredesignation as a "boundary redesignation."

In determining whether to approve or deny a State's submittal ofa boundary redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA uses the same factors Congress directed EPA to consider when the Agency initiates a revision to a designation ofan area on its own motion under section 107(d)(3)(A). These factors include "air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate." See CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). In addition, because ADEQ's redesignation involves a nonattainment area, we also take into
account CAA section 107(d)(1)(A), whichprovides that nonattainment

areas areto include the geographic area that does not meet, orthat contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet, the NAAQS for a given pollutant.

C. What is EPA'sEvaluation.of the State's Submittal?

We have reviewed and evaluated ADEQ's technical justification report and conclude that ADEQ has adequately demonstrated that the Miami and Hayden PMo nonattainment areas lie in separate airsheds in which air quality is determined by topographical and meteorological factors and local emissions sources specific to each airshed with no significant PM10 transport between the two areas. We also conclude that ADEQ's division of the two areas essentially along the ridgeline ofthe Pinal Mountains follows logically from the identification ofthese separate airsheds. As such, each new PM1o nonattainment area encompasses the geographic area ofhistoric PM 10 (or, in the case ofMiami, TSP) NAAQS violations as well as the sources which contributed to those violations. Therefore, we are approving the State's boundary redesignation ofthe Hayden/ Miami PMIo nonattainment area and are thereby establishing separate Hayden and Miami PM10 nonattainment areas. We provide further detail on our evaluation in the paragraphs that follow. Topography

As noted previously, the Hayden/ Miami PMIo nonattainment area is located in east central Arizona. The town ofHayden is situated in the southern portion ofthe nonattainment
area, approximately 27 miles south of the town ofMiami, which is located in the northern portion ofthe nonattainment area. Between the two towns lie the predominant geographic features ofthe noiiattainment area: the Pinal, Mescal, and Dripping Spring Mountain ranges.

Airsheds refer to areas with common weather ormeteorological conditions and sources ofair pollution. Generally speaking, an airshed contains source andreceptor areas. The Pinal and Mescal Mountains, the highest ofthe three mountain ranges inthis area, form

aboundary between the Lbwer Salt River Airshed and the GilaRiver Airshed. These two interconnecting ranges separate the southern orHayden

. portion ofthe nonattainment area from

the northern or Miami portion. Figure 1 inthe Stafe's technical justification report illustrates the topographical 'features inthe region. Elevations in the Pinal and Mescal Mountains are well over 5,000 feet above sea level with numerous peaks above 6,000 feet. Pinal Peak is the highest point at 7,848 feet. Elevational differences between lower elevations in the southern portion ofthe nonattainment area and the airshed boundary (i.e., the ridgeline ofthe Pinal Mountains) generally rangebetween 4,000 and 6,000 feet. Elevational differences between the northern portion ofthe nonattainment area and the airshed boundary (ridgeline ofthe Pinal Mountains) generally range between 2,000 and 4,000 feet. Meteorology

The speed and direction ofair pollutant transport in both the Lower Salt River Airshed (Miami area) and the Gila River Airshed (Hayden area) are greatly influenced by local topography. Both airsheds contain extensive areas of complex terrain that is responsible for complicated wind patterns.

Hayden is located in a relatively

narrow portion ofthe GilaRiver valley, immediately downstream fromthe confluence ofthe Gila and San Pedro Rivers. The Dripping Spring Mountains

are located northeast of Hayden. In ADEQ's technical justification report, wind patterns in Haydefi, where a number of stationary sources are located, are described as distinctly upvalley/down-valley. Such patterns are typical ofmountainous areas, and are characterized by up-valley orup-slope flows during the day and down-valley

or down-slope winds during the night. ADEQnotes that low southeasterly winds inthe Gila River valley from nighttime down-slope or drainage flow

can combine with stable atmospheric conditions to cause elevated pollutant concentrations within low lying areas. Up-slope convection during the day increases dispersion and flow out of the low lying areas. Under normal daytime conditions, surface windsbecome westsouthwesterly to west-northwesterly (up-valley) in the Hayden area, replacing nighttime down-slope winds

as the atmosphere becomes less stable. This pattern is repeated locally throughout much ofthe complex terrain found in the southern portion of the Hayden/Miami PMIo nonattainment

area.

Due to widespread areas ofcomplex terrain, a similar up-valley/down-valley pattern is found throughout much ofthe northern portion ofthe Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment area, where Miami is located. Miami is located along U.S. Highway 60'in a steep canyon ofthe Pinal Mountains. As described for Hayden, Miami is similarly influenced by up-slope/down-slope wind patterns. Generally, the Miami area exhibits a diurnal pattern ofhaving a stronger, average easterly component to nighttimeairflow with awesterly component evident during the day.

ADEQ's technical justification report notes that stronger regional air flow can at times override local patterns and

overcome elevational differences, and that, under these conditions, direction offlow can vary. However, ADEQnotes also that mixing, dispersion, and dilution ofemissions are increased under these conditions, especially with distance. Thus, localized complex terrain windflow patterns are the primary forces affecting dispersion from

sources within each ofthe Hayden and Miami areas. We agree with ADEQ's conclusion that the greater emissions impacts are local, and any cross-airshed, boundary contributions that may occur

are minimal relative tolocal impacts.
Locations ofEmissions Sources

The topographical and meteorological characteristics described above support the conclusion that Hayden and Miami lie in separate airsheds with minimal PM 1O

pollutant transportbetween the
two. However, ADEQ also provides information on the locations and magnitude ofpermitted PMIO sources in the two areas that lends further support to this conclusion.

ADEQ notes that the majority of permitted sources in the Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment area are associated with mining and smelting activities. These sources are located primarily in the extreme south and north ofthe 

### 14425

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14425 2007

### 14426 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March 28, 2007/Rules and Regulations

Hayden/Miami nonattainment area near the two mining towns, Hayden and Miami. 5 Hayden area sources are clustered primarily in lower elevation

areas in the southern portion of the nonattainment area, south ofthe Township 2 South/Township 3 South boundary. Miami area sources are located generally north of the Township 1 North/Township 1 South line. The central portion ofthe nonattainment
area, dominated by the Pinal and Mescal Mountain ranges that divide the lower elevation areas to the north and south, contains no permitted stationary

sources. This buffer between the two concentrations ofemissions sources to the south and north further minimizes the possibility ofsignificant PM 1 0 pollutant transport between the Hayden and Miami areas. Planning Considerations

ADEQ notes that dividing the single PM 10 nonattainment area into two areas would facilitate air quality management by enabling separate analyses that reflect local air transport patterns and the development ofcontrol strategies and planning processes specific to each

-area.While we find that the existence of

a single PM 0 air quality planning area does not preclude separate analyses and development of subarea-specific control stiategies, we do recognize that dividing the single area into two would allow for de-coupling ofthe air quality planning processes for the Hayden and Miami
areas, thereby allowing one ofthe two

areas to seek redesignation and tobegin the maintenance phase of CAA planning

sooner than might otherwise be possible.
Conclusion

Based on our review ofADEQ's technical justification report and other available information, we find that ADEQhas sufficiently demonstrated that the Miami and Hayden areas lie in separate airsheds in which local topographical and meteorological factors and local emissions sources determine ambient PM 1 o conditions and

5ADEQ estimates that, in 2004, permitted sources in Hayden emitted 1,974 tons ofPMlo or 84 percent of total nonattainment area PM10 emissions. Emissions for Miami area sources totaled 375 tons

or 16percent oftotal nonattainment area emissions, and about one-fifth of Hayden area emissions. As expected in areas where local topographical and meteorological factors are the primary determinants ofambient air conditions and given the relative PMie source strengths in the two areas, PM1 o monitors in the Hayden area record higher PM1o concentrations than those in the Miami area. For example, whereas violations ofboth the 24-hour and now-revoked annual PMlo NAAQS have been recorded in the Hayden area (although none in recent years), no PMme violations have ever been recorded in the Miami area. between which PM1opollutant transport is minimal. The concentration ofPM10 emissions sources to the south and north ends ofthe Hayden/Miami PM1o nonattainment area adds separation distance to the list offactors that minimize the potential forPM 10 pollutant transport between the Miami and Hayden areas. We also find that dividing the single area Into two would be beneficial from a planning perspective by allowing one ofthe areas to proceed to the maintenance phase of air quality planning under the CAA

sooner than might otherwise be possible.6

D. WhatAre theImplicationsof EPA's Approval ofthe-State'sBoundary Redesignation?

In approving ADEQ's boundary redesignation ofthe Hayden/Miami PM 10 nonattainment area into two areas,

we approve ADEQ's boundary, which roughly traces the ridgeline ofthe Pinal Mountains.

The newMiami PM10 nonattainment

area encompasses all orpart ofthe following seven townships: TIN, R13E; TiN, R14E; TiN, R15E; TiS, R13E (sections 1-6); TiS, R14E (sections 1- 24); TIS, R141/2E; and TiS, R15E. The

new Hayden PM10 nonattainment area encompasses all or part ofthe following 21 townships: TIS, R13E (sections 7- 36); TiS, R14E (sections 25-36); T2S, R13E; T2S, R14E; T2S, R15E; T3S, R13E; T3S, R14E; T3S, R15E; T3S, R16E (except that portion in the San Carlos Indian Reservation); T4S, R13E; T4S, R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E; T5S, R13E; T5S, R14E; T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E; T6S, R13E; T6S, R14E; T6S, R15E; and T6S, R16E.

Together, the two new PM1o nonattainment areas cover the same geographic area as the original Hayden/ Miami PM10 nonattainment area. Both of the new PM10 nonattainment areas retain the "moderate" classification associated with the Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment area.

6We note that our action here today is consistent with prior EPA rulemakings redesignating PM 0 nonattainment areas into multiple nonattainment

areas that together coyer the same geographic area

as the original nonattainment area. See, e.g., 63 FR 59722 (November 5, 1998), involving the division ofa PM 10 nonattainment area in Idaho into two

areas delineated by theboundary between State lands and theFort Hall Indian Reservation; and 67 FR 50805 (August6, 2002), corrected at 67 FR 59005 (September 19, 2002), involving the division ofa PM1 nonattainment area in California into three areas delineated by theboundaries ofInyo, Kern and SanBernardino counties. 

### m. Finding ofAttainment forMiami Area and Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements

A. HowDo We MakeAttainment Determinations?

Generally, we will determine whether

an area's air quality meets the PM10 NAAQS based upon data gathered at established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and national air monitoring stations (NAMS) inthe nonattainment area and entered into EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data entered into AQS have been determined to meet Federal monitoring requirements (see 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A and B) and may be used to determine the attainment status ofareas. We will also consider air quality data from other air monitoring stations inthe nonattainment area, such as Special Purpose Monitors (SPM), some ofwhich

are run by industrial sources, provided that the stations meet the Federal monitoring requirements forSLAMS and thatthe data is publicly available. 7
All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with our guidance'at 40 CFRpart 50, appendix K.

Attainment of the 24-hour standard is determined by calculating the expected number of days in ayear with PM1 o concentrations greater than 150 gg/m 3

. The 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number ofdays with levels above 150 gg/m 3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one. Three consecutive years ofair quality data are necessary to show attainment of the PM1 oNAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year ofair quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is composed ofall four calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from atleast 75 percent ofthe scheduled sampling days.

B. WhatIs theBasis forEPA's DeterminationthattheMiamiAreaIs AttainingthePMloNAAQS? Beginning in 1987, PM1ohas been monitored at seven different sites in the Miami area. ADEQ operated some of these PM10 monitoring sites and the

owner and operator of the primary copper smelter (i.e., Phelps-Dodge Miami, Inc. or "Phelps-Dodge"), which is the largest single industrial source of emissions inthe area, operated others. Different monitoring locations were

7See EPA Memorandum, "Use ofSpecial Purpose Monitoring Data," from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, August 22, 1997.

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14426 2007

### Federal Register/Vol: 72, No. 59/ Wednesday, March 28, 2007/ Rules and Regulations

selected in an effort to locate the maximum PM1o impacts from the smelter. Since 1991, two monitors have remained at their current locations: the Golf Course monitor and the Ridgeline monitor. Both are operated by PhelpsDodge and are considered Special Purpose Monitors (SPMs). ADEQ ended PM 10 monitoring at its Nolan Ranch site (also known as "Miami South" or "Jones Ranch") in 1994 and no longer operates anyPM 1omonitor in the Miami

area. No violations ofthe PM10 NAAQS have been m6nitored at any ofthe seven monitoring sites in the Miami area since monitoring began in 1987.

The PMo data collected by Phelps- -Dodge at the two SPMs (i.e., the Golf. Course and Ridgeline sites) are not normally certified by ADEQ and entered into AQS, butto provide for this attainment finding, ADEQ worked with Phelps-Dodge to certify PM 0 monitoring data collected over the past several years and to enter the certified data into AQS. Table 1 provides a summary ofthe data collected atthe GolfCourse and Ridgeline sites during the 2003-2005 period. Phelps-Dodge collected the PMlo data shown in Table 1below using GrasebyAnderson Dichotomous samplers, devices designated by EPA as amanual reference method sampler. The samplers operated on an approved operating schedule ofonce every six days and the data setsmeet EPA requirements for 75 percent data capture as discussed in 40 CFR 50, appendix K. ADEQhas reviewed the operation and maintenance records for these monitors and has certified that the data collected by Phelps-Dodge meets EPA's quality

assurance requirements.

TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF 

### 24 HOUR AND ANNUAL PMlo CONCENTRATIONS (gG/M 3) FOR MIAMI, 

### 2003-2005

PMo Concentrations

2003

......................................................... 2004

......................................................... 2005

.........................

Niote: Data for the annual-average are included in this table for informational purposes onlybecause the annual-average PM10 standard has been revoked. The former annual-average PM10 standard was attained when the annual.arithmetic mean PM 1 0 concentration over a three-year period is equal to or less than 50 gg/m 3

.We note that the Miami area would have been found to attain the annual standard as well as the 24- hour standard had the former not been revoked.

As noted above, the 24-hour PM 5 o standard is attained when the expected number ofdays with levels above 150 gg/m 3 (averaged over a three-year period) is less than or equal to one. Based on the data summarized in table 1, above, we find no exceedances of the 24-hour PM 1o standard for the 2003 to 2005 period and thus the expected number ofdays with levels above 150 jIg/m3 (averaged over that three-year period) is zero. As such, we find that Miami is attaining the 24-hour PM1 0 NAAQS.

C. WhatAre theApplicablePlanning Requirements forthe MiamiArea asa ResultofEPA'sAttainment Determination?

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, such as the Miami PM 1 o nonattainment

area, are set out in part D, subparts 1 and 4 oftitle I ofthe Act. We have issued guidanc: in a General Preamble 8

8 "General Preamble for the Implementation of Title Iofthe CleanAir Act Amendments of1990" (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, as supplemented 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992). describing how we will review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under title I of the Act, including those containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP provisions.

In some designated nonattainment
areas, monitored data demonstrates that the NAAQS has already been achieved. Based on its interpretation ofthe Act, EPA has determined that certain requirements ofpartD, subparts 1 and 2 (oftitle I) ofthe Act do not apply and i therefore do not require certain submissions for an area that has attained the NAAQ. These include reasonable further progress (RFP)requirements, attainment demonstrations and contingency measures, because these provisions have the purpose of helping. achieve attainment ofthe NAAQS.

EPA's Clean Data Policy is the subject oftwo memoranda setting.forth our interpretation ofthe provisions ofthe Act as they apply to areas that have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also finalized the statutory interpretation set forth inthe policy in a final rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part ofits "Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2" (Phase 2 Final Rule). See discussion in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645-71646 (November 29, 2005). EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in detailin our Phase 2 Final Rule; our May 10, -1995 memorandum fromJohn S. Seitz, entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 3 year annual average

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard" (Seitz memo); and our December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled "Clean Data Policy forthe Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality 'Standards" (Page memo) are equally pertinent to the interpretation ofprovisions of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM1 0 .EPA's interpretation ofhow the provisions of thdAct apply to areas with "clean data" is not logically limited to ozone and PM2. 5,because the rationale is not dependent upon the type ofpollutant. Our interpretation that an area that is attaining the standard is relieved of obligations to demonstrate RFP and to provide an attainment demonstration and contingency measures pursuant to part D ofthe CAA, pertains whether the standard is PM 1

### 0,ozone, or PM2
.5.

The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the relevant standard of certain part D, subparts 1 and 2 obligations, applies equally to part D, subpart 4, which contains specific attainment demonstration and RFP provisions forPM 1ononattainment

areas. As we have explained in the Phase 2 Final Rule and our ozone and PM2
. 5 clean data memoranda, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related requirements, so as notto require SEP submissions ifan area subject to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive years ofcomplete, quality

### 14427

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14427 2007

### 1-4428 Federal Register /Vol;. 72 , 

### No. 59/ Wednesday, March 28, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

assured air quality monitoring data)., Three U.S. Circuit Courts ofAppeals have upheld EPArulemakings applying its interpretatidn ofsubparts 1 and 2 with respect to ozone. SierraClubv. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); SierraClubv. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); OurChildren's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion). It has been EPA's longstanding -interpretation 'thatthe general provisions ofpart D, subpart I ofthe Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the submission of SIPrevisions concerning RFP forareas already attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the General Preamble we stated:

[R]equirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request forredesignation to attainment since, at a minimum,the air quality data forthe area must show that the

area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFPtowards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57 FRat 13564.

EPA believes the same reasoning applies to the PM 1oprovisions ofpart D, subpart 4.

With respect to RFP, section 171(1)
states that, for purposes ofpart D oftitle I, RFP "means such annual incremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant air pollutant as are required by this part

or may reasonably be requiredby the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS by the applicable date." Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement ofsection 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections 182(b) and (c), orthe specific RFP requirements for PMo areas ofpart D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose ofRFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date. Section 189(c)(1) states that:

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment submitted to the Administrator for approval under this subpart shall contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until thearea is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress, as defined in section 7501(1) ofthis title,toward attainment bythe applicable date.

Although this section states'that revisions shall contain milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable furtherprogress "toward attainment bythe applicable attainment date", as defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section 189(c)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve a milestone must submit a plan that

assures that the state will achieve the next milestone or attainthe*NAAQS if there is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve milestones does not continue after attainment ofthe NAAQS.

In the General Preamble, we noted with respect to section 189(c) that "the. purpose ofthe milestone requirement is
to 'provide for emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date' (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990))." 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992). Ifan area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose ofthe RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled. 9 EPAtook this position with respect to the general RFP requirement ofsection 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also inthe May 10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the requirements of sections 182(b) and Cc). We are extending that interpretation
to the specific provisions ofpart D, subpart 4. In the General Preamble, we stated, in the context of a discussion of the requirements applicable to the evaluation ofrequests to redesignate nonattainment areas to-attainment, that the "requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the

area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning atthat point." (57 FR 13564). See also our September 4, 1992 memorandum ftom John Calcagni, entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment" (Calcagni memo), p. 6

.

Similarly, the requirements ofsection 189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no

"Thus, We believe that itis adistinction without

adifference that section 189(c)(1) speaks ofthe RFP requirement asone tobeachieved until an area is "redesignated attainment", asopposed to section 172(c)(2), which is silenton the period to which the requirement pertains, orthe ozonenonattainment

area RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182 (c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as applying untilthe "attainment date," since section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section .171(1) ofthe Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that,

as with thegeneral RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific requirements mayonly be required "for the purpose ofensuring attainment ofthe applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date." 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in the text ofthis rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in light ofthe definition of RFPin section 171(1); and incorporated in section 189(c)(1), tobe arequirement that no longer applies

once the standard has been attained. longer apply so long as an area has attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:

Not laterthan 90 days afterthe date on which amilestone applicable to the area occurs, each State inwhich all or part ofsuch

area is located shall submit to the Administrator a demonstration * * * that the milestone hasbeen met.

Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission showing that such milestones have been met. As noted above, this is consistent with the position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with respect to the requirements of section 182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g), the milestone requirement of Subpart 2, which is analogous to provisions in section 189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an area has-attained. The memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, stated:

Inasmuch as each ofthese requirements is linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), ifan area is not subject to the requirement to submit theunderlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not submit the related SIP submission either. 1995 Seitz memorandum at 5.

With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that theplan provide for "a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment bythe applicable attainment date * * *." As With the RP requirements, ifan area is already monitoring attainment ofthe standard, EPA believes there is no need for an
area to make afurther submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation ofthe section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, the Page
memo, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the Seitz

memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide forattainment wouldbe needed by areas seekingredesignation to attainment since "attainment will have been reached." (57 FR at 13564).

Other SIP submission requirements

are linked with these attainment

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14428 2007Fed&iral Register /Vol. '72, No. 59 /Wednesday, March 28, 2007/Rules and Regulations

demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency

measure requirements ofsections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as nolonger applying when an area has attained the standard because those "contingency

measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date." (57 FR at 13564); Seitz memo, pp. 5-6.

Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require "provisions to

assure that reasonably available control measures" (i.e.,RACM) are • implemented in anonattainment area. The General Preamble, 57 FR at 13560 (April 16, 1992), states that EPA interprets section 172(c)(1) so that RACM requirements are a "component" of an area's attainment demonstration. Thus, for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies. EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation ofpotential RACM

measures that could contribute to reasonable further progress or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR at 13498. Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required.10 EPAis interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its interpretation of section 172(c)(1).

Here, as inboth ourPhase 2 Final Rule and ozone and PM2. 5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension ofa requirement to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, and other related requirements exists only for as long as anonattainment area continues to monitor attainment ofthe standard. If such an area experiences a violation ofthe NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist. Therefore, the

area would againbe subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision orrevisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a determination that an area need not submit one ofthe SIP submittals
amounts to no more than a suspension ofthe requirements forso long as the

area continues to attain the standard.

10The EPA's interpretation thatthe statute only requires implementation ofRACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United StatesCourt ofAppeals for theFifth Circuit (SierraClubv.EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5thCir. 2002), and by the United States Court ofAppeals forthe D.C. Circuit (SierraClubv. EPA, 294 F.3d 155,162-163 (DC Cir. 2002)). However, once EPA ultimately redesignates the area to attainment, the

area will be entirely relieved ofthese requirements to the extent the maintenance plan forthe area does not rely on them.*

Therefore, we believe that, for the

reasons set forth here and established in

our prior "clean data" memoranda and rulemakings, aPM1 nonattainment area that has "clean data," should be relieved ofthe part D, subpart4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C), andthe RFP provisions established by section 189(c)(1) ofthe Act, aswell as the aforementioned attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions ofpart D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act. 1

Should EPA at some future time determine that an area that had clean data, but which has not yet been redesignated as attainment for a NAAQS, has violated the relevant standard, the area'would again be required to submit the pertinent requirements under the SIP forthe area. Attainment determinations under the policy do not shield an area from other required actions, such as provisions to address pollution trairsport.

.

As set forth above, EPA finds that because the Miami area is attaining the PMo NAAQS, the requirement ofan attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures and contingency

measures no longer applies for so long

as the area continues to monitor.. attainment ofthe PMlo NAAQS. 12

This determination is contingent on the existence ofmonitoring data showing continued attainment ofthe PM10 NAAQS in the Miami area. Normally, we would simply rely on the

11

In some priorrulemakings involving the Clean DataPolicy and PMio, EPAhas applied criteria in addition to that ofattainment ofthe standard. See, e.g., 67 FR 43020 (June 26, 2002). EPA does not believe thatthose additional criteria are required by statute or afe necessary forapplication ofthe policy for PM,, areas, anddoes not employ them in applying the policyto ozone and PM2.5areas.EPA intends to make its application ofthe policy consistent for ozone, PM1o. and PM2.5. anddoes not intend to require an area to meet additional criteria for PMo.

12We note that our application ofthe Clean Data Policy to the Miami PM,, nonattainment area is consistent with actions we have taken for other PMo nonattainment areas that were also attaining the standard. See 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 2006)(Ajo, Arizona area); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 2006)(Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR40023 (July14, 2006)(Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 (August 8, 2006)(Rillito, Arizona area); and 71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin Valley, California area). continuation of a State's or local air district's monitoring network to provide the data necessary forthe public and EPA to verify continued attainment because a State or local air district administering sucha network must, under applicable Federal regulations,

use reference methods, meet quality

assurance requirements, and enter data periodically into AQS.

Inthe Miami area,however, the only monitors collecting PM10 data are Special Purpose Monitors (SPMs)run by Phelps-Dodge. Historically, these data have notbeen submitted to the State for certification and subsequent entry into EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Thus, we have requested that ADEQprovide us with evidence that ADEQ and Phelps-Dodge ensure that PM1 o data continues to be collected at Phelps-Dodge's two monitoring sites in the Miami area in a manner that meets' Federal monitoring requirements for state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and that ADEQ commits to entering the data intoAQS on a periodic basis. ADEQ has submitted sufficient evidence supporting such commitments in the form oftwo letters: a letter dated May 15, 2006 fromAlan H. Binegar, Smelter Manager, Phelps-Dodge Miami Inc. to Nancy Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, and aletter dated January 19, 2007 fromNancy C. Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA-Region IX.

Specifically, in its May 15, 2006 letter, Phelps-Dodge agrees to submit calibration records and supporting documentation for its PM1 0 monitors to ADEQwith future quarterly PM1o reports. In its January 19, 2007 letter, ADEQcommits to begin entering data collected during 2006by March 1, 2007,
to complete the entry of 2006 data into AQS by the end ofJune 2007, andto continue entry of 2007 and subsequent data following applicable EPA quality

assurance procedures and validation. We interpret ADEQ's commitment to

meanthat bythe end of2007, ADEQ willbe entering Miami PM, 0 monitoring data collected by Phelps-Dodge on the

same quarterly schedule as required for SLAMS.

. IfPhelps-Dodge orADEQ fails to fulfill the monitoring-related • commitments set forth inthe letters dated May 15, 2006 and January 19, 2007, then we can no longer be assured of-the continued attainment ofthe PM1o NAAQS in the Miami area, and a failure
to provide current, valid, publicly available PM 0 data will have the same consequence as a measured violation of the PMto NAAQS. In either event, the rationale for determining that the CAA 

### 14429

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14429 2007

### 14430 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March 28, 2007/Riles and .Regulations

requirements discussed above no longer apply in the Miami area will no longer exist, and as a result, we will take action to withdraw our finding that the Miami

area is attaining the standard and withdraw our related determination with respect to certain CAA requirements discussed above. Then, the State ofArizona would again be required to submit the pertinent CAA requirements for this nonattainment

area. IV. Corrections to the Arizona PMo Table in 40 CFR Part 81

In today's notice, we are also correcting two errors inthe table found in 40 CFR part 81 (specifically, 40 CFR 81.303) listing the area designations within the State ofArizona for the PM10 NAAQS. CAA section 110(k)(6) provides EPA with authority to correct

errors in rulemakings involving, among otherthings, area designations and classifications.

First, we are fixing atypographical

error inthe listing for Payson in the PMo table. This error was introduced into thetable in afinal rule redesignating the Payson area to attainment. See 67 FR 43013 (June 26, 2002). In the June 2002 finalrule, we inadvertently listed one ofthe' townships that comprise the Payson air quality planning area as "TOIN, * * " while intending "TiON, * * *." See 67 FR43013, at 43019. We are correcting the listing in thisnotice.

Second, we are correcting the

erroneous deletion ofthe designation for "rest ofstate" in the Arizona PM 10 table in 40 CFR 81.303. This error occurred in
two stages. First, in a 1996 final rule, we inadvertently included "rest ofstate" under the listing for Mohave County. See 61 FR 21372, at 21378 (May 10, 1996). Then, in a final rule published on February 15, 2002, we inadvertently deleted the "rest ofstate" listing entirely. See 67 FR 7082, at 7085 (February 15, 2002). Inthis notice, we
are correcting this error byrestoring the "rest of state" designation ("unclassifiable") as aseparate listing in the Arizona PM 1 otable.

V. EPA's Final Action

Under section 107(d)(3)(D) ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA is approving the State ofArizona's redesignation ofthe Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment

area into two separate but adjoining PM10 nonattainment areas (Hayden and Miami) as submitted onJune 20, 2006 and making the changes to the table in 40 CFR part 81 that shows Arizona PM 10 area designations accordingly. EPA is approving this boundary redesignation based on topographical, meteorological, and other air quality-related factors that demonstrate that Hayden and Miami

areas lie in different airsheds With little

or no cross-airshed transport ofPM10. Together, the two new PM1o nonattainment areas cover the same geographic area as the original Hayden/ Miami PM 10 nonattainment area and retain a "moderate" classification with respect to the PM1oNAAQS. The approved boundary between the two

new areas roughly traces the ridgeline of the Pinal Mountains.

We also find that the Miami PM10 nonattainment area is attaining the PM 10 NAAQS. Our finding ofattainment is based on quality-assured data that meet the requirements of40 CFR part 50, appendix K for the period 2003-2005.13

EPA also finds that,because the Miami area is attaining the NAAQS, the following CAA requirements are not applicable for so long as the Miami area continues to attain the PMo standard: the part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of 189(a)(1)(C), the RFP provisions established by section 189(c)(1), and the attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions ofpart D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act. Because our determination with respect to the above CAA requirements relies on the existence ofcurrent, valid, publicly-available monitoring data,we
are making our determination contingent upon fulfillment of commitments made by Phelps-Dodge and ADEQ inletters dated May 15, 2006 and January 19, 2007 to submit such data from the two current PM10 monitoring sites in the Miami area to EPA's AQS. If the commitments made byPhelps-Dodge and ADEQ are not fulfilled or ifthe data shows a violation ofthe standard, then EPA will act to withdraw the attainment finding and withdraw therelated determination with respect to the CAA requirements listed above.

13The two actions we are taking today, the boundary redesignation and the finding of attainment, should be distinguished from an action to redesignate an area from "nonattainment" to "attainment" under CAA section 107(d)(3). There

are a number of prerequisite conditions that must be met before we can approve a State's request to change (i.e., "redesignate") the airquality planning
status ofan area from "nonattainment" to "attainment," including, among other conditions, approval ofamaintenance plan meeting the requirements of section 175A ofthe CAA. See section 107(d)(3)(E ofthe Act. Thus, the classification and designation status in 40CFR part 81 will remain moderate nonattainment for the Miami PMo area until such time as the State of Arizona meets theCAA requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) forredesignation ofthe Miami area to attainment. . Lastly, underCAA section 110(k)(6),

we correct two errors that were introduced into the "Arizona-PMo" table in 40 CFR 81.303 in previous rulemakings. First,we correct a typographical error in the listings of townships that define the Payson air quality planning area. Second, we correct the erroneous deletion ofthe designation for "rest ofstate" by restoring the "rest of state" designation ("unclassifiable") as a separate listing in the Arizona PMo table.

We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section ofthis Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document thatwill serve asthe proposal should adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective'May 29, 2007, without further notice unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comments by April 27, 2007.

Ifwe receive such comments, then we will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will thenbe addressed in a subsequent finalrule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. Ifno such comments

are received,the public is advised that this rule willbe effective on May 29, 2007 and no further action willbe taken

onthe proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under-Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely redesignates a boundary ofan air quality planing area, makes a determination based on air quality data, and suspends certain requirements that otherwise would apply and does notimpose any additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly

or uniquely affect small governments, as

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14430 2007

### Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March 28, 2007/Rules and Regulations

described inthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will nothave a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or onthe distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 97249, 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 ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely redesignates aboundary ofan air quality planning area, makes adetermination based on air quality data, and suspends certain requirements that otherwise would apply and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established inthe CAA. This rule also is not subjectto Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

The requirements ofsection 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Actof 1995 115 U.S.C. 272 note) do notapply. This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy-ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe 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 inthe Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial 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).)

List ofSubjects in40 CFRPart 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 20, 2007. Wayne Nastri, RegionalAdministrator, Region9.

a Part 81, chapterI, title40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 81-[AMENDED]

m1.The authority citation for part81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart C-[Amended]

m2. In § 81.303, the table entitled "Arizona-PM 10" is amended by revising the entries for Pinal and Gila Counties and-Gila County and by adding

an entry for "rest of state" toread as follows: 

### §81.303 Arizona.

ARIZONA-PM1 o
Designation Classification Designated Area Date Type Date Type

Pinal and Gila Counties: Hayden planning area

............................................................................. 11/15/90 Nonattainment

... 11/15/90 Moderate. TIS, R13E (sections 7-36); TiS, R14E (sections 25-36);T2S, R13E;

T2S, R14E; T2S, R15E; T3S,.R13E; T3S, RI4E; T3S, R15E; T3S, R16E (except that portion in the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation); T4S, R13E; T4S, R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E; T5S, R13E; T5S, R14E: T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E; T6S, R13E; T6S; R14E; T6S, R15E; and T6S, R16E. Miami planning area

................................................................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment

... 11/15/90 Moderate. TIN, R13E; TIN, R14E; TIN, R15E; TIS, R13E (sections 1-6); TIS,

R14E (sections 124); TIS, R141/2E; and TIS, R15E. Gila County (part): Payson: T10N, sections 1-3

. ................................................................. 08/26/02 Attainment

.......... 10-15, 22-27, and 34-36 of R9E; T11N, sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-27,

and 34-36 of R9E; T10-11N, R10E; T10N, sections 4-9, 16-21, and 28-33 of Rl1E; T11N, sections 4-9, 16-21, and 28-33 of R11E.

Rest of State

............................................................................................ 11/15/90 Unclassifiable. 

### 14431

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 14431 2007