32024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal requirement, and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

In reviewing Section 111(d)/129 plan 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this 

context, in the absence of a prior 

existing requirement for the State to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS), 

EPA has no authority to disapprove a 

Section 111(d)/129 plan submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a Section 111(d)/ 

129 plan submission, to use VCS in 

place of a Section 111(d)/129 plan 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 30, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

approving Illinois’ Section 111(d)/129 

negative declaration and request for 

EPA withdrawal of the LMWC plan 

approval may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Administrative 

practice and procedure, Large municipal 

waste combustors, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 16, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows: 

PART 62—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart P—Illinois 

■ 2. Section 62.3350 is amended by 

revising the section heading, 

designating the existing paragraph as (a) 

and adding paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 62.3350 Identification of plan—negative 

declaration. 

* * * * * 

(b) On February 1, 2012, the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted a negative declaration that 

there are no large municipal waste 

combustors in the State of Illinois 

subject to part 60, subpart Cb emission 

guidelines and requested withdrawal of 

its State Plan for LMWC units approved 

under paragraph (a) of this section. 

■ 3. A new § 62.3351 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 62.3351 Effective date. 

The Federal effective date of the 

negative declaration and withdrawal of 

Illinois’ State Plan for LMWC units is 

July 30, 2012. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13205 Filed 5–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0491; FRL–9679–7] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; 

Pinal County; PM10

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 32025 

1The 1987 p.m.10 standard included a 24-hour 

(150 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) and an 

annual standard (50 mg/m3). In 2006, EPA revoked 

the annual standard. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 

2006) and 40 CFR 50.6. 

2While 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. 

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. 

4Letter from Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX, dated March 23, 2010. 

5The 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. 

6EPA Region 9, ‘‘Pinal County, Arizona, Area 

Designation for the 1987 24-hour PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ Technical Support 

Document, September 21, 2010. 

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, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Action 

III. Public Comment and EPA Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 (mg/m3) more than once per year 

on average over a consecutive three-year 

period. The rate of expected 

exceedances indicates whether a 

monitor attains the air quality standard. 

Most of Pinal County, Arizona, 

including the area that is the subject of 

today’s action, was included in the ‘‘rest 

of state’’ area, which was designated 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for PM10 by operation 

of law upon enactment of the 1990 

amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’).2 See section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii). 

The PM10 designations established by 

operation of law under the CAA, as 

amended in 1990, are known as 

‘‘initial’’ designations. The CAA grants 

the EPA the authority to change the 

designation of, or ‘‘redesignate,’’ such 

areas in light of changes in 

circumstances. More specifically, CAA 

section 107(d)(3) authorizes the EPA to 

revise the designation of areas (or 

portions thereof) on the basis of air 

quality data, planning and control 

considerations, or any other air-qualityrelated considerations that the EPA 

deems appropriate. Pursuant to CAA 

section 107(d)(3), the EPA in the past 

has redesignated certain areas in 

Arizona to nonattainment for the PM10

NAAQS, including the Payson and 

Bullhead City areas. See 56 FR 16274 

(April 22, 1991); and 58 FR 67334 

(December 21, 1993). 

On October 14, 2009, under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(A), the EPA notified 

the Governor of Arizona and tribal 

leaders of the four Indian Tribes (whose 

Indian country is located entirely, or in 

part, within Pinal County) that the 

designation for Pinal County, and any 

nearby areas that may be contributing to 

the monitored violations in Pinal 

County, should be revised (‘‘EPA’s 

notification’’). Our decision to initiate 

the redesignation process stemmed from 

review of 2006–2008 ambient PM10

monitoring data from PM10 monitoring 

stations within the county that showed 

widespread, frequent, and in some 

instances, severe, violations of the PM10

standard.3

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the 

Act, in a letter dated March 23, 2010, 

the Governor of Arizona responded to 

the EPA’s notification with a 

recommendation for a partial-county 

nonattainment area.4

The boundaries of the prospective 

PM10 nonattainment area recommended 

by the Governor of Arizona encompass 

a portion of central and western Pinal 

County, and form an area that resembles 

a backwards ‘‘L.’’ 5 See figure 2 of the 

EPA’s Technical Support Document 6

(TSD) for a map of both the State’s 

recommended boundaries as well as the 

EPA’s proposed boundaries. The staterecommended area includes all or most 

of the cities of Maricopa, Coolidge, Casa 

Grande, and the Pinal County portion of 

the town of Queen Creek, as well as the 

western-most portion of the town of 

Florence and the northern-most portion 

of the city of Eloy. The State 

recommends including an area that at 

its western-most boundary includes 

nearly all of the City of Maricopa. The 

State-recommended southern boundary 

is defined by a line that coincides 

approximately with Interstate 8. The 

area recommended by the State 

continues to the east for approximately 

35 miles where it extends to the north, 

including portions of Florence and 

Coolidge, and the Pinal County portion 

of Queen Creek, and terminates just 

south of Apache Junction. The Staterecommended eastern boundary is 

defined by the north-south line between 

Range 8 East and Range 9 East. The 

northern boundary follows the county 

line south from the Apache Junction 

area and then follows the boundary of 

the Gila River Indian Reservation to 

close back around to the recommended 

western boundary. See the Governor’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

32026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7EPA 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. 

March 23, 2010 letter for the legal 

description of the State’s recommended 

boundaries by township and range and 

for an enclosed map illustrating this 

area. 

In a letter dated February 11, 2010, 

the Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) 

responded to the EPA’s December 30, 

2009 letter concerning the PM10

designation in Pinal County with a 

recommendation that the TON land 

within Pinal County be designated 

attainment/unclassifiable for PM10. In a 

letter dated September 2, 2010 the AkChin Indian Community responded to 

the EPA’s December 30, 2009 letter 

concerning the PM10 designation of 

Pinal County with a recommendation 

that the Ak-Chin lands be designated 

attainment/unclassifiable. The Gila 

River Indian Community and the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe did not submit 

recommendations. 

II. Proposed Action 

On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60680), 

pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA, the EPA proposed to redesignate 

from ‘‘unclassifiable’’ to 

‘‘nonattainment’’ an area generally 

covering the western half of Pinal 

County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10

NAAQS, and to make a corresponding 

revision to the boundaries of the 

existing ‘‘rest of state’’ unclassifiable 

area. The EPA’s proposed boundaries 

for the nonattainment area encompassed 

all of the area recommended by the 

State of Arizona, but extended farther to 

the east and south, and to a lesser 

degree, to the north and west. The EPA’s 

proposed boundaries encompassed all 

land geographically located within Pinal 

County west of the north-south line 

defined by the boundary between Range 

10 East and Range 11 East, but excluded 

TON’s main reservation and the Apache 

Junction portion of the existing Phoenix 

PM10 nonattainment area. See figure 2 of 

the EPA’s TSD for a map showing our 

proposed boundaries. 

As explained in our October 1, 2010 

proposed rule (75 FR at 60686), and 

more fully in the TSD for the proposal, 

we believe that the State’s 

recommended boundaries would not 

encompass the full geographic area from 

which emissions-generating activities 

contribute to the monitored PM10

violations. More specifically, EPA’s 

proposal stated that the Governor’s 

recommended boundaries, which cut 

through municipalities and contiguous 

expanses of agricultural fields, excluded 

sources that have been identified as 

dominant sources of PM10 and that are 

contributing to elevated levels of PM10

at violating monitors. In our October 1, 

2010 proposal, EPA stated that its 

proposed boundaries, described above, 

would encompass the areas in which 

PM10 violations are being monitored, as 

well as the areas that contribute to the 

monitored violations, and that they 

were thus consistent with the definition 

of nonattainment areas in CAA section 

107(d)(1)(A). Our proposal was based on 

the EPA’s analysis of the factors as set 

forth in the proposed rule (75 FR at 

60682–60686) and in further detail in 

the TSD for the proposed rule. 

With respect to the affected Indian 

Tribes, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule, we proposed to exclude 

the main TON reservation and the San 

Carlos Apache Reservation from the 

PM10 nonattainment area boundaries, 

but we indicated that we were deferring 

action on the status of certain other 

tribal lands located within the area, 

including the tribal lands of the AkChin Indian Community and the Gila 

River Indian Community, as well as 

TON’s Florence Village and San Lucy 

Farms, pending consultation with the 

affected tribes. 

Please see our October 1, 2010 

proposed rule and our related TSD for 

more information about our proposed 

action and the rationale for our 

proposed boundaries. 

III. Public Comment and EPA 

Responses 

Our October 1, 2010 proposed rule 

provided for a 30-day comment period, 

and the EPA received 11 comment 

letters in response to the proposal, 

including letters from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ), the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, the Pinal County Air 

Quality Department, the City of Casa 

Grande, the Central Arizona Irrigation 

and Drainage District, the Arizona 

Public Service Company, several 

agricultural groups, the Sierra Club, and 

a member of the general public. 

None of the commenters disagreed 

with the need to redesignate a portion 

of Pinal County nonattainment for the 

1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and none 

disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that 

sources outside of Pinal County and in 

the eastern half of Pinal County, 

including San Carlos Apache lands, do 

not contribute to violations in the 

western portion of the county. In 

addition, none of the commenters 

disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that 

the activities occurring on the main 

Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) 

reservation do not contribute to these 

violations. Most commenters, however, 

suggested that the nonattainment area 

should be smaller than that proposed by 

the EPA. Nine commenters supported 

the Governor’s recommended boundary, 

one commenter supported the EPA’s 

proposed boundary, and one commenter 

suggested that the boundary should 

include only developed areas that have 

a relatively high density of human 

population. 

As discussed in more detail below 

and in our Response to Comments (RTC) 

document,7 the EPA is taking final 

action today to redesignate from 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ to ‘‘nonattainment’’ an 

area generally covering the western half 

of Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987 

PM10 NAAQS, and correspondingly, to 

revise the boundaries of the existing 

‘‘rest of state’’ unclassifiable area. In our 

final action, however, based on our 

consideration of the comments, 

including the building permit data 

provided by Pinal County that 

documents the extent to which the 

national recession has slowed growth in 

Pinal County, and after further review of 

other relevant factors, such as the 

geographic distribution of sources of 

PM10, the EPA is modifying the 

boundaries it had proposed for the 

nonattainment area. EPA’s final action 

modifies its previously proposed 

boundaries in such a way as to reduce 

the size of the nonattainment area 

(relative to the area the EPA had 

proposed) by approximately 36 percent 

(about 735 square miles). This reduction 

is principally accounted for by 

establishing the final boundaries for the 

nonattainment area so as to exclude the 

Tonto National Forest (including the 

Superstition Wilderness Area), portions 

of the Sonoran Desert National 

Monument (including the Table Top 

Wilderness Area), the Ironwood Forest 

National Monument, and certain lessdeveloped areas. EPA’s proposal had 

included these areas within the 

nonattainment area boundaries. 

In the following paragraphs of this 

section, we summarize our responses to 

significant comments that we received 

on our October 1, 2010 proposed rule. 

Our full responses to all the comments 

received can be found in the previouslycited RTC document, which is included 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Air Quality Data 

Comment: Disagreement over the size 

of the nonattainment area was primarily 

based on commenters’ views that certain 

areas should be excluded from the 

nonattainment area because they are not 

themselves violating the standard, or 

because they are not ‘‘significantly’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 32027 

8On 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. 

9Commenters 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. 

10ADEQ, ‘‘Arizona Air Quality Designations, 

Technical Support Document, Boundary 

Recommendation for the Pinal County 24-hour 

PM10 Nonattainment Area,’’ March 15, 2010. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

As stated above, CAA defines a 

nonattainment area to include a nearby 

area that contributes to air quality in the 

area where violations are measured. To 

identify nearby areas that contribute to 

the measured violations of PM10 in Pinal 

County, we have used a multi-factor 

analysis that accounts for, among other 

factors, emissions data, meteorology, 

and topography, as described in detail 

in EPA’s TSD for the proposed rule and 

in the RTC document prepared for this 

final rule. The use of a multi-factor test 

in determining which areas contribute 

to violations in a nearby area was 

upheld in a case involving designations 

and nonattainment area boundaries for 

the PM2.5 standard, Catawba County v. 

EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 38–40 (D.C. Cir. 

2009), and we believe such a test is 

appropriate in determining the 

boundaries of an area to be redesignated 

to nonattainment for the PM10 standard. 

Moreover, the Catawba County court 

rejected arguments that ‘‘contributes,’’ 

for the purposes of interpreting the 

geographic extent of nonattainment 

areas under section 107(d)(1)(A), 

necessarily connotes a significant causal 

relationship and upheld EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘contribute’’ to mean 

‘‘sufficiently contribute’’ and then 

applying a presumption and multifactor test precisely to identify those 

areas that meet the definition. Id. In the 

context of this action, we have not 

applied any presumption but otherwise 

have identified the boundaries of the 

area to be redesignated to nonattainment 

for the PM10 standard to include areas 

determined to be sufficiently 

contributing through application of a 

multi-factor test. 

Off-Highway Vehicles 

Comment: The Arizona Game and 

Fish Department argued that because 

ADEQ’s technical report states that offhighway vehicle emissions are relatively 

low and there were no grid cells over 

the 20 ton per year threshold, the 

nonattainment area boundary should 

not include undeveloped lands where 

off-highway vehicle recreation occurs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

32028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 commuterrelated emissions are located primarily 

in the western portions of the county in 

the more populated regions of Casa 

Grande and Maricopa. Another 

commenter asserted that the number of 

commuters traveling between Pima and 

Pinal Counties is significantly less than 

the number traveling between Maricopa 

and Pinal counties. One commenter 

contended that the area south of 

Interstate 8 does not have any roads that 

lead to major urban centers, except for 

Interstate 10, and contended that 

proximity to Interstate 10 does not cause 

the Pinal Air Park or Eloy monitors to 

violate. 

Response: Although the EPA and 

ADEQ inventories differed with respect 

to the quantity of emissions generated 

by on-road sources (traveling on paved 

and unpaved roads), EPA and ADEQ 

agree that this is the largest category of 

PM10 emissions in Pinal County. EPA 

TSD Figure 8 and ADEQ technical 

report Figure 3–5 illustrate the 

distribution of commuter traffic and 

emissions generated by traffic on paved 

roads. Taken together with the overall 

distribution of on-road emissions shown 

in ADEQ’s technical report (Figure 3–4), 

it is evident that on-road traffic 

(including paved and unpaved roads) is 

a significant source of emissions in the 

western half of Pinal County, including 

areas to the south and east of the 

Governor’s recommended boundary. 

The EPA believes that the distribution 

of emissions from on-road traffic 

requires extending Arizona’s 

recommended boundary; however, upon 

further review, we concluded that the 

comments submitted and further review 

of available data provide a persuasive 

case for modifying EPA’s proposed 

boundary. For the final nonattainment 

area boundaries, we reduced emphasis 

on the growth and commuting patterns 

and increased the weight given to 

emissions- and land-use-related data 

and thus are not including the southernmost portion of Pinal County, the Table 

Top and Superstition Wilderness areas, 

and the largely undisturbed desert areas 

east of Township 8 East, except where 

the boundary extends farther to the east 

to include the Florence area and the 

Picacho Peak area. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 32029 

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. 

12The HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle 

Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model is used to 

compute simple air parcel trajectories, dispersion 

characteristics, and deposition simulations. 

13Townships 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. 

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. 

Comment: Both ADEQ and PCAQ 

examined HYSPLIT12 back-trajectories 

for several high-wind exceedance days, 

along with hourly concentrations and 

wind data. From the abrupt changes in 

wind direction and increases in wind 

speed that often coincided with large 

increases in PM10 concentrations, they 

concluded that the PM10 is due to nearfield impacts rather than to long-range 

transport. 

Response: While the analyses 

performed by ADEQ and Pinal County 

provide useful information for 

evaluating the PM10 exceedances, as 

discussed above, establishing 

nonattainment area boundaries requires 

us to take into account more than the 

sole or main cause of an exceedance. 

Even if the commenters are correct that 

on certain occasions ‘‘wind-transport 

from the southeast is not a dominant 

contributing factor’’ (ADEQ comments, 

p.4) and that the data ‘‘suggest a typical 

monsoon storm where local weather 

contributed to local impacts’’ (Pinal 

County comments, p.3), EPA remains 

convinced by the available evidence 

that transported emissions from the 

southeast nonattainment area 

nevertheless do contribute to 

exceedances. As discussed in more 

detail in the TSD for the EPA’s proposal 

and in the RTC document, the EPA 

believes that the meteorological data 

provide evidence for such a 

contribution. Other factors, including 

the geographic distribution of sources of 

emissions and the topography of Pinal 

County also reinforce EPA’s 

determination to include this portion in 

the nonattainment area. 

IV. Final Action 

For the reasons provided in the 

proposed rule and TSD, insofar as not 

modified here, the Response to 

Comments document, and this final 

rule, the EPA is taking final action 

pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act to redesignate an area in 

western Pinal County, Arizona from 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ to ‘‘nonattainment’’ for 

the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard and is 

therefore also revising the boundaries of 

the existing ‘‘rest of state’’ unclassifiable 

area. EPA’s establishment of this new 

PM10 nonattainment area, referred to as 

‘‘West Pinal,’’ is based on numerous 

recorded violations of the PM10 standard 

at various monitoring sites within the 

western portion of the county. With the 

exception of Indian country and certain 

Federal lands, the EPA’s nonattainment 

area boundaries generally encompass 

the land geographically located within 

Pinal County north of the east-west line 

defined by the southern line of 

Township 9 South, Gila and Salt River 

Baseline and Meridian, and west of the 

north-south line defined by the eastern 

line of Range 8 East, except where the 

boundary extends farther east in the 

Florence and Picacho Peak areas.13 In 

taking this action, the EPA concludes 

that the State’s recommended 

boundaries do not encompass the full 

geographic area from which emissionsgenerating activities contribute to the 

monitored PM10 violations. See figure 1 

in the RTC document for a map that 

compares the State’s recommended 

boundaries to the EPA’s final 

boundaries. 

For this final action, we reduced the 

size of the nonattainment area relative 

to the area for which we proposed 

redesignation and believe that the final 

boundaries more closely align the 

nonattainment area boundaries with the 

areas in which PM10 violations are being 

monitored, as well as the areas that 

contribute to the monitored violations. 

Our conclusion is based on our analysis 

of the factors as set forth in the 

proposed rule and related TSD, and RTC 

document, with particular weight being 

given to the locations of those sources, 

including vehicle travel over paved and 

unpaved roads, and agricultural and 

construction activities, that comprise 

most of the overall PM10 inventory, the 

frequent occurrence of southeast winds, 

and the absence of topographical 

barriers. 

We are continuing to defer our 

decision regarding redesignation of the 

Ak-Chin and Gila River Indian 

Community lands, as well as TON’s 

Florence Village and San Lucy Farms, 

pending consideration of issues unique 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

32030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

14The 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. 

15For 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). 

16For 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. 

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

Specifically, this section of the CAA 

provides areas, that for the first time are 

designated nonattainment for a given air 

quality standard, with a one-year grace 

period before conformity applies with 

respect to that standard. Because this is 

the first time that this portion of Pinal 

County is being designated 

nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS, it 

will have a one-year grace period before 

conformity applies for the PM10

NAAQS.15

The new West Pinal PM10

nonattainment area would be 

considered to be a ‘‘donut area’’ because 

portions of the area in Queen Creek and 

Apache Junction are within the area 

covered by a metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO), the Maricopa 

Association Governments (MAG) and a 

portion lies outside of MAG’s 

boundaries. For the purposes of 

transportation conformity, a donut area 

is the geographic area outside a 

metropolitan planning area boundary, 

but inside the boundary of a designated 

nonattainment/maintenance area. The 

transportation conformity requirements 

for donut areas are generally the same 

as those for metropolitan areas. 

However, the MPO would include any 

projects occurring in the donut area in 

its regional emissions analysis of the 

metropolitan transportation plan and 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP). Therefore, the one-year grace 

period applies to donut areas in much 

the same way that it applies to 

metropolitan areas. That is, within one 

year of the effective date of an area’s 

designation, a donut area’s projects 

must be included in the MPO’s 

conformity determination for the 

metropolitan plan and TIP for those 

projects to be funded or approved. If, at 

the conclusion of the one-year grace 

period, the donut area’s projects have 

not been included in an MPO’s 

conformity determination, the entire 

nonattainment area’s conformity would 

lapse.16

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA has 

determined that redesignation to 

nonattainment, as well as the 

establishment of SIP submittal 

schedules, would result in none of the 

effects identified in Executive Order 

12866, section 3(f). Under section 

107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to 

nonattainment are based upon air 

quality considerations. The 

redesignation, based upon air quality 

data showing that West Pinal is not 

attaining the PM10 standard and upon 

other air-quality-related considerations, 

does not, in and of itself, impose any 

new requirements on any sectors of the 

economy. Similarly, the establishment 

of new SIP submittal schedules would 

merely establish the dates by which 

SIPs must be submitted, and would not 

adversely affect entities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., a 

redesignation to nonattainment under 

section 107(d)(3), and the establishment 

of a SIP submittal schedule for a 

redesignated area, do not, in and of 

themselves, directly impose any new 

requirements on small entities. See MidTex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 

773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency’s 

certification need only consider the 

rule’s impact on entities subject to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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)). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

32032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, National parks, Particulate 

Matter, Wilderness areas. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 22, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations 

■ 2. In § 81.303, the ‘‘Arizona–PM–10’’ 

table is amended by adding a new entry 

for ‘‘Pinal County’’ after the entry for 

‘‘Mohave County (part)’’ and before the 

entry for ‘‘Rest of State’’ to read as set 

forth below. 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

ARIZONA–PM–10 

Designated Area 

Designation Classification 

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; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 32033 

ARIZONA–PM–10—Continued 

Designated Area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

18. Thence westerly along the southern line of Township 9 

South to a point where the southern line of Township 9 

South intersects the western line of Range 7 East; 

19. Thence northerly along the western line of Range 7 East 

to a point where the western line of Range 7 East intersects the southern line of Township 8 South; 

20. Thence westerly along the southern line of Township 8 

South to a point where the southern line of Township 8 

South intersects the western line of Range 6 East; 

21. Thence northerly along the western line of Range 6 East 

to a point where the western line of Range 6 East intersects the southern line of Township 7 South; 

22. Thence, westerly along the southern line of Township 7 

South to a point where the southern line of Township 7 

South intersects the quarter section line common to the 

southwestern southwest quarter section and the southeastern southwest quarter section of section 34, Range 3 

East and Township 7 South; 

23. Thence, northerly along the along the quarter section line 

common to the southwestern southwest quarter section 

and the southeastern southwest quarter section of sections 

34, 27, 22, and 15, Range 3 East and Township 7 South, 

to a point where the quarter section line common to the 

southwestern southwest quarter section and the southeastern southwest quarter section of sections 34, 27, 22, 

and 15, Range 3 East and Township 7 South, intersects 

the northern line of section 15, Range 3 East and Township 7 South; 

24. Thence, westerly along the northern line of sections 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Range 3 East and Township 7 South, and 

the northern line of sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 

Range 2 East and Township 7 South, to a point where the 

northern line of sections 15, 16, 17, and 18, Range 3 East 

and Township 7 South, and the northern line of sections 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Range 2 East and Township 7 

South, intersect the western line of Range 2 East, which is 

the common boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties, as described in Arizona Revised Statutes sections 

11–109 and 11–113; 

25. Thence, northerly along the western line of Range 2 East 

to the point of beginning which is the point where the western line of Range 2 East intersects the northern line of 

Township 4 South; 

26. Except that portion of the area defined by paragraphs 1 

through 25 above that lies within the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation, Gila River Indian Reservation, and the Tohono 

O’odham Nation’s Florence Village and San Lucy Farms. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–13185 Filed 5–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 22 and 90 

[DA 12–643] 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

and Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau Suspend Acceptance 

and Processing of Certain Applications 

for 470–512 MHz Spectrum 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; limited suspension of 

specific applications. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) announce a limited 

suspension of the acceptance and 

processing of certain applications for 

certain services operating in the 470– 

512 MHz (T–Band) spectrum band in 

order to maintain a stable spectral 

landscape while the Commission 

determines how to implement recent 

spectrum legislation contained in the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012. The suspension 

applies only to applications for new or 

expanded use of T–Band frequencies. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES1