```

[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 http://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 http://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: 
http://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: http://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
```