### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of publication ofthis action. Under Section 307(b)(2) ofthe Act, the requirements that are the subject ofthis final rule may notbe challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.


### III.Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket for this regulatory action is A-93-32, the same docket as the original final rule, and a copy oftoday's amendment to the final rule will be included in the docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development ofthe original rulemaking. The principal purposes ofthe docket are:

(1) To allow interested parties a
means to identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process, and

(2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, which is listed under the ADDRESSES section ofthis document.

B. RegulatoryImpactAnalysis

This rule was classified "nonsignificant" under Executive Order 12866 and therefore was notreviewed by the Office ofManagement and Budget.

C.Impacton ReportingRequirements

The information collection requirements ofthe previously promulgated rule for Regulations Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations by Permit were submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. A copy ofthis Information Collection Request (ICR) document (OMB control number 2060- 0266) maybe obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. Today's change to the final rule to delay the deadline for submittal ofsection 112(j) permit applications does not affect the information collection burden estimates made previously. Therefore, the ICRhas
not been revised.

D.Impacton Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the identification ofpotentially adverse impacts ofFederal regulations upon small business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those instances where small business impacts

are possible. Because this rulemaking imposes no economic impacts, adverse

or otherwise, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared.

Pursuant to the provisions of5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small business entities.

E. Reduction ofGovernmentalBurden

Executive Order 12875 ("Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership") is designed to reduce the burden to State, local, and Tribal governments ofthe cumulative effect ofunfunded Federal mandates. The Order recognizes the need for these entities to be free from unnecessary Federal regulation to enhance their ability to address problems they face and provides for Federal agencies to grant waivers to these entities from discretionary Federal requirements. The Order applies to any regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local, or Tribal government. The EPA anticipates that there willbe no additional cost burden imposed on State, local, and Tribal governments as

aresult oftoday's action. Indeed, the purpose ofthe action is to reduce unnecessary burden on permitting agencies.

F. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects ofits programs, policies, and activities

on minority and low-income populations. Today's action will help

ensure timely compliance and the application ofconsistent regulatory requirements by allowing the section 112(d) MACT standards to become effective without triggering an unnecessary section 112(j) process. Therefore, no adverse human health or environmental effects are anticipated as

aresult oftoday's action.

G. UnfundedMandates

Under Section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), the EPA
must prepare abudgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish aplan forinforming and advising any small governments that maybe significantly oruniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million

or more to either State, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements ofthe Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart63

Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 3, 1996. CarolM. Browner, Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFRPart 63 is amended as follows:


### PART63-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. 2. In §63.51, the definition of "Section 112(j)deadline"is revised to read as follows: 

### §63.51 Definitions.

Section 112(j) deadlinemeans the date 18 months, after the date by which

arelevant standard is scheduled to be promulgated under this part, except for all major sources listed in the source category schedule for which arelevant standard is scheduled to be promulgated by November 15, 1994, the section 112(j) deadline is November 15, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96 11737 Filed 5 9 96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### 40CFR Part 81 [AZR91-0003; FRL-5503-7]
Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment Area; PM 10 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. 

## 21372

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 21372 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY: In this document EPA is making a final finding that the Phoenix Planning Area (PPA) has not attained the PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns

or less in aerodynamic diameter) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas, December 31, 1994. This finding is based on EPA's review ofPM10 ambient air quality data. As a result ofthis finding, the PPA is reclassified as a serious PM 10 nonattainment area by operation of law. The intended effect of the reclassification is to allow the State 18 months from the effective date of this action to submit a new State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating attainment ofthe PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2001, the CAA attainment date for serious areas. EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on June 10, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wallace Woo, Chief,Plans Development Section (A-2-2), Air Planning Branch, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744- 1207.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### I. Background

A. CAA RequirementsandEPA Actions ConcerningDesignationand Classification

On November 15, 1990, the date of
enactment ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA), PM10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) ofthe Act were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw. Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 188 ofthe Act outlines the process for classification of the area and establishes the area's attainment date. Pursuant to section 188(a), all PM1 ononattainment areas
were initially classified as moderate by operation of law upon designation as nonattainment. These nonattainment designations and moderate area classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 in a Federal Register notice published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).

Under section 188(c)(1) ofthe CAA, the attainment deadline for all PM10 

### nonattainment areas originally classified

as moderate was no later than December 31, 1994. Under section 188(d), EPA may, upon application by a state, extend the attainment deadline if the state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan. In addition, in order to qualify for an extension there must have been no more than one exceedance ofthe 24 hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the area in the year preceding the extension year, and the annual mean concentration ofPM 10 in the area for such year must be less than

or equal to the standard. Under this provision, EPA may grant up to two one year extensions ifthese conditions have been met.
B. ReclassificationasSerious Nonattainment

EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA, ofdetermining within six months ofthe applicable attainment date, whether PM 10 nonattainment areas have attained the NAAQS. Section 179(c)(1) ofthe Act provides that these determinations are to bebased upon an area's air quality as ofthe attainment date, and section 188(b)(2) is consistent with this requirement. EPA makes the determinations ofwhether an area's air quality is meeting the PM 10 NAAQS based upon air quality data gathered at monitoring sites in the nonattainment

area and entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). These data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with EPA guidance at40 CFR part 50, Appendix K.

Pursuant to Appendix K, attainment ofthe annual PM 10 standard is achieved when the annual arithmetic mean PM 10 concentration is equal to or less than 50 gg/m 3

.The annual average is determined by first calculating the average PM 10 concentration for each calendar quarter. The annual average is then calculated by averaging the four calendar quarter averages. Attainment of the 24 hour standard is determined by calculating the expected number of exceedances ofthe 150 gg/m 3 limit per year. The 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of exceedances is 1.0 or less. A total of three consecutive years ofclean air quality data is generally necessary to show attainment ofthe 24 hour and annual standards for PM10.A complete year ofair quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, is comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75 percent ofthe scheduled sampling days.

Under section 188(b)(2)(A) ofthe CAA, amoderate PM1 ononattainment
area must be reclassified as seriousby operation oflaw after the statutory attainment date if the Administrator finds that the area has failed to attain the NAAQS. Pursuant to section 188(b)(2)(B), EPA must publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying those

areas that failed to attain the standard and the resulting reclassification.

C.Effect of Reclassification

PM 10 nonattainment areas reclassified
as serious under section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA are required to submit, within 18 months ofthe area's reclassification, SIP revisions providing for the implementation ofbest available control
measures (BACM) no laterthan four years from the date ofreclassification. The SIP also must contain a demonstration that the implementation ofBACM will provide for attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS no later than December 31, 2001. EPA has provided specific guidance on developing serious
area PM 10 SIP revisions in an addendum to the General Preamble to Title Iofthe Clean Air Act. See 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

D. ProposedFindingofFailuretoAttain

On June 7, 1995 EPA proposed to find that the Phoenix Planning Area (PPA) had failed to attain the PM 10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. 60 FR 30046. This proposed finding was based

on PM 10 monitoring data collected by Maricopa County during the years 1992 through 1994. The air quality monitoring data for the PPA showed three violations ofthe 24 hour PM10 NAAQS in 1992 and violations ofthe annual PM 10 NAAQS in 1992 and 1993. The air quality monitoring data are discussed in detail in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 60 FR 30046, 30047. The following table summarizes the data on which EPA has based its finding offailure to attain:

24 hour exceedances Annual exceedances Site Conc. Date 1992 1993

4732 S

. Central, Phoenix

........................................................................ 171 gg/m3 11/20/92 158 gg/m 3 12/2/92 1475 E. Pecos, Chandler

........................................................................ 156 gg/m3 11/20/92 56 gg/m 3 58 gg/m3 

## 21373

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 21373 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

On October 20, 1995, the State requested, under section 188(d) of the CAA, that EPA extend the attainment deadline for the PPA from December 31, 1994 to December 31, 1995. This request

was based on the lack ofrecorded exceedances of the PM 10 NAAQS in 1994. In 1995, however, the PPA recorded two exceedances ofthe 24 hour NAAQS. On June 28, 1995 a concentration of 160 

### gLg/m 3 was recorded at the Chandler monitoring site, and on July 30, 1995 a concentration of252 gLg/m 3 was recorded, also at the Chandler monitoring site. Additionally, the annual average concentration at the Chandler site in 1995 was 57.9 gLg/m 3

. Thus, while the State technically qualified for a one year attainment date extension, the 1995 violations effectively moot this request because the

area cannot qualify for a second extension. Therefore, EPA does not intend to act on the State's extension request. 

### II. Response to Comments on Proposed 

### Finding

During the public comment period on EPA's proposed finding, the Agency received comment letters from: one State legislator; the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ); the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT); the Arizona Motor Transport Association; the Maricopa Association ofGovernments (MAG); and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The issues raised in these comment letters are summarized below and are followed by EPA's responses.
A. EconomicImpactsofEPA'sFinding
Comment:EPA's determination in the proposed rulemaking that a finding of failure to attain the PM10 standard is not subject to certain requirements in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is incorrect, as is EPA's certification that this action does nothave a significant impact on small entities.

Response:Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA is required to determine whether regulatory actions are significant and therefore should be subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review, economic analysis, and the requirements ofthe E.O. The E.O. defines a "significant regulatory action"

as one that is likely to result in a rule that may meet at least one ofthe four criteria identified in section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the rule may "have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities." Sections 202, 203 and 205 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), 2 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1571, requires EPA to assess whether various actions undertaken in association with proposed or final regulations include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §601 et seq., EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C §§ 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction

over populations ofless than 50,000.

Under section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA, EPA findings offailure to attain are based upon air quality considerations, and reclassification ofnonattainment

areas must occur by operation oflaw in light ofcertain air quality conditions. Such findings and reclassification do not, in-and -of-themselves, impose any
new requirements on any sectors ofthe economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements for the differently classified areas are clearly defined, and because those requirements are automatically triggered by classifications that, in turn, are triggered by air quality values, findings offailure to attain and reclassification
cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

This conclusion does not in any way reflect a determination regarding estimated or actual impacts ofa reclassification on Arizona's economy. It is important to understand that the sole regulatory action that EPA is taking under the CAA involves only a factual finding ofwhether the Phoenix area attained the PM10 standards by December 31, 1994, the statutory attainment date for moderate areas. If EPA finds that the area has failed to attain by the deadline, then the area is reclassified as serious, not by EPA, but by operation oflaw. A finding by EPA that an area has failed to timely attain the PM10 standards is based on air quality monitoring data collected by Maricopa County and ADEQ from 1992 through 1994. The statute does not require any action on EPA's part, since the CAA specifies automatic reclassification ofan area as a result of

a finding that the area has not attained the PM-10 standards. See section 188(b)(2). Because EPA's role in making such a finding is essentially ministerial, the Agency has concluded that it does
notimpose any new requirements or mandates on any sector ofthe State economy.

For the above reasons, EPA has determined that the finding offailure to attain being made today would result in

none ofthe effects identified in section 3(f)ofE.O. 12866 and is therefore not

a significant regulatory action, as defined in the E.O. Similarly, EPA has concluded that the finding offailure to attain does not constitute a Federal mandate within the meaning ofthe Unfunded Mandates Act. Furthermore, the Agency has certified that the redesignation ofthe attainment status of

an area under section 107(d) ofthe CAA does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 46 FR 8709 (January 27, 1981). Because the regulatory impact of reclassification under section 188(b) of the CAA is no different substantively from that associated with designations, such actions are also not expected to have significant impacts on small entities.

EPA wishes to emphasize, however, that the reclassification ofthe Phoenix

area is only the first step in developing

a strategy to bring ambient concentrations ofPM 10 in the area to healthful levels. As with the State's moderate area SIP, which EPA approved

on April 10, 1995 (60 FR 18010), development ofa control strategy for the State's serious area SIP will involve an assessment ofthe economic feasibility ofimplementing any particular control

measure. IfArizona determines that a
measure cannot be implemented because it is not economically feasible, the State need onlyprovide EPA with a reasoned justification for that determination. EPA believes there will be sufficient opportunity for ADEQ and other State agencies, local planning agencies, the general public, and the regulated community to assess the economic impacts ofcontrol measure implementation while they develop the serious area SIP.

B. StateMonitoringandModelingStudy
Comment:ADEQ claims that reclassification is not necessary because the State and local governments have undertaken a study to better characterize the sources contributing to the nonattainment problem in the PPA. 

## 21374

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 21374 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

The study will enable the State to define the control measures necessary to attain and maintain the PM 1oNAAQS. As a result the PPA will be able to demonstrate attainment by implementing reasonably available control measures (RACM) rather than BACM.

Response:EPA acknowledges the difficulties in assessing the contributions from various sources to total PM1 oconcentrations and fully supports the State's efforts to accurately identify those sources which have caused the PPA to be in nonattainment ofthe standards. Nonetheless, section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA does not afford EPA any discretion in determining whether the area has in fact attained the PM 1oNAAQS by the statutorily mandated attainment date. EPA regulations generally require three years of ambient monitoring data in order to

assess an area's attainment status. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K. As discussed in section I.D. ofthis notice, based on air quality data collected during the years 1992 through 1994, EPA has determined that the PPA has
not attained the PMlo NAAQS.

Moreover, the State recently reported
two additional violations ofthe PM10 NAAQS at the Chandler monitoring site in 1995. While for the purposes ofthis rulemaking EPA is only considering air quality data from 1992 through 1994, these 1995 violations further support EPA's determination that PPA has failed
to attain the PM10 standard.

C.EPA 's CurrentReview ofthe PM 1o NAA QS
Comment:Reclassification ofthe PPA is untimely in light ofthe pending revision of the PM NAAQS. State and local agencies will have to spend considerable resources to develop aplan for a standard that may no longer be in effect.

Response:Section 109(d)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act requires that "not later than December 31, 1980, and at fiveyear intervals thereafter" EPA review and revise, if warranted, air quality criteria and national ambient air quality standards. EPA is currently under court order to complete its review ofthe particulate matter NAAQS by June 28, 1997.

This review may or may notresult in

areplacement and/or revision ofthe PM 1oNAAQS. The Agency is currently considering the addition ofa new PM NAAQS that targets fine particulate matter, such as particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 2.5 micrometers. However, the Agency is also considering retaining

a PM 10standard. Although the PM 

### NAAQS review process is incomplete at this time, recent epidemiologic studies show consistent positive associations of ambient PM exposure with adverse health effects, including mortality and morbidity. Given the significant health effects associated with PM, vigorous enforcement ofthe current PM1 

### o requirements is critical to ensure protection ofthe public health. Until a revision oftheNAAQS occurs, the current NAAQS and the requirements relating to them remain in force. In the event that a new NAAQS is promulgated, a transition policy that addresses current requirements and

ensures protection ofthepublic health will be developed.
D.Air QualityMonitoring Comment:There should be a more detailed review ofthe circumstances surrounding the location ofthe two monitoring sites which recorded exceedances to insure that the locations

arenot anomalies improperly reflecting local conditions. It would not be appropriate to impose a classification upon the entire region due to what may be anomalies forjust two sites out of nine.

Response:In order to meet Federal monitoring regulations, agencies which operate air monitoring networks are required to design these networks in order to meet certain monitoring objectives. These objectives are to determine: 1)thehighest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the network; 2) representative concentrations in areas ofhigh population density; 3)the impact on ambient pollution levels ofsignificant

sources or source categories; and 4) general background concentration levels. See40 CFRpart 58, Appendix D.

Both the South Phoenix and Chandler sites arelocated in orderto measure PM1 

### oconcentrations in areas ofhigh population density. The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD)and ADEQ, the agencies responsible for operating the pollutant monitoring network in the PPA, conduct an annualreview ofthe monitoring network asrequired by Federal regulations. See 40CFRpart 58.26 and 40 CFRpart 58, Appendix F. EPA believes the South Phoenix and Chandler monitoring stations are correctly sited and meet all applicable Federal requirements. Comment:According to section 2.11 ofthe Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Control, PM1 

### omonitors have aprecision error of+10% when addressing the PM1

### o24 hourNAAQS. Therefore, two ofthe recorded violations, with readings below 165 gtg/ m3, could be within the NAAQS when this error variation is accounted for.

Response:EPA's quality assurance procedures establish minimum acceptable operating limits for PM10 

### sampling equipment. The +10% to which the commenterrefers is not directly related to the final PM 10 

### ambient concentration, but rather to the air flow rate through the PM 1

### osampler. The ambient concentration is calculated from the particle mass collected on a filtermedium, the volume ofair pulled through the filter, and the amount of timethe sampler is operated. The +10% to which the commenter refers is the acceptable range ofdeviation for the air flow rate through the sampler. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes the validity ofthe commenter's concern regarding the +10% threshold. However, this 10% threshold is not an allowance

or a leeway to adjust data, rather it is a limit which ifexceeded alerts the field

or laboratory monitoringpersonnel to a possible sample validity problem. Readings beyond the 10% threshold can
mean heavy filter loading or decreases in the sampler flow rate. Air flow rates beyond this 10% threshold may necessitate invalidating all samples collected sincethe last sampler calibration. See Quality Assurance Handbook for AirPollution Control, section 2.11.3.4, Sample Validation and Documentation.

Comment:According to EPA's Exceptional Event Guideline, high winds are defined as an hourly speed of greater than or equal to 30 mph or gusts equal to or greater than 40 mph with littleor no precipitation. The western regional climate center in Reno, Nevada reported that November 20, 1992 was the windiest day ofthe quarter in the PPA with wind speeds up to 40mph and noprecipitation. Therefore the exceedance recorded on that date (156 gtg/m3) should be classified as an exceptional event. Furthermore, allof the PM1

### oNAAQS violations in the PPA

were impacted by short term construction activities. The Exceptional Event Guideline states that construction and demolition activities are exceptional events.

Response:EPA has established criteria and procedures to identify or "flag" data which may be affected by "exceptional events" in its "Guideline

on the Identification and Use ofAir Quality Data Affected by Exceptional Events," July 1986 (Guideline).Under the flagging system, state and local air pollution control agencies are responsible forinitially identifying and documenting data influenced by exceptional events. These agencies are expected to develop the appropriate 

### 21375

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 21375 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

background information necessary to support a decision to flag an individual piece ofdata. The agencies must then submit the information to EPA for

concurrence. Flagging apiece ofdata or data set does not exclude that data from being used for nonattainment designations or classifications. The actual exclusion would only be allowed if, as a result ofapublic review process, the responsible government agency, in this case EPA, determines that the data

are inappropriate for use in a specific regulatory activity. Neither the MCESD

nor ADEQ requested that these data be flagged as exceptional events, nor were these data proposed to be excluded from any specific regulatory action.

Notwithstanding the fact that the State did not initiate the flagging process, EPA would have evaluated whether the exceedances in question

were affected by exceptional events had the commenter provided documentation demonstrating that they qualified as such. There are basically two issues which mustbe addressed in order to determine whether an exceedance ofthe NAAQS was due to an exceptional
event. First, there must be a link between a specific PM1 ogenerating activity (e.g., forest or structural fire, construction/demolition activity) and the suspect data. Second, there mustbe

a determination that the activity is not likely to recur.

Regarding high winds, the commenter only referenced part ofthe definition in the Guideline ofahigh wind event. The definition in full is "hourly windspeed ofgreater than or equal to 30 mph or gusts equal to or greater than 40 mph, with [little or] no precipitation. The high wind condition with [little or] no precipitation and dry soil must be associated with a significant contribution (estimated to be > 85% by weight) ofcrustal material on the PM sampling medium." The commenter did
not provide any supporting information

on the type ofparticulate matter which contributed to the PM 10 exceedance on November 20, 1992. Furthermore, no information was provided to show that this wind event was itselfexceptional, i.e. that it was not expected to recur.

As to construction activities, the commenter again only sites a portion of the definition ofconstruction/ demolition activities that would qualify

as exceptional events. The Guideline
states that construction/demolition activities that last for only a short period oftime, are within a reasonable distance ofthe monitoring site and that are implementing all reasonable control

measures may be flagged as exceptional events. Flagged data should be limited
to sites that are classified as micro- or 

### middle-scale and downwind with respect to the construction activity. The Chandler monitoring site is classified as
aneighborhood scale site. See 40 CFR part 58, Appendix Dfor an explanation ofthe difference in spatial scales. As with thehigh wind claim, the commenter also did not address the likelihood ofthe construction activity's

recurrence. In the State's approved moderate area PM10 

### SIP, construction activities arerecognized as controllable

sources ofPM 10 

### and are now regulated under Maricopa County Rule 310.

To summarize, the commenter did not provide any supporting information or data showing that the high winds or construction activities did, in fact,have

adirect causal link to thePM10 

### NAAQS exceedances or, ifso, the magnitude of the contribution from these sources. The commenter simply asserted that the high winds and construction activities occurred. Furthermore, the commenter did not address the likelihood ofthe

recurrence ofthese conditions. In fact, the SIP development process is intended toprevent exceedances from anthropogenic activities such as construction byproviding for planning by the State and local community to help ensure such activities adequately mitigate their contribution to PM10 

### air quality problems. Comment:The two locations where violations were recorded are only two of nine SLAMS sites and data from the

seven clean sites should alsobe considered in deciding whether the PPA should be reclassified. The recorded violations are only 14%, 5%, and 4%

over thePM1 

### oNAAQS and these values

arenot "seriously" in excess ofthe PM1 

### o NAAQS.

Response:Maricopa County's nine station network is only a representative sample ofthe PPA's air quality. These nine stations cover 2,920 square miles. Monitoring is only conducted on a one in every six day schedule. Therefore, for every one sample taken, there are five days for which the air quality is unknown. Ifthere were other sites set up to represent conditions similar to those ofthe violating sites, it ispossible that more violations would have been recorded.

Pursuant to 40 CFR,part 50, Appendix K, an exceedance is defined

as avalue which is measured above the level ofthe 24hour standard after rounding to the nearest 10gLg/m 3 

### (i.e. values ending in 5 or greater are rounded up). Therefore, had thehighest recorded values in the 1992to 1994 period been 154gLg/m 3

### or less, the concentrations would not have been considered exceedances oftheNAAQS. However, the PM1

### oconcentrations recorded in the Phoenix area, 156 gtg/ M 3

, 158 gLg/m 3

, and 171 gLg/m 3

, are above that level and are therefore considered exceedances.

Further, the claim that the exceedances were not "seriously in excess" ofthe NAAQS is without validity. The PM 10 NAAQS are set at a level required to protect public health. The standards are designated levels, not ranges, ofPM 10 above which the air quality is considered unhealthy. The reclassification ofthe PPA is based on the fact that violations ofthe standards have occurred, and continue to occur, rather than on the severity ofthe violations.

E. NationalPM 10 Standard
Comment:EPA should not apply a nationwide PM10 standard to an arid Southwest region such as the PPA.

Response:Section 109 ofthe CAA requires EPA to promulgate primary and secondary NAAQS for certain types of air pollutants. These standards are based on criteria which reflect current scientific knowledge ofthe effect of these pollutants on public health and welfare.

On July 1, 1987 EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM1 o.52 FR 24663 (July 1, 1987). While the types of sources and the ability to control them differ from

one area ofthe country to another, the human health effects ofPM10 pollution

are the same whether one resides in New York City or Phoenix. Therefore, in order to protect human health, the standards must be the same nationwide.

However, unlike the NAAQS, the SIP development process is intended to address variability in source types. While the CAA does impose certain minimum control requirements, ultimately it is up to the state and the affected local communities to choose the particular control measures that best address their unique air pollution problem. In developing the control
measures, a state may consider the economic and technological feasibility ofimplementing aparticular control

measure. 

### III.Today's Final Action

EPA is today taking final action to find that the PPA did not attain the PM1 oNAAQS by December 31, 1994, the CAA attainment date for moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas. As aresult of this final finding, the PPA is reclassified by operation oflaw as a serious PM 10 nonattainment area.
IV.Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October4, 1993), EPA is required to determine whether regulatory actions 

## 21376

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 21376 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

are significant and therefore should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the requirements ofthe Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a "significant regulatory action"

as one that is likely to result in a rule that may meet at least one ofthe four criteria identified in section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the rule may "have an annual effect on the economy of$100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities."

The Agency has determined that the finding offailure to attain finalized today would result in none ofthe effects identified in section 3(f). Under section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA, findings offailure to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas are based upon air quality considerations and must occur by operation oflaw in light ofcertain air quality conditions. They do not, in-andof-themselves, impose any new requirements on any sectors ofthe economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically triggered by classifications that, in turn, are triggered by air quality values, findings offailure to attain and reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

V. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §601 et seq., EPA must prepare

aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C §§ 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction

over populations ofless than 50,000.

As discussed in sections II.A. and IV ofthis notice, findings offailure to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas under section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA do not in-and-ofthemselves create any new requirements. Therefore, Icertify that today's final action does not have a significant impact on small entities.
VI. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

assess whether various actions undertaken in association with proposed orfinal regulations include a Federal mandate that may result in 

### estimated costs of$100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate.

EPA believes, as discussed above, that the finding offailure to attain and reclassification ofthe Phoenix Planning Area are factual determinations based upon air quality considerations and
must occur by operation oflaw and, hence, do not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Act.
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

Dated: April 29, 1996. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdm inistrator.

40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:


### PART81-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7407, 7501 7515, 7601.

2. Section 81.303 is amended by revising the table for Arizona-PM-10,
to read as follows:
§81.303 Arizona.

ARIZONA-PM-1 0
Designation Classification Designated Area Date Type Date Type

Cochise County: Paul Spur/Douglas planning area
............................................................... Township23 South, Range 25 East (T23S, R25E): T23S,R26E T23S,R27E T23S,R28E T24S,R25E T24S,R26E T24S,R27E T24S,R28E Santa Cruz County: N

ogales planningarea
................................................................................ The portions of the following Townships which are within the State

of Arizona and lie east of 111 ° longitude:

T23S,R13E T23S,R14E T24S,R13E T24S,R14E Rillito planning area
..................................................................................... 11/15/90 1Nonattainment

......

11/15/90 1Nonattainment

...... 11/15/90 1Moderate.

11/15/90 1Moderate.

11/15/90 1Nonattainment

...... 

### 21377

11/15/90 1Moderate.

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 21377 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations



### ARIZONA-PM-1 0-Continued
Designation Classification Designated Area Date Type Date Type
Townships: T11S, R9E T11S, R10E T11S, R11E T11S, R12E T12S, R8E T12S, R9E T12S, R10E T12S, R11E T12S, R12E Pima County A jo planning area
........................................................................................ TownshipT12S, R6W, and the following sections of Township T12S,

R5W:

a. Sections 6-8 b. Sections 17-20, and
c. Sections 29-32 Maricopa and Pinal Counties Phoenix planning area
................................................................................ The rectangle determined by, and includingT6N, R3W T6N, R7E T2S, R3W T2S, R7E T1N, R8E Yuma County: Yuma planning area
.................................................................................... Townships: T7S-R21W, R22W; T8S-R21W, R22W, R23W, R24W T9S-R21W, R22W, R23W, R24W, R25W; T10S-R21W, R22W, R23W, R24W, R25W Pinal and Gila Counties: H

ayden/Miami planning area
...................................................................... Townships: T4S, R16E T5S, R16E T6S, R16E plus the portion of

Township T3S, R16E that does not lie on the San Carlos Indian Reservation, and the rectangle formed by, and including, Townships

T1N, R13E T1N, R15E T6S, R13E T6S, R15E Gila County (part): Payson: T10N, Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, and 34-36 of R9E; T11N,

Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22- 27, and 34-36 of R9E; T10-11N, R10E; T10N, Sections 4-9, 16-21, and 28-33 of R11E; T11N, Sections 4-9, 16-21, and 28-33 of R11E.. Mohave County (part): Bullhead City: T21N, R20-21W, excluding Lake Mead National Recreation Area; T20N, R20- 22W; T19N, R21-22W excluding Fort Mohave Indian Reservation.. Rest of State

............................................................................................... 11/15/90 1Nonattainment

......

11/15/90 1Nonattainment

......

11/15/90 1Nonattainment

......

11/15/90 1Nonattainment

......

1/20/94 1Nonattainment

......

1/20/94 Nonattainment

......

11/15/90 Unclassifiable. 11/15/90 1Moderate.

6/10/96 1Serious.

11/15/90 1Moderate.

11/15/90 1Moderate.

1/20/94 1Moderate.

1/20/90 1Moderate.

[FRDoc. 96 11736 Filed 5 9 96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 40 CFR Part 180 [PP9F3714/R2214; FRL-5354-1]
RIN2070-AB78 Fenoxaprop-Ethyl; Extension ofStudy Due Date and Time-Limited Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

### ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule extends the time

### limited tolerances for fenoxaprop-ethyl from April 12, 1996 to November 1, 1997. Thistime extension was requested by AgrEvo USA Company to coordinate a delay in initiation ofa repeat oncogenicity study required to change 

### the interim (time-limited) tolerances, required for theuse offenoxaprop-ethyl in the culture ofwheat, to permanent tolerances. The originial petitioner was Hoechst Celanese Corp. ofNorth Somerville, NJ 08876. In 1994 Hoechst Celanese Corp. and NOR-AM Chemical formed apartnership Company, AgrEvo USA Company; and AgrEvo USA 

## 21378

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 21378 1996