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

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have concluded that there 

are no factors in this case that would 

limit the use of a categorical exclusion 

under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. This 

regulation establishes a security zone. A 

final ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check 

List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.507 to read as follows: 

§ 165.507 Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, 

between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. 

(a) Definitions. The Captain of the 

Port, Baltimore, Maryland means the 

Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the Captain 

of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act 

on his or her behalf. 

(b) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the 

bottom, within 250 yards north of the 

north (westbound) span of the William 

P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, and 250 

yards south of the south (eastbound) 

span of the William P. Lane Jr. 

Memorial Bridge, from the western 

shore at Sandy Point to the eastern 

shore at Kent Island, Maryland. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons are 

required to comply with the general 

regulations governing security zones 

found in § 165.33 of this part. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, 

Baltimore, Maryland. 

(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage through the security 

zone must first request authorization 

from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore 

to seek permission to transit the area. 

The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, 

Maryland can be contacted at telephone 

number (410) 576–2693. The Coast 

Guard vessels enforcing this section can 

be contacted on VHF Marine Band 

Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 

light, or other means, the operator of a 

vessel shall proceed as directed. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port, 

Baltimore, Maryland and proceed at the 

minimum speed necessary to maintain a 

safe course while within the zone. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone by Federal, 

State, and local agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced annually on the first 

Sunday in May from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

local time. 

Dated: March 16, 2007. 

Brian D. Kelley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Baltimore, Maryland. 

[FR Doc. E7–5718 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–AZ–0558; FRL–8292–

6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of Arizona; Boundary 

Redesignation; Finding of Attainment 

for Miami Particulate Matter of 10 

Microns or Less (PM10) Nonattainment 

Area; Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act 

Requirements; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve the State of Arizona’s 

boundary redesignation of the Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area into 

two separate PM10 nonattainment areas: 

Hayden and Miami. EPA is also finding 

that the Miami PM10 nonattainment area 

is attaining the PM10 national ambient 

air quality standard, and, based on this 

attainment finding, EPA is determining 

that certain Clean Air Act requirements 

are not applicable for so long as the 

Miami area shows continued attainment 

of the standard based on current, 

publicly available, quality-assured 

monitoring data. EPA is taking this 

action consistent with obligations under 

the Clean Air Act to act on State 

redesignations. Lastly, EPA is correcting 

two errors in previous rulemakings that 

involved the designations of PM10 areas 

within the State of Arizona. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 29, 

2007, without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

April 27, 2007. If adverse comment is 

received, EPA will publish a timely 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14423 

1The effective date of EPA’s October 17, 2006 

final rule revoking the annual-average standard was 

December 18, 2006. Thus, we make no finding in 

this direct final rule relative to the annual-average 

PM10 NAAQS but have included annual-average 

PM10 concentration data for informational purposes 

only. The now-revoked annual-average PM10

NAAQS was set at a level of 50 μg/m 3. 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–AZ–0558 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3579 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air 

Planning, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR–

2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. 

• Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office 

of Air Planning, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, 

Mailcode AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 

p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2006–

AZ–0558. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air Planning, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901, (520) 622–1622, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What NAAQS are Considered in this 

Action? 

B. What is the Designation and 

Classification of this PM10

Nonattainment Area? 

II. Boundary Redesignation 

A. What Did the State Submit? 

B. How Does EPA Evaluate Boundary 

Redesignations? 

C. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 

Submittal? 

D. What Are the Implications of EPA’s 

Approval of the State’s Boundary 

Redesignation? 

III. Finding of Attainment for Miami Area 

and Determination Regarding Applicability 

of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements 

A. How do we Make Attainment 

Determinations? 

B. What is the Basis for EPA’s 

Determination that the Miami Area is 

Attaining the PM10 NAAQS? 

C. What Are the Applicable Planning 

Requirements for the Miami Area as a 

Result of EPA’s Attainment 

Determination? 

IV. Corrections to the Arizona PM10 Table in 

40 CFR Part 81 

V. EPA’s Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What NAAQS Are Considered in this 

Action? 

National ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) are thresholds for certain 

ambient air pollutants set by EPA under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) to 

protect public health and welfare. 

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 10 

micrometers, or PM10, is the subject of 

this action. PM10 is among the ambient 

air pollutants for which EPA has 

established NAAQS. PM10 causes 

adverse health effects by penetrating 

deep in the lungs, aggravating the 

cardiopulmonary system. Children, the 

elderly, and people with asthma and 

heart conditions are the most 

vulnerable. 

In 1971, EPA promulgated the first 

NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and 

defined the standard in terms of an 

indicator referred to as ‘‘total suspended 

particulate,’’ or ‘‘TSP,’’ which roughly 

included all particles with diameters of 

30 microns or less. In 1987, EPA 

established new PM NAAQS and 

defined the new standards in terms of 

PM10 instead of TSP. See 52 FR 24634 

(July 1, 1987). Ten years later, in 1997, 

EPA established another PM NAAQS 

and defined this new standard in terms 

of particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers, or PM2.5, but in our 

1997 final rule, we decided to retain a 

PM10 NAAQS as well. See 62 FR 38652 

(July 18, 1997). In 2006, EPA completed 

a review of both the PM2.5 NAAQS and 

PM10 NAAQS and, among other actions, 

decided to retain the 24-hour-average 

PM10 standard at its current level but to 

revoke the annual-average PM10

standard. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 

2006). The level of the primary (i.e., 

public health) PM10 standard is 150 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3), 

24-hour average concentration.1 See 40 

CFR 50.6. The secondary PM10 standard, 

promulgated to protect against adverse 

welfare effects, is identical to the 

primary standard. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14424 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2Hayden and Miami are towns located near 

significant mining and copper smelting activities in 

east central Arizona, roughly 70 to 80 miles eastsoutheast of Phoenix. Miami is located in Gila 

County; Hayden straddles the boundary between 

Gila County and Pinal County approximately 27 

miles south of Miami. 

3The Hayden/Miami ‘‘Group I’’ area 

encompassed the following townships: T1N, R13E; 

T1N, R14E; T1N, R15E; T1S, R13E; T1S, R14E; T1S, 

R141⁄22E; T1S, R15E; T2S, R13E; T2S, R14E; T2S, 

R15E; T3S, R13E; T3S, R14E; T3S, R15E; T3S, R16E 

(except that portion in the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation); T4S, R13E; T4S, R14E; T4S, R15E; 

T4S, R16E; T5S, R13E; T5S, R14E; T5S, R15E; T5S, 

R16E; T6S, R13E; T6S, R14E; T6S, R15E; and T6S, 

R16E. 

4Boundary changes are an inherent part of a 

designation or redesignation of an area under the 

CAA. See CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). 

B. What is the Designation and 

Classification of this PM10

Nonattainment Area? 

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1977, and due to recorded violations 

of the former TSP-defined NAAQS and 

the location of major industrial sources, 

EPA designated one township in each of 

the Hayden and Miami areas as separate 

nonattainment areas for TSP (44 FR 

21261, April 10, 1979, as corrected at 44 

FR 53081, September 12, 1979).2 As 

noted above, in 1987, we revised the PM 

NAAQS to include only particulate 

matter of a size range less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 microns (PM10). As part 

of the implementation policy for the 

new standards, where insufficient PM10

data were available, EPA categorized 

areas based on their probability of 

violating the standard using TSP data. 

The categories were: Group I, areas with 

a high probability of violating the 

standards; Group II, areas with a 

moderate probability of violating; and 

Group III, areas that were likely to be 

attaining the standards. 

In 1987, EPA identified the ‘‘Hayden/ 

Miami area’’ as one of the Group I areas 

for PM10. See 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 

1987). In a 1990 clarification, we 

defined the geographic area of the 

combined Hayden/Miami Group I area 

as including all or part of 26 contiguous 

townships in and around the towns of 

Hayden and Miami (55 FR 45799, 

October 31, 1990).3

Subsequent to our 1990 clarification 

and upon enactment of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, all ‘‘Group I’’ 

areas, such as the Hayden/Miami 

planning area, were designated as 

‘‘nonattainment’’ for the PM10 NAAQS 

by operation of law and classified as 

‘‘moderate.’’ See CAA sections 

107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a). In March 1991, 

EPA announced the designations and 

classifications of areas with respect to 

PM10 NAAQS that occurred by 

operation of law upon enactment of the 

1990 Amendments to the CAA. See 56 

FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). In August 

1991, EPA rejected challenges made by 

the State of Arizona and industry to the 

geographic size of the Hayden/Miami 

PM10 nonattainment area. See 56 FR 

37654 (August 8, 1991). Later that same 

year, we codified the PM10

nonattainment designations and 

moderate area classifications in 40 CFR 

part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 

1991). For ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment 

areas such as the Hayden/Miami PM10

nonattainment area, CAA section 188(c) 

of the 1990 Amended Act establishes an 

attainment date of December 31, 1994. 

Along with the new designations, 

classifications, and attainment dates, the 

CAA as amended in 1990 also 

established new planning requirements. 

In accordance with section 189(a) of the 

CAA, Arizona was required to submit a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

by November 15, 1991 demonstrating 

attainment of the PM10 standards and 

providing for implementation of 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) by December 31, 1994 for the 

Hayden/Miami area. The State of 

Arizona relied upon a SIP revision 

(‘‘Final PM–10 State Implementation 

Plan for the Hayden Group I Area’’ 

dated September 1989) that it had 

submitted on October 16, 1989 to meet 

the requirements of the CAA as 

amended in 1990 for ‘‘moderate’’ PM10

nonattainment areas. 

In 1994, we proposed a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

Arizona’s 1989 SIP revision. See 59 FR 

36116 (July 15, 1994). The primary 

reason for the proposed limited 

disapproval was that the plan addressed 

only the Hayden portion of the Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area. In 

response, by letter dated November 10, 

1994, the Governor’s designee for CAA 

matters, the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 

submitted a formal petition for 

rulemaking to realign the Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area 

boundary. Specifically, ADEQ requested 

that EPA correct the purported error the 

Agency had made in including the 

Miami area in the original Group I area 

in 1987 and called for exclusion of the 

northern third of the area (i.e., the 

Miami portion) from the nonattainment 

area. We have not taken final action on 

our 1994 proposed limited approval/ 

limited disapproval of ADEQ’s 1989 SIP 

revision. In today’s direct final rule, we 

again are taking no action on ADEQ’s 

1989 SIP revision but will address 

applicable CAA requirements for the 

Hayden area in a future rulemaking. For 

the Miami area, in this direct final rule, 

we are making an attainment finding 

and a determination regarding 

applicability of certain CAA 

requirements (see section III, below). 

On June 20, 2006, under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D), ADEQ submitted a request 

for a boundary redesignation of the 

Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area to EPA for approval. In contrast 

with ADEQ’s 1994 petition, ADEQ’s 

2006 boundary redesignation would not 

reduce the overall size of the area 

designated as nonattainment for PM10

but would simply divide a single PM10

nonattainment area into two PM10

nonattainment areas. We consider 

ADEQ’s June 20, 2006 boundary 

redesignation (discussed in the 

following section of this direct final 

rule) to supersede the State’s 1994 

petition and thus plan no further action 

on that earlier request. 

II. Boundary Redesignation 

A. What Did the State Submit? 

On June 20, 2006, ADEQ submitted to 

EPA under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) a 

request for a boundary redesignation of 

the Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area into two separate, but adjoining, 

PM10 nonattainment areas, namely, the 

Hayden nonattainment area and the 

Miami nonattainment area. ADEQ 

enclosed a technical justification report 

entitled, ‘‘Request to Revise the Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Boundary’’ (May 2006), in support of 

this boundary redesignation. ADEQ’s 

technical justification report includes a 

discussion of the regulatory background 

and the topographical and 

meteorological characteristics of the 

Hayden and Miami areas. The report 

also includes tables summarizing 

emission inventory and ambient air 

quality data and maps showing the 

existing nonattainment area boundaries, 

topographical features, the locations of 

permitted emissions sources, and the 

boundary delineating the new Miami 

and Hayden PM10 nonattainment areas. 

Together, these two new PM10

nonattainment areas would cover the 

same geographic area as the original 

Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area. ADEQ’s boundary separating the 

Miami and Hayden PM10 areas runs 

east-west in steps using township and 

section identifiers to roughly trace the 

ridgeline of the Pinal Mountains. 

B. How Does EPA Evaluate Boundary 

Redesignations? 

Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the 

CAA, the Governor of any State may, on 

the Governor’s own motion, submit to 

EPA a revised designation of any area or 

portion thereof within the State.4 EPA is 

required to approve or deny a submittal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14425 

for redesignation within 18 months of 

receipt. The type of redesignation that 

ADEQ submitted on June 20, 2006 

involves just a boundary change and 

does not involve a change in status (i.e., 

does not involve a change from 

‘‘nonattainment,’’ for example, to 

‘‘attainment’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’) of any 

area. In this notice, we refer to the 

former type of redesignation as a 

‘‘boundary redesignation.’’

In determining whether to approve or 

deny a State’s submittal of a boundary 

redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(D), EPA uses the same factors 

Congress directed EPA to consider when 

the Agency initiates a revision to a 

designation of an area on its own 

motion under section 107(d)(3)(A). 

These factors include ‘‘air quality data, 

planning and control considerations, or 

any other air quality-related 

considerations the Administrator deems 

appropriate.’’ See CAA section 

107(d)(3)(A). In addition, because 

ADEQ’s redesignation involves a 

nonattainment area, we also take into 

account CAA section 107(d)(1)(A), 

which provides that nonattainment 

areas are to include the geographic area 

that does not meet, or that contributes 

to ambient air quality in a nearby area 

that does not meet, the NAAQS for a 

given pollutant. 

C. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the 

State’s Submittal? 

We have reviewed and evaluated 

ADEQ’s technical justification report 

and conclude that ADEQ has adequately 

demonstrated that the Miami and 

Hayden PM10 nonattainment areas lie in 

separate airsheds in which air quality is 

determined by topographical and 

meteorological factors and local 

emissions sources specific to each 

airshed with no significant PM10

transport between the two areas. We 

also conclude that ADEQ’s division of 

the two areas essentially along the 

ridgeline of the Pinal Mountains follows 

logically from the identification of these 

separate airsheds. As such, each new 

PM10 nonattainment area encompasses 

the geographic area of historic PM10 (or, 

in the case of Miami, TSP) NAAQS 

violations as well as the sources which 

contributed to those violations. 

Therefore, we are approving the State’s 

boundary redesignation of the Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area and are 

thereby establishing separate Hayden 

and Miami PM10 nonattainment areas. 

We provide further detail on our 

evaluation in the paragraphs that follow. 

Topography 

As noted previously, the Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area is 

located in east central Arizona. The 

town of Hayden is situated in the 

southern portion of the nonattainment 

area, approximately 27 miles south of 

the town of Miami, which is located in 

the northern portion of the 

nonattainment area. Between the two 

towns lie the predominant geographic 

features of the nonattainment area: the 

Pinal, Mescal, and Dripping Spring 

Mountain ranges. 

Airsheds refer to areas with common 

weather or meteorological conditions 

and sources of air pollution. Generally 

speaking, an airshed contains source 

and receptor areas. The Pinal and 

Mescal Mountains, the highest of the 

three mountain ranges in this area, form 

a boundary between the Lower Salt 

River Airshed and the Gila River 

Airshed. These two interconnecting 

ranges separate the southern or Hayden 

portion of the nonattainment area from 

the northern or Miami portion. Figure 1 

in the State’s technical justification 

report illustrates the topographical 

features in the region. 

Elevations in the Pinal and Mescal 

Mountains are well over 5,000 feet 

above sea level with numerous peaks 

above 6,000 feet. Pinal Peak is the 

highest point at 7,848 feet. Elevational 

differences between lower elevations in 

the southern portion of the 

nonattainment area and the airshed 

boundary (i.e., the ridgeline of the Pinal 

Mountains) generally range between 

4,000 and 6,000 feet. Elevational 

differences between the northern 

portion of the nonattainment area and 

the airshed boundary (ridgeline of the 

Pinal Mountains) generally range 

between 2,000 and 4,000 feet. 

Meteorology 

The speed and direction of air 

pollutant transport in both the Lower 

Salt River Airshed (Miami area) and the 

Gila River Airshed (Hayden area) are 

greatly influenced by local topography. 

Both airsheds contain extensive areas of 

complex terrain that is responsible for 

complicated wind patterns. 

Hayden is located in a relatively 

narrow portion of the Gila River valley, 

immediately downstream from the 

confluence of the Gila and San Pedro 

Rivers. The Dripping Spring Mountains 

are located northeast of Hayden. In 

ADEQ’s technical justification report, 

wind patterns in Hayden, where a 

number of stationary sources are 

located, are described as distinctly upvalley/down-valley. Such patterns are 

typical of mountainous areas, and are 

characterized by up-valley or up-slope 

flows during the day and down-valley 

or down-slope winds during the night. 

ADEQ notes that low southeasterly 

winds in the Gila River valley from 

nighttime down-slope or drainage flow 

can combine with stable atmospheric 

conditions to cause elevated pollutant 

concentrations within low lying areas. 

Up-slope convection during the day 

increases dispersion and flow out of the 

low lying areas. Under normal daytime 

conditions, surface winds become westsouthwesterly to west-northwesterly 

(up-valley) in the Hayden area, 

replacing nighttime down-slope winds 

as the atmosphere becomes less stable. 

This pattern is repeated locally 

throughout much of the complex terrain 

found in the southern portion of the 

Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area. 

Due to widespread areas of complex 

terrain, a similar up-valley/down-valley 

pattern is found throughout much of the 

northern portion of the Hayden/Miami 

PM10 nonattainment area, where Miami 

is located. Miami is located along U.S. 

Highway 60 in a steep canyon of the 

Pinal Mountains. As described for 

Hayden, Miami is similarly influenced 

by up-slope/down-slope wind patterns. 

Generally, the Miami area exhibits a 

diurnal pattern of having a stronger 

average easterly component to nighttime 

airflow with a westerly component 

evident during the day. 

ADEQ’s technical justification report 

notes that stronger regional air flow can 

at times override local patterns and 

overcome elevational differences, and 

that, under these conditions, direction 

of flow can vary. However, ADEQ notes 

also that mixing, dispersion, and 

dilution of emissions are increased 

under these conditions, especially with 

distance. Thus, localized complex 

terrain windflow patterns are the 

primary forces affecting dispersion from 

sources within each of the Hayden and 

Miami areas. We agree with ADEQ’s 

conclusion that the greater emissions 

impacts are local, and any cross-airshed 

boundary contributions that may occur 

are minimal relative to local impacts. 

Locations of Emissions Sources 

The topographical and meteorological 

characteristics described above support 

the conclusion that Hayden and Miami 

lie in separate airsheds with minimal 

PM10 pollutant transport between the 

two. However, ADEQ also provides 

information on the locations and 

magnitude of permitted PM10 sources in 

the two areas that lends further support 

to this conclusion. 

ADEQ notes that the majority of 

permitted sources in the Hayden/Miami 

PM10 nonattainment area are associated 

with mining and smelting activities. 

These sources are located primarily in 

the extreme south and north of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14426 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

5ADEQ estimates that, in 2004, permitted sources 

in Hayden emitted 1,974 tons of PM10 or 84 percent 

of total nonattainment area PM10 emissions. 

Emissions for Miami area sources totaled 375 tons 

or 16 percent of total nonattainment area emissions, 

and about one-fifth of Hayden area emissions. As 

expected in areas where local topographical and 

meteorological factors are the primary determinants 

of ambient air conditions and given the relative 

PM10 source strengths in the two areas, PM10

monitors in the Hayden area record higher PM10

concentrations than those in the Miami area. For 

example, whereas violations of both the 24-hour 

and now-revoked annual PM10 NAAQS have been 

recorded in the Hayden area (although none in 

recent years), no PM10 violations have ever been 

recorded in the Miami area. 

6We note that our action here today is consistent 

with prior EPA rulemakings redesignating PM10

nonattainment areas into multiple nonattainment 

areas that together cover the same geographic area 

as the original nonattainment area. See, e.g., 63 FR 

59722 (November 5, 1998), involving the division 

of a PM10 nonattainment area in Idaho into two 

areas delineated by the boundary between State 

lands and the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and 67 

FR 50805 (August 6, 2002), corrected at 67 FR 

59005 (September 19, 2002), involving the division 

of a PM10 nonattainment area in California into 

three areas delineated by the boundaries of Inyo, 

Kern and San Bernardino counties. 

7See EPA Memorandum, ‘‘Use of Special Purpose 

Monitoring Data,’’ from John S. Seitz, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

August 22, 1997. 

Hayden/Miami nonattainment area near 

the two mining towns, Hayden and 

Miami.5 Hayden area sources are 

clustered primarily in lower elevation 

areas in the southern portion of the 

nonattainment area, south of the 

Township 2 South/Township 3 South 

boundary. Miami area sources are 

located generally north of the Township 

1 North/Township 1 South line. The 

central portion of the nonattainment 

area, dominated by the Pinal and Mescal 

Mountain ranges that divide the lower 

elevation areas to the north and south, 

contains no permitted stationary 

sources. This buffer between the two 

concentrations of emissions sources to 

the south and north further minimizes 

the possibility of significant PM10

pollutant transport between the Hayden 

and Miami areas. 

Planning Considerations 

ADEQ notes that dividing the single 

PM10 nonattainment area into two areas 

would facilitate air quality management 

by enabling separate analyses that 

reflect local air transport patterns and 

the development of control strategies 

and planning processes specific to each 

area. While we find that the existence of 

a single PM10 air quality planning area 

does not preclude separate analyses and 

development of subarea-specific control 

strategies, we do recognize that dividing 

the single area into two would allow for 

de-coupling of the air quality planning 

processes for the Hayden and Miami 

areas, thereby allowing one of the two 

areas to seek redesignation and to begin 

the maintenance phase of CAA planning 

sooner than might otherwise be 

possible. 

Conclusion 

Based on our review of ADEQ’s 

technical justification report and other 

available information, we find that 

ADEQ has sufficiently demonstrated 

that the Miami and Hayden areas lie in 

separate airsheds in which local 

topographical and meteorological 

factors and local emissions sources 

determine ambient PM10 conditions and 

between which PM10 pollutant transport 

is minimal. The concentration of PM10

emissions sources to the south and 

north ends of the Hayden/Miami PM10

nonattainment area adds separation 

distance to the list of factors that 

minimize the potential for PM10

pollutant transport between the Miami 

and Hayden areas. We also find that 

dividing the single area into two would 

be beneficial from a planning 

perspective by allowing one of the areas 

to proceed to the maintenance phase of 

air quality planning under the CAA 

sooner than might otherwise be 

possible.6

D. What Are the Implications of EPA’s 

Approval of the State’s Boundary 

Redesignation? 

In approving ADEQ’s boundary 

redesignation of the Hayden/Miami 

PM10 nonattainment area into two areas, 

we approve ADEQ’s boundary, which 

roughly traces the ridgeline of the Pinal 

Mountains. 

The new Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area encompasses all or part of the 

following seven townships: T1N, R13E; 

T1N, R14E; T1N, R15E; T1S, R13E 

(sections 1–6); T1S, R14E (sections 1–

24); T1S, R141⁄2E; and T1S, R15E. The 

new Hayden PM10 nonattainment area 

encompasses all or part of the following 

21 townships: T1S, R13E (sections 7–

36); T1S, R14E (sections 25–36); T2S, 

R13E; T2S, R14E; T2S, R15E; T3S, R13E; 

T3S, R14E; T3S, R15E; T3S, R16E 

(except that portion in the San Carlos 

Indian Reservation); T4S, R13E; T4S, 

R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E; T5S, R13E; 

T5S, R14E; T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E; T6S, 

R13E; T6S, R14E; T6S, R15E; and T6S, 

R16E. 

Together, the two new PM10

nonattainment areas cover the same 

geographic area as the original Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area. Both of 

the new PM10 nonattainment areas 

retain the ‘‘moderate’’ classification 

associated with the Hayden/Miami PM10

nonattainment area. 

III. Finding of Attainment for Miami 

Area and Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

A. How Do We Make Attainment 

Determinations? 

Generally, we will determine whether 

an area’s air quality meets the PM10

NAAQS based upon data gathered at 

established state and local air 

monitoring stations (SLAMS) and 

national air monitoring stations (NAMS) 

in the nonattainment area and entered 

into EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data entered into AQS have 

been determined to meet Federal 

monitoring requirements (see 40 CFR 

50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 

CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices 

A and B) and may be used to determine 

the attainment status of areas. We will 

also consider air quality data from other 

air monitoring stations in the 

nonattainment area, such as Special 

Purpose Monitors (SPM), some of which 

are run by industrial sources, provided 

that the stations meet the Federal 

monitoring requirements for SLAMS 

and that the data is publicly available.7

All data are reviewed to determine the 

area’s air quality status in accordance 

with our guidance at 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

Attainment of the 24-hour standard is 

determined by calculating the expected 

number of days in a year with PM10

concentrations greater than 150 μg/m3. 

The 24-hour standard is attained when 

the expected number of days with levels 

above 150 μg/m3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one. 

Three consecutive years of air quality 

data are necessary to show attainment of 

the PM10 NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. A complete year of air 

quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, is composed of all 

four calendar quarters with each quarter 

containing data from at least 75 percent 

of the scheduled sampling days. 

B. What Is the Basis for EPA’s 

Determination that the Miami Area Is 

Attaining the PM10 NAAQS? 

Beginning in 1987, PM10 has been 

monitored at seven different sites in the 

Miami area. ADEQ operated some of 

these PM10 monitoring sites and the 

owner and operator of the primary 

copper smelter (i.e., Phelps-Dodge 

Miami, Inc. or ‘‘Phelps-Dodge’’), which 

is the largest single industrial source of 

emissions in the area, operated others. 

Different monitoring locations were 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14427 

8 ‘‘General Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’

(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, as supplemented 57 

FR 18070, April 28, 1992). 

selected in an effort to locate the 

maximum PM10 impacts from the 

smelter. Since 1991, two monitors have 

remained at their current locations: the 

Golf Course monitor and the Ridgeline 

monitor. Both are operated by PhelpsDodge and are considered Special 

Purpose Monitors (SPMs). ADEQ ended 

PM10 monitoring at its Nolan Ranch site 

(also known as ‘‘Miami South’’ or 

‘‘Jones Ranch’’) in 1994 and no longer 

operates any PM10 monitor in the Miami 

area. No violations of the PM10 NAAQS 

have been monitored at any of the seven 

monitoring sites in the Miami area since 

monitoring began in 1987. 

The PM10 data collected by PhelpsDodge at the two SPMs (i.e., the Golf 

Course and Ridgeline sites) are not 

normally certified by ADEQ and entered 

into AQS, but to provide for this 

attainment finding, ADEQ worked with 

Phelps-Dodge to certify PM10

monitoring data collected over the past 

several years and to enter the certified 

data into AQS. Table 1 provides a 

summary of the data collected at the 

Golf Course and Ridgeline sites during 

the 2003–2005 period. 

Phelps-Dodge collected the PM10 data 

shown in Table 1 below using GrasebyAnderson Dichotomous samplers, 

devices designated by EPA as a manual 

reference method sampler. The samplers 

operated on an approved operating 

schedule of once every six days and the 

data sets meet EPA requirements for 75 

percent data capture as discussed in 40 

CFR 50, appendix K. ADEQ has 

reviewed the operation and 

maintenance records for these monitors 

and has certified that the data collected 

by Phelps-Dodge meets EPA’s quality 

assurance requirements. 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF 24 HOUR AND ANNUAL PM10 CONCENTRATIONS (μG/M3) FOR MIAMI, 2003–2005 

Year 

PM10 Concentrations 

Ridgeline Golf Course 

24-hr max Annual 

average 

3 year annual 

average 24-hr max Annual average 

3 year annual 

average 

2003 ......................................................... 59 14.6 53 20.7 

2004 ......................................................... 26 10.2 40 16.4 

2005 ......................................................... 23 12.4 12.4 40 21.0 19.4 

Note: Data for the annual-average are 

included in this table for informational 

purposes only because the annual-average 

PM10 standard has been revoked. The former 

annual-average PM10 standard was attained 

when the annual arithmetic mean PM10

concentration over a three-year period is 

equal to or less than 50 μg/m3. We note that 

the Miami area would have been found to 

attain the annual standard as well as the 24- 

hour standard had the former not been 

revoked. 

As noted above, the 24-hour PM10

standard is attained when the expected 

number of days with levels above 150 

μg/m3 (averaged over a three-year 

period) is less than or equal to one. 

Based on the data summarized in table 

1, above, we find no exceedances of the 

24-hour PM10 standard for the 2003 to 

2005 period and thus the expected 

number of days with levels above 150 

μg/m3 (averaged over that three-year 

period) is zero. As such, we find that 

Miami is attaining the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. 

C. What Are the Applicable Planning 

Requirements for the Miami Area as a 

Result of EPA’s Attainment 

Determination? 

The air quality planning requirements 

for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, 

such as the Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area, are set out in part D, subparts 1 

and 4 of title I of the Act. We have 

issued guidance in a General Preamble 8

describing how we will review SIPs and 

SIP revisions submitted under title I of 

the Act, including those containing 

moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP 

provisions. 

In some designated nonattainment 

areas, monitored data demonstrates that 

the NAAQS has already been achieved. 

Based on its interpretation of the Act, 

EPA has determined that certain 

requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 

2 (of title I) of the Act do not apply and 

therefore do not require certain 

submissions for an area that has attained 

the NAAQS. These include reasonable 

further progress (RFP) requirements, 

attainment demonstrations and 

contingency measures, because these 

provisions have the purpose of helping 

achieve attainment of the NAAQS. 

EPA’s Clean Data Policy is the subject 

of two memoranda setting forth our 

interpretation of the provisions of the 

Act as they apply to areas that have 

attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also 

finalized the statutory interpretation set 

forth in the policy in a final rule, 40 

CFR 51.918, as part of its ‘‘Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

2’’ (Phase 2 Final Rule). See discussion 

in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 

71645–71646 (November 29, 2005). EPA 

believes that the legal bases set forth in 

detail in our Phase 2 Final Rule; our 

May 10, 1995 memorandum from John 

S. Seitz, entitled ‘‘Reasonable Further 

Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 

and Related Requirements for Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (Seitz memo); and our 

December 14, 2004 memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page entitled ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (Page 

memo) are equally pertinent to the 

interpretation of provisions of subparts 

1 and 4 applicable to PM10. EPA’s 

interpretation of how the provisions of 

the Act apply to areas with ‘‘clean data’’

is not logically limited to ozone and 

PM2.5, because the rationale is not 

dependent upon the type of pollutant. 

Our interpretation that an area that is 

attaining the standard is relieved of 

obligations to demonstrate RFP and to 

provide an attainment demonstration 

and contingency measures pursuant to 

part D of the CAA, pertains whether the 

standard is PM10, ozone, or PM2.5. 

The reasons for relieving an area that 

has attained the relevant standard of 

certain part D, subparts 1 and 2 

obligations, applies equally to part D, 

subpart 4, which contains specific 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

provisions for PM10 nonattainment 

areas. As we have explained in the 

Phase 2 Final Rule and our ozone and 

PM2.5 clean data memoranda, EPA 

believes it is reasonable to interpret 

provisions regarding RFP and 

attainment demonstrations, along with 

related requirements, so as not to 

require SIP submissions if an area 

subject to those requirements is already 

attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment of 

the NAAQS is demonstrated with three 

consecutive years of complete, qualityVerDate Aug<31>2005 16:03 Mar 27, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM 28MRR1

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14428 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

9Thus, we believe that it is a distinction without 

a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP 

requirement as one to be achieved until an area is 

‘‘redesignated attainment’’, as opposed to section 

172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the 

requirement pertains, or the ozone nonattainment 

area RFP requirements in sections 182(b)(1) or 182 

(c)(2), which refer to the RFP requirements as 

applying until the ‘‘attainment date,’’ since section 

189(c)(1) defines RFP by reference to section 171(1) 

of the Act. Reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, 

as with the general RFP requirements in section 

172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of 

section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific 

requirements may only be required ‘‘for the purpose 

of ensuring attainment of the applicable national 

ambient air quality standard by the applicable 

date.’’ 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As discussed in 

the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP 

requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in 

section 171(1), and incorporated in section 

189(c)(1), to be a requirement that no longer applies 

once the standard has been attained. 

assured air quality monitoring data). 

Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals 

have upheld EPA rulemakings applying 

its interpretation of subparts 1 and 2 

with respect to ozone. Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004); Our Children’s Earth 

Foundation v. EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th 

Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum 

opinion). It has been EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation that the general 

provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the 

Act (sections 171 and 172) do not 

require the submission of SIP revisions 

concerning RFP for areas already 

attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the 

General Preamble, we stated: 

[R]equirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57 

FR at 13564. 

EPA believes the same reasoning 

applies to the PM10 provisions of part D, 

subpart 4. 

With respect to RFP, section 171(1) 

states that, for purposes of part D of title 

I, RFP ‘‘means such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required by this part 

or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ Thus, 

whether dealing with the general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2), the 

ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific 

RFP requirements for PM10 areas of part 

D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the 

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date. Section 189(c)(1) states that: 

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment 

submitted to the Administrator for approval 

under this subpart shall contain quantitative 

milestones which are to be achieved every 3 

years until the area is redesignated 

attainment and which demonstrate 

reasonable further progress, as defined in 

section 7501(1) of this title, toward 

attainment by the applicable date. 

Although this section states that 

revisions shall contain milestones 

which are to be achieved until the area 

is redesignated to attainment, such 

milestones are designed to show 

reasonable further progress ‘‘toward 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date’’, as defined by section 171. Thus, 

it is clear that once the area has attained 

the standard, no further milestones are 

necessary or meaningful. This 

interpretation is supported by language 

in section 189(c)(3), which mandates 

that a state that fails to achieve a 

milestone must submit a plan that 

assures that the state will achieve the 

next milestone or attain the NAAQS if 

there is no next milestone. Section 

189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement 

to submit and achieve milestones does 

not continue after attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

In the General Preamble, we noted 

with respect to section 189(c) that ‘‘the 

purpose of the milestone requirement is 

to ‘provide for emission reductions 

adequate to achieve the standards by the 

applicable attainment date’ (H.R. Rep. 

No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 

(1990)).’’ 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992). 

If an area has in fact attained the 

standard, the stated purpose of the RFP 

requirement will have already been 

fulfilled.9 EPA took this position with 

respect to the general RFP requirement 

of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble and also in the May 

10, 1995 memorandum with respect to 

the requirements of sections 182(b) and 

(c). We are extending that interpretation 

to the specific provisions of part D, 

subpart 4. In the General Preamble, we 

stated, in the context of a discussion of 

the requirements applicable to the 

evaluation of requests to redesignate 

nonattainment areas to attainment, that 

the ‘‘requirements for RFP will not 

apply in evaluating a request for 

redesignation to attainment since, at a 

minimum, the air quality data for the 

area must show that the area has already 

attained. Showing that the State will 

make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that 

point.’’ (57 FR 13564). See also our 

September 4, 1992 memorandum from 

John Calcagni, entitled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ (Calcagni memo), 

p. 6. 

Similarly, the requirements of section 

189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no 

longer apply so long as an area has 

attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) 

provides in relevant part that: 

Not later than 90 days after the date on 

which a milestone applicable to the area 

occurs, each State in which all or part of such 

area is located shall submit to the 

Administrator a demonstration * * * that the 

milestone has been met. 

Where the area has attained the 

standard and there are no further 

milestones, there is no further 

requirement to make a submission 

showing that such milestones have been 

met. As noted above, this is consistent 

with the position that EPA took with 

respect to the general RFP requirement 

of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble and also in the May 

10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with 

respect to the requirements of section 

182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz 

memorandum, EPA also noted that 

section 182(g), the milestone 

requirement of Subpart 2, which is 

analogous to provisions in section 

189(c), is suspended upon a 

determination that an area has attained. 

The memorandum, also citing 

additional provisions related to 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements, stated: 

Inasmuch as each of these requirements is 

linked with the attainment demonstration or 

RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 

182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the 

requirement to submit the underlying 

attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it 

need not submit the related SIP submission 

either. 

1995 Seitz memorandum at 5. 

With respect to the attainment 

demonstration requirements of section 

189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale 

leads to the same result. Section 

189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan 

provide for ‘‘a demonstration (including 

air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will 

provide for attainment by the applicable 

attainment date * * *.’’ As with the 

RFP requirements, if an area is already 

monitoring attainment of the standard, 

EPA believes there is no need for an 

area to make a further submission 

containing additional measures to 

achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the 

section 172(c) requirements provided by 

EPA in the General Preamble, the Page 

memo, and the section 182(b) and (c) 

requirements set forth in the Seitz 

memo. As EPA stated in the General 

Preamble, no other measures to provide 

for attainment would be needed by areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment 

since ‘‘attainment will have been 

reached.’’ (57 FR at 13564). 

Other SIP submission requirements 

are linked with these attainment 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14429 

10The EPA’s interpretation that the statute only 

requires implementation of RACM measures that 

would advance attainment was upheld by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

(Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743–745 (5th Cir. 

2002), and by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 

155, 162–163 (DC Cir. 2002)). 

11 In some prior rulemakings involving the Clean 

Data Policy and PM10, EPA has applied criteria in 

addition to that of attainment of the standard. See, 

e.g., 67 FR 43020 (June 26, 2002). EPA does not 

believe that those additional criteria are required by 

statute or are necessary for application of the policy 

for PM10 areas, and does not employ them in 

applying the policy to ozone and PM2.5 areas. EPA 

intends to make its application of the policy 

consistent for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, and does not 

intend to require an area to meet additional criteria 

for PM10.

12We note that our application of the Clean Data 

Policy to the Miami PM10 nonattainment area is 

consistent with actions we have taken for other 

PM10 nonattainment areas that were also attaining 

the standard. See 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 

2006)(Ajo, Arizona area); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 

2006)(Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023 (July 14, 

2006)(Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 

(August 8, 2006)(Rillito, Arizona area); and 71 FR 

63642 (October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin Valley, 

California area). 

demonstration and RFP requirements, 

and similar reasoning applies to them. 

These requirements include the 

contingency measure requirements of 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We 

have interpreted the contingency 

measure requirements of sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer 

applying when an area has attained the 

standard because those ‘‘contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’

(57 FR at 13564); Seitz memo, pp. 5–6. 

Both sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C) require ‘‘provisions to 

assure that reasonably available control 

measures’’ (i.e., RACM) are 

implemented in a nonattainment area. 

The General Preamble, 57 FR at 13560 

(April 16, 1992), states that EPA 

interprets section 172(c)(1) so that 

RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’

of an area’s attainment demonstration. 

Thus, for the same reason the 

attainment demonstration no longer 

applies by its own terms, the 

requirement for RACM no longer 

applies. EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of potential RACM 

measures that could contribute to 

reasonable further progress or to 

attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR at 

13498. Thus, where an area is already 

attaining the standard, no additional 

RACM measures are required.10 EPA is 

interpreting section 189(a)(1)(C) 

consistent with its interpretation of 

section 172(c)(1). 

Here, as in both our Phase 2 Final 

Rule and ozone and PM2.5 clean data 

memoranda, we emphasize that the 

suspension of a requirement to submit 

SIP revisions concerning these RFP, 

attainment demonstration, RACM, and 

other related requirements exists only 

for as long as a nonattainment area 

continues to monitor attainment of the 

standard. If such an area experiences a 

violation of the NAAQS, the basis for 

the requirements being suspended 

would no longer exist. Therefore, the 

area would again be subject to a 

requirement to submit the pertinent SIP 

revision or revisions and would need to 

address those requirements. Thus, a 

determination that an area need not 

submit one of the SIP submittals 

amounts to no more than a suspension 

of the requirements for so long as the 

area continues to attain the standard. 

However, once EPA ultimately 

redesignates the area to attainment, the 

area will be entirely relieved of these 

requirements to the extent the 

maintenance plan for the area does not 

rely on them. 

Therefore, we believe that, for the 

reasons set forth here and established in 

our prior ‘‘clean data’’ memoranda and 

rulemakings, a PM10 nonattainment area 

that has ‘‘clean data,’’ should be 

relieved of the part D, subpart 4 

obligations to provide an attainment 

demonstration pursuant to section 

189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of 

section 189(a)(1)(C), and the RFP 

provisions established by section 

189(c)(1) of the Act, as well as the 

aforementioned attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP and 

contingency measure provisions of part 

D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of 

the Act.11

Should EPA at some future time 

determine that an area that had clean 

data, but which has not yet been 

redesignated as attainment for a 

NAAQS, has violated the relevant 

standard, the area would again be 

required to submit the pertinent 

requirements under the SIP for the area. 

Attainment determinations under the 

policy do not shield an area from other 

required actions, such as provisions to 

address pollution transport. 

As set forth above, EPA finds that 

because the Miami area is attaining the 

PM10 NAAQS, the requirement of an 

attainment demonstration, reasonable 

further progress, reasonably available 

control measures and contingency 

measures no longer applies for so long 

as the area continues to monitor 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.12

This determination is contingent on 

the existence of monitoring data 

showing continued attainment of the 

PM10 NAAQS in the Miami area. 

Normally, we would simply rely on the 

continuation of a State’s or local air 

district’s monitoring network to provide 

the data necessary for the public and 

EPA to verify continued attainment 

because a State or local air district 

administering such a network must, 

under applicable Federal regulations, 

use reference methods, meet quality 

assurance requirements, and enter data 

periodically into AQS. 

In the Miami area, however, the only 

monitors collecting PM10 data are 

Special Purpose Monitors (SPMs) run by 

Phelps-Dodge. Historically, these data 

have not been submitted to the State for 

certification and subsequent entry into 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Thus, we have requested that 

ADEQ provide us with evidence that 

ADEQ and Phelps-Dodge ensure that 

PM10 data continues to be collected at 

Phelps-Dodge’s two monitoring sites in 

the Miami area in a manner that meets 

Federal monitoring requirements for 

state and local air monitoring stations 

(SLAMS) and that ADEQ commits to 

entering the data into AQS on a periodic 

basis. ADEQ has submitted sufficient 

evidence supporting such commitments 

in the form of two letters: a letter dated 

May 15, 2006 from Alan H. Binegar, 

Smelter Manager, Phelps-Dodge Miami 

Inc. to Nancy Wrona, Director, Air 

Quality Division, ADEQ, and a letter 

dated January 19, 2007 from Nancy C. 

Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, 

ADEQ, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, EPA-Region IX. 

Specifically, in its May 15, 2006 

letter, Phelps-Dodge agrees to submit 

calibration records and supporting 

documentation for its PM10 monitors to 

ADEQ with future quarterly PM10

reports. In its January 19, 2007 letter, 

ADEQ commits to begin entering data 

collected during 2006 by March 1, 2007, 

to complete the entry of 2006 data into 

AQS by the end of June 2007, and to 

continue entry of 2007 and subsequent 

data following applicable EPA quality 

assurance procedures and validation. 

We interpret ADEQ’s commitment to 

mean that by the end of 2007, ADEQ 

will be entering Miami PM10 monitoring 

data collected by Phelps-Dodge on the 

same quarterly schedule as required for 

SLAMS. 

If Phelps-Dodge or ADEQ fails to 

fulfill the monitoring-related 

commitments set forth in the letters 

dated May 15, 2006 and January 19, 

2007, then we can no longer be assured 

of the continued attainment of the PM10

NAAQS in the Miami area, and a failure 

to provide current, valid, publicly 

available PM10 data will have the same 

consequence as a measured violation of 

the PM10 NAAQS. In either event, the 

rationale for determining that the CAA 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14430 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

13The two actions we are taking today, the 

boundary redesignation and the finding of 

attainment, should be distinguished from an action 

to redesignate an area from ‘‘nonattainment’’ to 

‘‘attainment’’ under CAA section 107(d)(3). There 

are a number of prerequisite conditions that must 

be met before we can approve a State’s request to 

change (i.e., ‘‘redesignate’’) the air quality planning 

status of an area from ‘‘nonattainment’’ to 

‘‘attainment,’’ including, among other conditions, 

approval of a maintenance plan meeting the 

requirements of section 175A of the CAA. See 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act. Thus, the 

classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 

81 will remain moderate nonattainment for the 

Miami PM10 area until such time as the State of 

Arizona meets the CAA requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation of the Miami area to 

attainment. 

requirements discussed above no longer 

apply in the Miami area will no longer 

exist, and as a result, we will take action 

to withdraw our finding that the Miami 

area is attaining the standard and 

withdraw our related determination 

with respect to certain CAA 

requirements discussed above. Then, 

the State of Arizona would again be 

required to submit the pertinent CAA 

requirements for this nonattainment 

area. 

IV. Corrections to the Arizona PM10

Table in 40 CFR Part 81 

In today’s notice, we are also 

correcting two errors in the table found 

in 40 CFR part 81 (specifically, 40 CFR 

81.303) listing the area designations 

within the State of Arizona for the PM10

NAAQS. CAA section 110(k)(6) 

provides EPA with authority to correct 

errors in rulemakings involving, among 

other things, area designations and 

classifications. 

First, we are fixing a typographical 

error in the listing for Payson in the 

PM10 table. This error was introduced 

into the table in a final rule 

redesignating the Payson area to 

attainment. See 67 FR 43013 (June 26, 

2002). In the June 2002 final rule, we 

inadvertently listed one of the 

townships that comprise the Payson air 

quality planning area as ‘‘T01N, * * *’’

while intending ‘‘T10N, * * *.’’ See 67 

FR 43013, at 43019. We are correcting 

the listing in this notice. 

Second, we are correcting the 

erroneous deletion of the designation for 

‘‘rest of state’’ in the Arizona PM10 table 

in 40 CFR 81.303. This error occurred in 

two stages. First, in a 1996 final rule, we 

inadvertently included ‘‘rest of state’’

under the listing for Mohave County. 

See 61 FR 21372, at 21378 (May 10, 

1996). Then, in a final rule published on 

February 15, 2002, we inadvertently 

deleted the ‘‘rest of state’’ listing 

entirely. See 67 FR 7082, at 7085 

(February 15, 2002). In this notice, we 

are correcting this error by restoring the 

‘‘rest of state’’ designation 

(‘‘unclassifiable’’) as a separate listing in 

the Arizona PM10 table. 

V. EPA’s Final Action 

Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the 

Clean Air Act, EPA is approving the 

State of Arizona’s redesignation of the 

Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area into two separate but adjoining 

PM10 nonattainment areas (Hayden and 

Miami) as submitted on June 20, 2006 

and making the changes to the table in 

40 CFR part 81 that shows Arizona PM10

area designations accordingly. EPA is 

approving this boundary redesignation 

based on topographical, meteorological, 

and other air quality-related factors that 

demonstrate that Hayden and Miami 

areas lie in different airsheds with little 

or no cross-airshed transport of PM10. 

Together, the two new PM10

nonattainment areas cover the same 

geographic area as the original Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area and 

retain a ‘‘moderate’’ classification with 

respect to the PM10 NAAQS. The 

approved boundary between the two 

new areas roughly traces the ridgeline of 

the Pinal Mountains. 

We also find that the Miami PM10

nonattainment area is attaining the PM10

NAAQS. Our finding of attainment is 

based on quality-assured data that meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K for the period 2003–2005.13

EPA also finds that, because the 

Miami area is attaining the NAAQS, the 

following CAA requirements are not 

applicable for so long as the Miami area 

continues to attain the PM10 standard: 

the part D, subpart 4 obligations to 

provide an attainment demonstration 

pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the 

RACM provisions of 189(a)(1)(C), the 

RFP provisions established by section 

189(c)(1), and the attainment 

demonstration, RACM, RFP and 

contingency measure provisions of part 

D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of 

the Act. Because our determination with 

respect to the above CAA requirements 

relies on the existence of current, valid, 

publicly-available monitoring data, we 

are making our determination 

contingent upon fulfillment of 

commitments made by Phelps-Dodge 

and ADEQ in letters dated May 15, 2006 

and January 19, 2007 to submit such 

data from the two current PM10

monitoring sites in the Miami area to 

EPA’s AQS. If the commitments made 

by Phelps-Dodge and ADEQ are not 

fulfilled or if the data shows a violation 

of the standard, then EPA will act to 

withdraw the attainment finding and 

withdraw the related determination 

with respect to the CAA requirements 

listed above. 

Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6), 

we correct two errors that were 

introduced into the ‘‘Arizona—PM10’’

table in 40 CFR 81.303 in previous 

rulemakings. First, we correct a 

typographical error in the listings of 

townships that define the Payson air 

quality planning area. Second, we 

correct the erroneous deletion of the 

designation for ‘‘rest of state’’ by 

restoring the ‘‘rest of state’’ designation 

(‘‘unclassifiable’’) as a separate listing in 

the Arizona PM10 table. 

We are publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipates no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, 

EPA is publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal should 

adverse comments be filed. This action 

will be effective May 29, 2007, without 

further notice unless the EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments by April 27, 

2007. 

If we receive such comments, then we 

will publish a document withdrawing 

the final rule and informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. We will not 

institute a second comment period. 

Parties interested in commenting should 

do so at this time. If no such comments 

are received, the public is advised that 

this rule will be effective on May 29, 

2007 and no further action will be taken 

on the proposed rule. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely 

redesignates a boundary of an air quality 

planning area, makes a determination 

based on air quality data, and suspends 

certain requirements that otherwise 

would apply and does not impose any 

additional requirements. 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 does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty, it does not contain 

any unfunded mandate or significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments, as 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14431 

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 97249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution 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 

redesignates a boundary of an air quality 

planning area, makes a determination 

based on air quality data, and suspends 

certain requirements that otherwise 

would apply and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

The requirements 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.). 

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. 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. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 29, 2007. 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).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 20, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

■ 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—[Amended] 

■ 2. In § 81.303, the table entitled 

‘‘Arizona—PM10’’ is amended by 

revising the entries for Pinal and Gila 

Counties and Gila County and by adding 

an entry for ‘‘rest of state’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

ARIZONA—PM10

Designated Area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

* * * * * * * 

Pinal and Gila Counties: 

Hayden planning area .............................................................................

T1S, R13E (sections 7–36); T1S, R14E (sections 25–36);T2S, R13E; 

T2S, R14E; T2S, R15E; T3S, R13E; T3S, R14E; T3S, R15E; T3S, 

R16E (except that portion in the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation); T4S, R13E; T4S, R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E; T5S, R13E; 

T5S, R14E; T5S, R15E; T5S, R16E; T6S, R13E; T6S, R14E; T6S, 

R15E; and T6S, R16E.

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

Miami planning area ................................................................................

T1N, R13E; T1N, R14E; T1N, R15E; T1S, R13E (sections 1–6); T1S, 

R14E (sections 124); T1S, R141⁄2E; and T1S, R15E.

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

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.

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

* * * * * * * 

Rest of State ............................................................................................ 11/15/90 Unclassifiable .....


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14432 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–5663 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507, FRL–8291–3] 

RIN 2060–AN11 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing of Ozone Depleting Substitutes 

in Foam Blowing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Today the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 

action to determine that HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b are unacceptable for use in 

the foam sector under the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

program under section 612 of the Clean 

Air Act. The SNAP program reviews 

alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone 

depleting substances and approves use 

of alternatives which do not present a 

substantially greater risk to public 

health and the environment than the 

substance they replace or than other 

available substitutes. In prior 

rulemakings, the Agency listed HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b as unacceptable 

substitutes in several foam end uses; 

here, EPA is amending a determination 

for one category of end-uses and taking 

the following actions for remaining 

applications. First, EPA is finding 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b unacceptable 

as substitutes for HCFC–141b in 

commercial refrigeration, sandwich 

panels, and slabstock and ‘‘other’’ rigid 

polyurethane foams and removing 

narrowed use limits previously 

established in those applications. 

Second, EPA is finding HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b unacceptable as substitutes 

for CFCs in all foam end-uses. Third, the 

Agency is establishing a grandfathering 

period to allow existing users of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b in pour foam 

applications, including commercial 

refrigeration, sandwich panels, and 

slabstock and ‘‘other’’ rigid 

polyurethane foams other than foam for 

marine applications, until March 1, 

2008 to implement alternatives; existing 

users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b foam 

blowing agents in the manufacture of 

foam for marine applications (e.g., 

flotation foam) will be allowed to 

continue use of these blowing agents 

until September 1, 2009. Fourth, the 

Agency is grandfathering existing users 

of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in 

extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam and in 

all other foam end uses until January 1, 

2010 in order to allow time for those 

users to complete their transition to 

alternatives. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0507. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Cohen, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (6205J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9005; fax 

number: (202) 343–2363; e-mail address: 

cohen.jeff@epa.gov. The published 

versions of notices and rulemakings 

under the SNAP program are available 

on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

This action is divided into six sections: 

I. Regulated Entities 

II. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Listing Decisions 

III. Background 

IV. Listing Decisions on HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b in the Foam Sector 

V. Response to Comments 

VI. Summary 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

VIII. Additional Information 

IX. References 

I. Regulated Entities 

Today’s rule regulates the use of 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as foam 

blowing agents used in the manufacture 

of rigid polyurethane/polyisocyanurate 

and extruded polystyrene foam 

products. Businesses that currently 

might be using HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b, or might want to use it in the 

future, include: 

—Businesses that manufacture 

polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam 

systems. 

—Businesses that use polyurethane/ 

polyisocyanurate systems to apply 

insulation to buildings, roofs, pipes, 

etc. 

—Businesses that manufacture extruded 

polystyrene foam insulation for 

buildings, roofs, pipes, etc. 

Table 1 lists potentially regulated 

entities: 

TABLE 1.—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES, BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) 

CODE OR SUBSECTOR

Category NAICS code or subsector Description of regulated entities 

Industry ................... 326150 ................................................... Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing. 

Industry ................... 326140 ................................................... Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES