58962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of 

non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic area State submittal date EPA Approval date Additional explanation 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure 

Requirements 

for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 12/7/07, 6/6/08, 4/26/10 ..... 9–25–12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure 

Requirements 

for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 4/26/10, 5/24/11 ................. 9–25–12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23497 Filed 9–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0458; FRL–9730–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a state 

implementation plan revision submitted 

by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality to address the 

moderate area PM10 (particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter of less 

than or equal to a nominal ten 

micrometers) planning requirements for 

the Nogales nonattainment area. 

Consistent with this final action, EPA is 

approving the following plan elements 

as meeting the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act: The Nogales 

nonattainment area 2008 and 2011 

emission inventories; the demonstration 

that the Nogales nonattainment area is 

attaining the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for PM10, but for 

international emissions sources in 

Nogales, Mexico; the demonstration that 

reasonably available control measures 

sufficient to meet the standard have 

been implemented in the nonattainment 

area; the reasonable further progress 

demonstration; the demonstration that 

implementation of measures beyond 

those needed for attainment meet the 

contingency measure requirement; and, 

the motor vehicle emissions budget for 

the purposes of determining the 

conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects with this PM10

plan. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on October 25, 2012. 

Docket: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0458 for 

this action. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., confidential 

business information or CBI). To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please schedule 

an appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Wamsley, Air Planning Office, AIR–2, 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

telephone number: (415) 947–4111, or 

email address, wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

EPA. We are providing the following 

table of contents for ease of locating 

information in this proposal. 

Table of Contents 

I. EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Arizona’s Submittal of the Final Nogales 

2012 Plan 

A. Arizona’s Submittal of the Final Nogales 

2012 Plan and Clean Air Act Procedural 

Requirements 

B. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budget 

C. Revisions to the 2008 and 2011 

Emissions Inventories’ Mobile Source 

Emissions Estimates 

III. Public Comments 

IV. EPA’s Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Proposed Action 

On June 27, 2012, EPA proposed to 

approve the proposed state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on May 

29, 2012 to address the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for areas 

classified as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment 

for the PM10 national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS), in this case, 

Nogales, Arizona. ADEQ submitted a 

plan for the Nogales nonattainment area 

(NA) entitled Proposed State 

Implementation Plan Nogales PM10

Nonattainment Area, referred to as the 

‘‘Nogales 2012 Plan’’ here and in our 

proposal. See 77 FR 38400; (June 27, 

2012). Specifically, under CAA section 

110(k)(3), EPA proposed to approve the 

following elements of the Nogales 2012 

Plan: 

(1) The 2008 base year and 2011 

emissions inventories as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3); 

(2) The demonstration of attainment 

but for international emissions as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 179B(a)(1); 

(3) The implementation of paving 

projects and capital improvement 

projects at the Ports of Entry within the 

Nogales NA prior to the CAA’s 1994 

attainment deadline as meeting the 

reasonably available control measure/ 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT) requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 

189(c)(1)(C); 

(4) The implementation of paving 

projects and capital improvement 

projects at the Ports of Entry to meet the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstration requirement of CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 179B(a)(2); 

(5) The implementation of post-1994 

paving projects as meeting the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 179B(a)(2); 

and, 

(6) The 2011 attainment year motor 

vehicle emissions budget if revised to 

include road construction PM10, 

because, as revised, it is derived from 

the section 179B demonstration and 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

176(c) and 40 CFR 93, subpart A. 

To summarize our proposal, first, we 

described the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and 

its application to the Nogales NA and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58963 

1 In 2010, Nogales, Arizona had 20,017 

inhabitants (U.S. Census Bureau 2010) and Nogales, 

Mexico had 212,533 inhabitants (Instituto Nacional 

de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica, (INEGI) 

2010). 

2 In particular, we described our preliminary 

interpretations of the applicable statutory 

provisions as set forth in the following guidance 

documents: The ‘‘General Preamble to Title I of the 

Clean Air Act’’ at 57 FR 132498; (April 16, 1992) 

and 57 FR 18070; (April 28, 1992); and ‘‘The 

Addendum to the General Preamble’’ at 59 FR 

41998; (August 16, 1994). 

how this resulted in the designation and 

classification of the Nogales NA as a 

moderate PM10 nonattainment area 

under the CAA. Then, we described, in 

general terms, the CAA planning 

requirements for moderate PM10

nonattainment areas, such as the 

Nogales NA, and touched briefly upon 

the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan, which 

identified emissions sources from 

Nogales, Mexico as the principal 

sources of PM10 affecting ambient 

concentrations in Nogales, Arizona. See 

77 FR 38401; (June 27, 2012). 

Second, we presented Arizona’s 

Nogales 2012 Plan, submitted by ADEQ 

on May 29, 2012, and described the 

ADEQ’s concurrent request that EPA 

‘‘parallel process’’ its review and 

proposed action on this plan. Then, we 

provided a brief description of the 

location and geography of the Nogales 

NA. The Nogales NA is located within 

Santa Cruz County in southern Arizona, 

approximately 60 miles south of 

Tucson, and covers 76.1 square miles. 

The southernmost boundary of the 

Nogales NA and Santa Cruz County is 

the United States (U.S.)/Mexico border. 

Adjacent to the U.S./Mexico border, the 

city of Nogales, Arizona is the largest 

city and population center in the 

Nogales NA. Directly across the U.S./ 

Mexico border from Nogales, Arizona is 

the much larger city of Nogales, 

Mexico.1 See 77 FR 38401–38402; (June 

27, 2012). 

Third, we discussed in detail the CAA 

and statutory requirements for moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas as applied to 

the Nogales NA, given the area’s air 

quality is influenced by international 

sources of PM10 emissions from Nogales, 

Mexico.2 Specifically, in lieu of a 

demonstration that the area would 

actually attain the PM10 NAAQS, 

section 179B of the CAA allows Arizona 

to submit a demonstration that the 

Nogales NA would have attained the 

PM10 NAAQS but for international 

transport of PM10 from Mexico. Under 

CAA section 179B, however, other SIP 

requirements, such as RACM and 

contingency measures, among other 

requirements, continue to apply to PM10

nonattainment areas even if the area 

qualifies for relief from the attainment 

demonstration requirement. See 77 FR 

38402–38404; (June 27, 2012). 

The primary criterion we applied for 

determining attainment of the PM10

NAAQS but for international emissions 

was 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. Under 

40 CFR part 50, appendix K, a 

nonattainment area meets the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS when the expected 

number of days per calendar year with 

a 24-hour average concentration above 

150 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

is equal to or less than one. To 

demonstrate that the Nogales NA has 

met the PM10 standard ‘‘but for’’ 

emissions from Mexico, Arizona’s 

analysis had to show that no more than 

three exceedances over its specific 

three-year analysis period, 2007–2009, 

based on data completeness and every 

day sampling, would have occurred on 

the U.S. side of the border, setting aside 

contributions from Mexican sources of 

PM10. See 77 FR 38404; (June 27, 2012). 

In the fourth section of our proposal, 

we reviewed the Nogales 2012 Plan and 

its constituent parts against the 

applicable CAA statutory and regulatory 

requirements. 

Emissions Inventories. The 2008 base 

year and 2011 emissions inventories 

were reviewed for compliance with the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

For the reasons set forth in the proposed 

rule, we concluded that the inventories 

are comprehensive, accurate, and 

current inventories of actual emissions 

from all sources in the nonattainment 

area and therefore meet the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3). See 77 

FR 38404–38405; (June 27, 2012). 

Section 179B or ‘‘But For’’ 

Demonstration. Arizona’s 

demonstration of attainment but for 

international emissions for the Nogales 

NA was reviewed for compliance with 

section 179B(a)(1). To summarize briefly 

Arizona’s demonstration, Arizona 

reviewed local population growth data, 

Nogales, Mexico and Nogales NA 

emissions inventories, the ambient PM10

data, and local meteorological data, and 

through its analyses, Arizona found that 

the Ambos Nogales area’s meteorology 

and topography influence the observed 

exceedances of PM10 NAAQS and there 

is a definite south-to-north directional 

component to the ambient air quality 

data underlying the exceedances of the 

PM10 NAAQS. Finally, daily and hourly 

analyses of the most recent three years 

of quality assured and State certified 

ambient PM10 data from 2007–2009 and 

associated meteorological data showed 

that no more than two, and likely none, 

of the 29 exceedances would have 

occurred in the Nogales NA, but for 

PM10 emissions from Mexico. Based on 

these two exceedances, data 

completeness, and every day sampling 

for the 2007–2009 timeframe, the 

calculated maximum expected annual 

exceedance rate is 0.7 exceedances per 

year. The standard used to demonstrate 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, ‘‘but 

for’’ international emissions, is that the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with a 24-hour average 

concentration above 150 mg/m3 must be 

equal to or less than one. Therefore, we 

proposed to determine that Arizona has 

met this standard and to approve its 

section 179B analysis and 

demonstration of attainment but for 

international emissions for the Nogales 

NA. See 77 FR 38405–38416; (June 27, 

2012). 

RACM/RACT. The implementation of 

paving projects and capital 

improvement projects at the Ports of 

Entry within the Nogales NA prior to 

the CAA’s 1994 attainment deadline 

were reviewed under the RACM/RACT 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1), 

179B(a)(2), and 189(c)(1)(C). Based on 

that review, we concluded that the 

implementation of paving projects and 

capital improvement projects at the 

Ports of Entry within the Nogales NA 

prior to the 1994 attainment deadline 

met the RACM/RACT requirements of 

CAA sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 

189(c)(1)(C). See 77 FR 38416–38417; 

(June 27, 2012). 

Reasonable Further Progress. The 

implementation of paving projects and 

capital improvement projects at the 

Ports of Entry were reviewed under the 

RFP demonstration requirement of CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 179B(a)(2). Based 

on that review, we concluded that the 

implementation of paving projects and 

capital improvement projects at the 

Ports of Entry met the RFP 

demonstration requirement of CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 179B(a)(2). See 77 

FR 38417–38418; (June 27, 2012). 

Contingency Measures. The 

implementation of post-1994 paving 

projects were reviewed under the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 179B(a)(2). 

Based on that review, we concluded that 

the implementation of post-1994 paving 

projects met the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) 

and 179B(a)(2). See 77 FR 38417–38418; 

(June 27, 2012). 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget. 

Finally, the 2011 attainment year motor 

vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) was 

reviewed against the requirements of 

CAA section 176(c) and of 40 CFR 93, 

subpart A. Based on that review, we 

concluded that the MVEB, if it included 

road construction dust when submitted 

in its final form, would meet the 

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
58964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3See footnote two of the proposed rule at 77 FR 

38401; (June 27, 2012). 

4See correspondence from Lisa Hanf, EPA to Eric 

Massey, ADEQ, dated June 21, 2012. 5See 77 FR 38419 (June 27, 2012). 

6See Appendices 1 and 2 containing the MOVES 

model output files within Nogales NA 2008 and 

2011 Emissions Inventories within Appendix B of 

the Nogales 2012 Plan. 

of 40 CFR 93, subpart A. See 77 FR 

38418–38419; (June 27, 2012). 

Within our proposal, we anticipated 

the necessity for ADEQ to revise the 

MVEB to include road construction dust 

emissions; therefore, we required a 

second public comment period before 

Arizona could provide its final 

submittal containing the revised MVEB. 

The State’s final submittal and the 

revised MVEB are discussed further in 

the next section. 

II. Arizona’s Submittal of the Final 

2012 Nogales Plan 

We proposed approval of the Nogales 

2012 Plan based on the public draft 

version of the plan submitted to us by 

ADEQ as an enclosure to a letter 

requesting EPA to ‘‘parallel process’’ the 

plan prior to its submittal in final and 

adopted form as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP. We indicated in our 

proposal that, while we could propose 

action, we would not take final action 

on the Nogales 2012 Plan until the plan 

had been fully adopted by ADEQ and 

submitted formally to EPA for approval 

as part of the Arizona SIP.3 As discussed 

in more detail below, on August 24, 

2012, ADEQ adopted and submitted the 

Final 2012 State Implementation Plan 

Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area, 

dated August 24, 2012, herein referred 

to as ‘‘Final Nogales 2012 Plan’’. This 

plan is the subject of today’s final 

action. 

A. Arizona’s Submittal of the Final 

Nogales 2012 Plan and Clean Air Act 

Procedural Requirements 

In our review of the Nogales 2012 

Plan, dated May 29, 2012, and in our 

proposal, we noted the need for Arizona 

to include road construction dust within 

the plan’s MVEB and notified ADEQ 

prior to the close of its initial 30-day 

public comment period on the Nogales 

2012 Plan.4 In addition, ADEQ 

identified the need to revise the MVEB 

to include vehicle brake and tire wear 

emissions along with the previously 

included vehicle exhaust and entrained 

road dust emissions. Thus, in response 

to our comments and its own review of 

the MVEB, ADEQ revised the MVEB in 

the Nogales 2012 Plan to include road 

construction dust and vehicle brake and 

tire wear emissions, and on July 24, 

2012 provided for a 30-day public 

review of this revised MVEB. On August 

24, 2012, ADEQ then adopted and 

submitted the Final Nogales 2012 Plan 

on which we are taking final action 

today. The Final Nogales 2012 Plan 

includes the revised MVEB. 

Under EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ 

procedure, EPA proposes rulemaking 

action on a proposed SIP revision 

concurrently with the State’s public 

review process. If the State’s proposed 

SIP revision is changed, EPA will 

evaluate that subsequent change and 

may publish another notice of proposed 

rulemaking. If no significant change is 

made, EPA will propose a final 

rulemaking on the SIP revision after 

responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by EPA will 

occur only after the final SIP revision 

has been fully adopted by ADEQ and 

submitted formally to EPA for approval 

as part of the Arizona SIP. See 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix V. 

Because we anticipated the need to 

include road construction dust within 

the MVEB, noted this need in our 

proposal, and provided a 30-day public 

comment period concerning this 

revision to include road construction 

dust, we are not re-proposing approval 

of the revised MVEB included in the 

Final Nogales 2012 Plan. Prior to its 

August 24, 2012 submittal of the Final 

Nogales 2012 Plan, the State provided a 

30-day public review and comment 

period of the revised MVEB including 

road construction dust and brake and 

tire wear emissions. In sum, these 

revisions to the Nogales PM10 MVEB 

have been presented to the public for as 

many as 60 days and neither we nor 

ADEQ have received public comment. 

As submitted by Arizona in the Final 

Nogales 2012 Plan, the MVEB revisions 

are discussed below. 

B. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budget 

We proposed to approve the MVEB 

for the Nogales NA contingent upon 

ADEQ’s inclusion of road construction 

PM10 in the MVEB. As we noted in the 

proposed rule, road construction PM10

should be included in the MVEB 

because, as the second largest source of 

PM10 emissions generated within the 

Nogales NA, road construction PM10 is 

a significant contributor to the overall 

Nogales NA PM10 inventory.5 See 40 

CFR 93.122(e). While road construction 

dust was included within the 2008 and 

2011 emissions inventories provided by 

ADEQ, these emissions were not 

included in the MVEB for the Nogales 

2012 Plan as submitted by ADEQ on 

May 29, 2012. 

As noted above, ADEQ revised the 

MVEB in the Final Nogales 2012 Plan to 

include road construction dust (see 

Table 1 below) and to include brake and 

tire wear emissions (see discussion in 

next section of this document). 

TABLE 1—2011 NOGALES NA PM10

MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET

[tons] 

Source category PM10

Unpaved Road Dust ............. 864.9 

Road Construction Dust ....... 267.0 

Paved Road Dust ................. 121.4 

On-road Gasoline and Diesel 

Vehicle Emissions, including Brake, Tire Wear, and 

Vehicle Exhaust ................ 21.0 

Total ............................... 1,274.3 

Source: Table 7.1 of the Final Nogales 

2012 Plan and ‘‘2008 and 2011 p.m.10 Emissions Inventories for the Nogales NA, Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona’’ in Appendix B of the 

Final Nogales 2012 Plan. 

Because Arizona included road 

construction dust as we recommended 

in our proposed approval of the Nogales 

2012 Plan, we are taking final action to 

approve the Nogales NA PM10 MVEB at 

1,274.3 tons. For our broader discussion 

of the Nogales 2012 Plan and how the 

MVEB meets statutory requirements, 

please see the proposed rule at 77 FR 

38418—38419. 

C. Revisions to the 2008 and 2011 

Emissions Inventories’ Mobile Source 

Emissions Estimates 

In reviewing the mobile source 

emissions estimates within the 2008 and 

2011 emissions inventories for the 

MVEB in the Final Nogales 2012 Plan, 

ADEQ discovered that vehicle brake and 

tire wear emissions were not included 

in the 2008 and 2011 emissions 

inventories or the corresponding MVEB 

presented in the Nogales 2012 Plan, 

submitted May 29, 2012.6 As a result, 

the 2008 and 2011 emissions 

inventories did not include the seven 

tons per year of PM10 emissions 

attributed to vehicle brake and tire wear. 

ADEQ revised the Nogales NA 

emissions inventories and MVEB 

accordingly for the Final Nogales 2012 

Plan and thereby increased the Nogales 

NA PM10 inventory total from 1,524 to 

1,531 tons in 2008 and from 1,521 to 

1,528 tons in 2011, an increase of less 

than 0.5 percent across the Nogales NA 

emissions inventories. 

While including brake and tire wear 

emissions is important for accuracy and 

compiling the MVEB, the material effect 

on any subsequent analyses using 

emissions inventory data in the Final 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58965 

7The previous Nogales NA 2008 emissions 

inventory of 1,524 tons divided by 4,237 tons, 

representing total Ambos Nogales regional PM10

emissions, provides the 35.97 percent share. The 

revised Nogales NA 2008 emissions inventory of 

1,531 tons divided by 4,244 tons, representing total 

Ambos Nogales regional PM10 emissions, provides 

the 36.07 percent share. The 2008 Nogales, Mexico 

share remains constant at 2,713 tons as part of 

estimating the Ambo Nogales regional total. See 

Appendix A of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan for the 

detailed review and comparison of Nogales NA and 

Nogales, Mexico emissions inventories from which 

these figures are taken. 

Nogales 2012 Plan is inconsequential. 

For example, in 2008, adding brake and 

tire wear emissions to the Nogales NA 

emissions inventory increases its largest 

share of the total Ambos Nogales 

regional emissions inventory by less 

than 0.1 percent, from 35.97 to 36.07 

percent.7 Therefore, it remains accurate 

for the purposes of analysis to assign to 

the Nogales NA a maximum of 36 

percent of total Ambos Nogales regional 

PM10 emissions; consequently, no 

revisions are required for the section 

179B demonstration and supporting 

analyses presented within the Final 

Nogales 2012 Plan. 

By revising the Nogales NA emissions 

inventories for 2008 and 2011 and 

revising the MVEB resulting from the 

2011 emissions inventory, ADEQ has 

corrected the oversight of not including 

the brake and tire wear emissions in the 

previously presented emissions 

inventories. The MVEB provided in 

Arizona’s Final Nogales 2012 Plan 

submittal accurately includes all onroad sources of PM10 as estimated 

within the 2011 Nogales NA emissions 

inventory. Also, the revised 2008 and 

2011 emissions inventories for the 

Nogales NA within the Final Nogales 

2012 Plan provide a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources within the 

nonattainment area. 

III. Public Comments 

EPA’s proposed rule provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments on 

our proposal. Furthermore, Arizona 

received no comments during its 30-day 

comment period presenting the revised 

MVEB for public review, prior to its 

submittal of the Final Nogales 2012 

Plan. 

IV. EPA’s Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k), and for the 

reasons set forth in our June 27, 2012 

proposed rule and summarized herein, 

EPA is approving the Final 2012 State 

Implementation Plan Nogales PM10

Nonattainment Area (‘‘Final Nogales 

2012 Plan’’), submitted by ADEQ on 

August 24, 2012, for the Nogales, 

Arizona ‘‘moderate’’ PM10

nonattainment area. Specifically, EPA is 

approving the following elements of the 

Final Nogales 2012 Plan: 

(1) The 2008 base year and 2011 

emissions inventories as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3); 

(2) The demonstration of attainment 

but for international emissions as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 179B(a)(1); 

(3) The implementation of paving 

projects and capital improvement 

projects at the Ports of Entry within the 

Nogales NA prior to the CAA’s 1994 

attainment deadline as meeting the 

RACM/RACT requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 

189(c)(1)(C); 

(4) The implementation of paving 

projects and capital improvement 

projects at the Ports of Entry to meet the 

RFP demonstration requirement of CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 179B(a)(2); 

(5) The implementation of post-1994 

paving projects as meeting the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 179B(a)(2); 

and, 

(6) The 2011 attainment year motor 

vehicle emissions budget because it is 

derived from the section 179B 

demonstration and meets the 

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 

of 40 CFR 93, subpart A. 

Even with our approval of Arizona’s 

demonstration that the Nogales NA is 

attaining the PM10 NAAQS but for 

international transport from Mexico, 

this final action approving the Final 

Nogales 2012 Plan does not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment because we 

have not determined that the area has 

met the CAA requirements for 

redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E). The classification and 

designation status in 40 CFR part 81 

remains moderate nonattainment for the 

Nogales NA until such time as EPA 

determines that Arizona has met the 

CAA requirements for redesignating the 

Nogales NA to attainment for the PM10

NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 

reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 

is to approve state choices, provided 

those choices meet the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves a state plan as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; 

(October 4, 1993)); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132, (64 FR 43255; (August 10, 

1999)); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045, (62 FR 19885; (April 23, 1997)); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 

FR 28355; (May 22, 2001)); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898, 

(59 FR 7629; (February 16, 1994)). 

In addition, this action does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; 

(November 9, 2000)), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

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 action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
58966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 26, 

2012. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 24, 2012. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(150) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(150) The following plan was 

submitted on August 24, 2012, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) ‘‘Final 2012 State Implementation 

Plan Nogales PM10 Nonattainment 

Area,’’ dated August 24, 2012, including 

Appendices A–K, adopted on August 

24, 2012. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23118 Filed 9–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1034; FRL–9732–1] 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revisions To Open Burning 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

December 10, 1999. This revision to 

R307–202 Emission Standards: General 

Burning authorizes the State to extend 

the time period for open burning. EPA 

is disapproving the submitted revision 

because it does not meet the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1034. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the 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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Freeman, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6602, 

freeman.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The initials AQS mean or refer to 

Air Quality System. 

(ii) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(iii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The words Utah or State mean the 

State of Utah. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On December 10, 1999, the State of 

Utah submitted a SIP revision to Rule 

R307–202 Emission Standards: General 

Burning. This rule contains the 

following provisions: definitions and 

exclusions, community waste disposal, 

general prohibitions, permissible 

burning—without permit, permissible 

burning with permit, and special 

conditions. 

The proposed revision is found 

within the ‘permissible burning with 

permit’ in section R307–202–5(3)(e)(i). 

The revision extends the time period 

during which open burning could be 

authorized. The current burning period 

in the rule is from March 30 to May 30, 

the revision would extend the beginning 

of the burning period to March 1. This 

would allow an additional 30 days to 

the open burning period. The revision to 

the rule is based on a request from the 

Washington County Mayors Association 

to change the beginning date to 

accommodate areas of the State that 

were dry enough to burn earlier in the 

year. 

In our analysis of ambient air quality 

monitoring data, as described in our 

June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36443) proposed 

rule, EPA found that the relaxation of 

the open burning rule could contribute 

to further degradation of air quality 

within the State of Utah. Specifically, 

the analysis demonstrates that further 

degradation of air quality could occur in 

Utah’s PM2.5 nonattainment areas where 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES