The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following final rule on 05/22/2012, and EPA is 

submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this 

Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes of public comment. Please refer to the 

official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys website 

(http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. 

EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0491. Once the official version of this document is published in the FR, this version will be 

removed from the Internet with a link to the official version

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

 [EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0491; FRL-] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

State of Arizona; Pinal County; PM10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 

the EPA is redesignating from “unclassifiable” to 

“nonattainment” an area in western Pinal County, Arizona, for 

the 1987 national ambient air quality standard for particles 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 

micrometers (PM10), and therefore also revising the boundaries of 

the existing “rest of state” unclassifiable area. The EPA’s 

establishment of this new PM10 nonattainment area, referred to as 

“West Pinal,” is based on numerous recorded violations of the 

PM10 standard at various monitoring sites within the county. With 

the exception of Indian country and certain Federal lands, the 

EPA’s nonattainment area boundaries generally encompass the land 

geographically located within Pinal County north of the eastwest line defined by the southern line of Township 9 South, Gila 

and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, and west of the northsouth line defined by the eastern line of Range 8 East, except 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

where the boundary extends farther east in the Florence and 

Picacho Peak areas. The effect of this action is to establish 

and delineate a new PM10 nonattainment area within Pinal County 

and thereby to impose certain planning requirements on the State 

of Arizona to reduce PM10 concentrations within this area, 

including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit, within 

18 months of redesignation, a revision to the Arizona state 

implementation plan that provides for attainment of the PM10

standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the 

end of the sixth calendar year after redesignation. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days 

from the date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-

0491 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for 

this action are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents 

in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be available in either location 

(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 

2 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

3 

 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972-3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” 

“us,” and “our” refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Action 

III. Public Comment and EPA Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background 

On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for particulate matter 

(52 FR 24634), replacing total suspended particulates as the 

indicator for particulate matter with a new indicator called PM10

that includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers.1 In order to 

attain the NAAQS for 24-hour PM10, an air quality monitor cannot 

measure levels of PM10 greater than 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3) more than once per year on average over a 

consecutive three-year period. The rate of expected exceedances 

1

 The 1987 PM10 standard included a 24-hour (150 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3

)) and an annual standard (50 μg/m3). In 2006, EPA revoked the annual 

standard. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.6. 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

indicates whether a monitor attains the air quality standard. 

Most of Pinal County, Arizona, including the area that is 

the subject of today’s action, was included in the “rest of 

state” area, which was designated “unclassifiable” for PM10 by 

operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 amendments to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”).2 See section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii). The 

PM10 designations established by operation of law under the CAA, 

as amended in 1990, are known as “initial” designations. The CAA 

grants the EPA the authority to change the designation of, or 

“redesignate,” such areas in light of changes in circumstances. 

More specifically, CAA section 107(d)(3) authorizes the EPA to 

revise the designation of areas (or portions thereof) on the 

basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, 

or any other air-quality-related considerations that the EPA 

deems appropriate. Pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3), the EPA in 

the past has redesignated certain areas in Arizona to 

nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS, including the Payson and 

Bullhead City areas. See 56 FR 16274 (April 22, 1991); and 58 FR 

 

2

 While most of Pinal County was designated “unclassifiable,” two PM10

planning areas that extend into Pinal County were designated under the CAA, 

as amended in 1990, as “nonattainment:” the Phoenix planning area, which 

includes the Apache Junction area within Pinal County; and the Hayden/Miami 

planning area, which includes the northeastern portion of the county. See 56 

FR 11101 (March 15, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991); and 57 FR 56762 

(November 30, 1992). In 2007, we approved a redesignation request by the 

State of Arizona to split the Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment area into two 

separate PM10 nonattainment areas. See 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007). Today’s 

proposed action would not affect these pre-existing PM10 nonattainment areas. 

EPA codifies area designations in 40 CFR part 81. The area designations for 

the State of Arizona are codified at 40 CFR 81.303.

4 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

67334 (December 21, 1993). 

On October 14, 2009, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), the 

EPA notified the Governor of Arizona and tribal leaders of the 

four Indian Tribes (whose Indian country is located entirely, or 

in part, within Pinal County) that the designation for Pinal 

County, and any nearby areas that may be contributing to the 

monitored violations in Pinal County, should be revised (“EPA’s 

notification”). Our decision to initiate the redesignation 

process stemmed from review of 2006-2008 ambient PM10 monitoring 

data from PM10 monitoring stations within the county that showed 

widespread, frequent, and in some instances, severe, violations 

of the PM10 standard.3

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the Act, in a letter 

dated March 23, 2010, the Governor of Arizona responded to the 

EPA’s notification with a recommendation for a partial-county 

nonattainment area.4

The boundaries of the prospective PM10 nonattainment area 

recommended by the Governor of Arizona encompass a portion of 

central and western Pinal County, and form an area that 

 

3

 In a letter dated October 14, 2009, EPA notified the State of Arizona that 

the PM10 designation in Pinal County should be revised. EPA notified the 

tribal leaders of the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, 

San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Tohono O’odham Nation by letters dated December 

30, 2009.

4

 Letter from Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated March 23, 2010. 

5 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

resembles a backwards “L.”5 See figure 2 of the EPA’s Technical 

Support Document6 (TSD) for a map of both the State’s recommended 

boundaries as well as the EPA’s proposed boundaries. The staterecommended area includes all or most of the cities of Maricopa, 

Coolidge, Casa Grande, and the Pinal County portion of the town 

of Queen Creek, as well as the western-most portion of the town 

of Florence and the northern-most portion of the city of Eloy. 

The State recommends including an area that at its western-most 

boundary includes nearly all of the City of Maricopa. The Staterecommended southern boundary is defined by a line that 

coincides approximately with Interstate 8. The area recommended 

by the State continues to the east for approximately 35 miles 

where it extends to the north, including portions of Florence 

and Coolidge, and the Pinal County portion of Queen Creek, and 

terminates just south of Apache Junction. The State-recommended 

eastern boundary is defined by the north-south line between 

Range 8 East and Range 9 East. The northern boundary follows the 

county line south from the Apache Junction area and then follows 

the boundary of the Gila River Indian Reservation to close back 

around to the recommended western boundary. See the Governor’s 

 

5

 The Governor expressly recommended excluding Indian country from the 

nonattainment area. EPA finds this appropriate, given that the State of 

Arizona is not authorized to administer programs under the CAA in the 

affected Indian country. The “backwards L” shape of the recommended area is 

partly explained by this exclusion because the recommended area partially 

surrounds Indian country. 

6

 EPA Region 9, “Pinal County, Arizona, Area Designation for the 1987 24-hour 

PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Technical Support Document, 

September 21, 2010.

6 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

March 23, 2010 letter for the legal description of the State’s 

recommended boundaries by township and range and for an enclosed 

map illustrating this area. 

In a letter dated February 11, 2010, the Tohono O’odham 

Nation (TON) responded to the EPA’s December 30, 2009 letter 

concerning the PM10 designation in Pinal County with a 

recommendation that the TON land within Pinal County be 

designated attainment/unclassifiable for PM10. In a letter dated 

September 2, 2010 the Ak-Chin Indian Community responded to the 

EPA’s December 30, 2009 letter concerning the PM10 designation of 

Pinal County with a recommendation that the Ak-Chin lands be 

designated attainment/unclassifiable. The Gila River Indian 

Community and the San Carlos Apache Tribe did not submit 

recommendations. 

II. Proposed Action 

On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60680), pursuant to section 

107(d)(3) of the CAA, the EPA proposed to redesignate from 

“unclassifiable” to “nonattainment” an area generally covering 

the western half of Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10

NAAQS, and to make a corresponding revision to the boundaries of 

the existing “rest of state” unclassifiable area. The EPA’s 

proposed boundaries for the nonattainment area encompassed all 

of the area recommended by the State of Arizona, but extended 

farther to the east and south, and to a lesser degree, to the 

7 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

north and west. The EPA’s proposed boundaries encompassed all 

land geographically located within Pinal County west of the 

north-south line defined by the boundary between Range 10 East 

and Range 11 East, but excluded TON’s main reservation and the 

Apache Junction portion of the existing Phoenix PM10

nonattainment area. See figure 2 of the EPA’s TSD for a map 

showing our proposed boundaries. 

As explained in our October 1, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR at 

60686), and more fully in the TSD for the proposal, we believe 

that the State’s recommended boundaries would not encompass the 

full geographic area from which emissions-generating activities 

contribute to the monitored PM10 violations. More specifically, 

EPA’s proposal stated that the Governor’s recommended 

boundaries, which cut through municipalities and contiguous 

expanses of agricultural fields, excluded sources that have been 

identified as dominant sources of PM10 and that are contributing 

to elevated levels of PM10 at violating monitors. In our October 

1, 2010 proposal, EPA stated that its proposed boundaries, 

described above, would encompass the areas in which PM10

violations are being monitored, as well as the areas that 

contribute to the monitored violations, and that they were thus 

consistent with the definition of nonattainment areas in CAA 

section 107(d)(1)(A). Our proposal was based on the EPA’s 

analysis of the factors as set forth in the proposed rule (75 FR 

8 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

at 60682-60686) and in further detail in the TSD for the 

proposed rule. 

With respect to the affected Indian Tribes, for the reasons 

given in the proposed rule, we proposed to exclude the main TON 

reservation and the San Carlos Apache Reservation from the PM10

nonattainment area boundaries, but we indicated that we were 

deferring action on the status of certain other tribal lands 

located within the area, including the tribal lands of the AkChin Indian Community and the Gila River Indian Community, as 

well as TON’s Florence Village and San Lucy Farms, pending 

consultation with the affected tribes. 

Please see our October 1, 2010 proposed rule and our 

related TSD for more information about our proposed action and 

the rationale for our proposed boundaries. 

III. Public Comment and EPA Responses 

Our October 1, 2010 proposed rule provided for a 30-day 

comment period, and the EPA received 11 comment letters in 

response to the proposal, including letters from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, the Pinal County Air Quality Department, the 

City of Casa Grande, the Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage 

District, the Arizona Public Service Company, several 

agricultural groups, the Sierra Club, and a member of the 

general public. 

9 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

None of the commenters disagreed with the need to 

redesignate a portion of Pinal County nonattainment for the 1987 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and none disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that 

sources outside of Pinal County and in the eastern half of Pinal 

County, including San Carlos Apache lands, do not contribute to 

violations in the western portion of the county. In addition, 

none of the commenters disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that the 

activities occurring on the main Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) 

reservation do not contribute to these violations. Most 

commenters, however, suggested that the nonattainment area 

should be smaller than that proposed by the EPA. Nine commenters 

supported the Governor’s recommended boundary, one commenter 

supported the EPA’s proposed boundary, and one commenter 

suggested that the boundary should include only developed areas 

that have a relatively high density of human population. 

As discussed in more detail below and in our Response to 

Comments (RTC) document,7 the EPA is taking final action today to 

redesignate from “unclassifiable” to “nonattainment” an area 

generally covering the western half of Pinal County, Arizona, 

for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, and correspondingly, to revise the 

boundaries of the existing “rest of state” unclassifiable area. 

In our final action, however, based on our consideration of the 

 

7

 EPA Region 9, “Response to Comments on the Proposed Action to Redesignate 

West Pinal County to Nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard,” May 2012. 

10 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

comments, including the building permit data provided by Pinal 

County that documents the extent to which the national recession 

has slowed growth in Pinal County, and after further review of 

other relevant factors, such as the geographic distribution of 

sources of PM10, the EPA is modifying the boundaries it had 

proposed for the nonattainment area. EPA’s final action modifies 

its previously proposed boundaries in such a way as to reduce 

the size of the nonattainment area (relative to the area the EPA 

had proposed) by approximately 36 percent (about 735 square 

miles). This reduction is principally accounted for by 

establishing the final boundaries for the nonattainment area so 

as to exclude the Tonto National Forest (including the 

Superstition Wilderness Area), portions of the Sonoran Desert 

National Monument (including the Table Top Wilderness Area), the 

Ironwood Forest National Monument, and certain less-developed 

areas. EPA’s proposal had included these areas within the 

nonattainment area boundaries. 

In the following paragraphs of this section, we summarize 

our responses to significant comments that we received on our 

October 1, 2010 proposed rule. Our full responses to all the 

comments received can be found in the previously-cited RTC 

document, which is included in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Air Quality Data 

11 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Comment: Disagreement over the size of the nonattainment area 

was primarily based on commenters’ views that certain areas 

should be excluded from the nonattainment area because they are 

not themselves violating the standard, or because they are not 

“significantly” contributing to violations in nearby areas. 

Response: CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) defines a nonattainment 

area to include “any area that does not meet (or that 

contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does 

not meet)” the NAAQS. Thus, a location is designated 

nonattainment if its emissions contribute to the air quality in 

a nearby area that violates the NAAQS, even if that location is 

not the main cause of violations, and even if it does not 

contribute to every measured violation. The absence of a 

violation at a particular monitor does not preclude the 

possibility of elevated levels of particulate in the vicinity of 

that monitor or the transport of particulate to a nearby 

violating area, even if levels do not cause a violation at the 

monitor itself. A contiguous area can be nonattainment if it is 

within several miles of a violating monitor and has emissions 

that travel to that monitor, even if its contribution is not as 

large as those of locations nearer the monitor. 

Exceptional Events

12 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Comment: Two commenters noted that some of the measured 

exceedances have been flagged as exceptional events8 and 

suggested that the EPA should not consider a monitor to be 

violating if all of the exceedances have been flagged as 

exceptional events. ADEQ stated that its analysis of the most 

recent monitoring data indicated that if flagged exceptional 

events were excluded from the monitoring record, four monitors 

(Casa Grande, Combs School, Coolidge, and Maricopa) would be 

attaining the standard. 

Response: Based on the most recent certified data (2009 – 2011), 

seven monitors in Pinal County are violating the 24-hour PM10

standard. EPA regulations do provide that a State may request 

EPA to exclude data showing exceedances or violations of the 

national ambient air quality standard that are directly due to 

an exceptional event from use in determinations, by 

demonstrating to the EPA's satisfaction that such event caused a 

specific air pollution concentration at a particular air quality 

monitoring location. (40 CFR 58.14) However, as indicated in the 

proposed rule (75 FR at 60684-60685), even if we were to concur 

and to exclude from use in determining attainment all of the 

flagged exceedances, a number of monitors would still violate 

 

8

 On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, Treatment of Data Influenced by 

Exceptional Events, (EER), to govern the review and handling of certain air 

quality monitoring data for which the normal planning and regulatory 

processes are not appropriate. Under the rule, EPA may exclude data from use 

in determinations of NAAQS exceedances and violations if a state demonstrates 

that an “exceptional event” caused the exceedances. See 72 FR 13560.

13 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the standard. Moreover, the emissions sources in the vicinities 

of the non-violating monitors (i.e., presuming exclusion of the 

flagged exceedances as caused by exceptional events) are those, 

such as traffic on paved and unpaved roads, cattle operations, 

agricultural sources, and construction-generated emissions, that 

we have determined contribute to violations of the standard 

elsewhere in the County. Thus, EPA action on State flagged 

exceptional event claims is not a prerequisite to finalizing 

this redesignation and establishing appropriate boundaries for 

the new West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area. 

Geographic Distribution of Emissions Sources

Comment: A number of commenters objected to EPA’s proposed 

boundary because, in their view, sources of PM10 emissions 

leading to monitored violations are located in the western 

regions of Pinal County, not the east or south [of the 

Governor’s recommended nonattainment area9]. They argued that the 

Governor’s recommended boundary included all of the emissions 

sources that contribute significantly to the PM10 violations, 

plus an adequate buffer to the south and east. 

Commenters pointed to differences in activity levels and 

the degree of urbanization in areas within and outside the 

 

9

 Commenters referring to the “eastern” and “southern” portions of Pinal 

County appear to be referring to the areas to the east and south of the 

Governor’s recommended nonattainment boundary. In our TSD and in the RTC, 

EPA’s references to the eastern and western portions of Pinal County mean 

those portions of Pinal County that lie to the east and west of the eastern 

boundary of EPA’s proposed nonattainment area. 

14 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Governor’s recommended boundary and argued that the State’s 

preliminary emissions inventory showed that sources in the 

eastern and/or southern regions of the county do not 

significantly contribute to violations in other regions of the 

county. 

Response: Arizona’s preliminary PM10 inventory and the 2005 

National Emissions Inventory, version 2, along with source 

apportionment studies, identify the sources that contribute to 

elevated concentrations of PM10. These sources include on-road 

emissions, cattle operations, agriculture, and construction. 

According to ADEQ’s technical report, these sources of PM10 are 

located throughout the western portion of Pinal County, 

including areas to the east and south of the Governor’s 

recommended boundary. See Figures 3-3 and 3-4 of ADEQ’s 

technical report.10 The EPA’s review of meteorological data 

indicates that emissions from these areas are transported to the 

violating monitors 35 to 40% of the time. See the wind rose data 

collected at the Pinal Air Park as illustrated in Figure 10 of 

the TSD for the proposal and note the absence of topographic 

barriers as shown in Figure 11 of the TSD. 

As stated above, CAA defines a nonattainment area to 

include a nearby area that contributes to air quality in the 

 

10 ADEQ, “Arizona Air Quality Designations, Technical Support Document, 

Boundary Recommendation for the Pinal County 24-hour PM10 Nonattainment Area,” 

March 15, 2010. 

15 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

area where violations are measured. To identify nearby areas 

that contribute to the measured violations of PM10 in Pinal 

County, we have used a multi-factor analysis that accounts for, 

among other factors, emissions data, meteorology, and 

topography, as described in detail in EPA’s TSD for the proposed 

rule and in the RTC document prepared for this final rule. The 

use of a multi-factor test in determining which areas contribute 

to violations in a nearby area was upheld in a case involving 

designations and nonattainment area boundaries for the PM2.5

standard, Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 38-40 (D.C. Cir. 

2009), and we believe such a test is appropriate in determining 

the boundaries of an area to be redesignated to nonattainment 

for the PM10 standard. Moreover, the Catawba County court 

rejected arguments that “contributes,” for the purposes of 

interpreting the geographic extent of nonattainment areas under 

section 107(d)(1)(A), necessarily connotes a significant causal 

relationship and upheld EPA’s interpretation of “contribute” to 

mean “sufficiently contribute” and then applying a presumption 

and multi-factor test precisely to identify those areas that 

meet the definition. Id. In the context of this action, we have 

not applied any presumption but otherwise have identified the 

boundaries of the area to be redesignated to nonattainment for 

the PM10 standard to include areas determined to be sufficiently 

contributing through application of a multi-factor test. 

16 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Off-Highway Vehicles

Comment: The Arizona Game and Fish Department argued that 

because ADEQ’s technical report states that off-highway vehicle 

emissions are relatively low and there were no grid cells over 

the 20 ton per year threshold, the nonattainment area boundary 

should not include undeveloped lands where off-highway vehicle 

recreation occurs. 

Response: Upon consideration of public comments, the EPA has 

revised our proposed nonattainment area boundary to minimize the 

inclusion of areas where available information indicates 

emissions are relatively low. We have established a final 

nonattainment area that we believe encompasses the areas in 

which PM10 violations are being monitored, as well as the areas 

that contribute to the monitored violations, consistent with the 

definition of nonattainment areas in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). 

While this might result in the inclusion of some lands where 

off-highway vehicle recreation occurs, it does not dictate the 

application of controls on or regulation of emissions generated 

by such activities. Arizona will be required to develop a plan 

that demonstrates attainment of the PM10 standard, and the 

relative contribution of various sources and options for control 

will be considered in that process. That plan will be subject 

to public review and comment, both at the state level and again 

17 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

when the EPA evaluates the plan for approval or disapproval as a 

revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP). 

Wilderness Areas

Comment: Four commenters objected to the inclusion of the Table 

Top and Superstition Wilderness areas within the nonattainment 

area, noting that such areas are generally closed to mechanized 

equipment and do not include sources that could be contributing 

to exceedances at the violating monitors. The Arizona Game and 

Fish Department and ADEQ also argued that, EPA had not 

adequately justified including these wilderness areas and the 

Tonto National Forest in the nonattainment area. The Arizona 

Game and Fish Department requested that the EPA remove these 

areas and other largely undeveloped, rural areas from the 

nonattainment boundary. 

Response: The EPA agrees that, because the wilderness areas and 

the Tonto National Forest are generally closed to mechanized 

equipment and lacking in emissions sources, the areas do not 

contribute to violations at the monitors elsewhere in Pinal 

County. As a result, we have finalized boundaries that do not 

include either of the wilderness areas or any portion of the 

Tonto National Forest, and we have sought to minimize the 

inclusion of undeveloped land. 

Traffic and Commuting Patterns

18 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Comment: Several commenters believe that EPA’s inclusion in the 

proposed nonattainment area of lands in the western half of 

Pinal County that lie to the east and south of the Governor’s 

recommended boundary is not justified given the traffic patterns 

and concentration of roads in this area. Commenters stated that 

the largest category of PM10 emissions in Pinal County is on-road 

sources, and noted that current traffic and commuter–related 

emissions are located primarily in the western portions of the 

county in the more populated regions of Casa Grande and 

Maricopa. Another commenter asserted that the number of 

commuters traveling between Pima and Pinal Counties is 

significantly less than the number traveling between Maricopa 

and Pinal counties. One commenter contended that the area south 

of Interstate 8 does not have any roads that lead to major urban 

centers, except for Interstate 10, and contended that proximity 

to Interstate 10 does not cause the Pinal Air Park or Eloy 

monitors to violate. 

Response: Although the EPA and ADEQ inventories differed with 

respect to the quantity of emissions generated by on-road 

sources (traveling on paved and unpaved roads), EPA and ADEQ 

agree that this is the largest category of PM10 emissions in 

Pinal County. EPA TSD Figure 8 and ADEQ technical report Figure 

3-5 illustrate the distribution of commuter traffic and 

emissions generated by traffic on paved roads. Taken together 

19 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

with the overall distribution of on-road emissions shown in 

ADEQ’s technical report (Figure 3-4), it is evident that on-road 

traffic (including paved and unpaved roads) is a significant 

source of emissions in the western half of Pinal County, 

including areas to the south and east of the Governor’s 

recommended boundary. 

The EPA believes that the distribution of emissions from 

on-road traffic requires extending Arizona’s recommended 

boundary; however, upon further review, we concluded that the 

comments submitted and further review of available data provide 

a persuasive case for modifying EPA’s proposed boundary. For the 

final nonattainment area boundaries, we reduced emphasis on the 

growth and commuting patterns and increased the weight given to 

emissions- and land-use-related data and thus are not including 

the southern-most portion of Pinal County, the Table Top and 

Superstition Wilderness areas, and the largely undisturbed 

desert areas east of Township 8 East, except where the boundary 

extends farther to the east to include the Florence area and the 

Picacho Peak area. 

Growth Rates and Patterns

Comment: Several commenters argued that growth forecasts made 

prior to the economic downturn are no longer reliable given 

current economic conditions, and that future growth is 

uncertain. Others noted that actual growth in the area south of 

20 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

the Governor’s recommended boundary has been modest, and that 

this area is unlikely to become a major employment center. These 

commenters questioned the view EPA expressed in its proposal 

that future employment and population growth in Pinal County 

justify including the southern portion of the county in the 

nonattainment area. 

Response: In our final action, after considering the comments 

submitted on our proposal, EPA has reduced the size of the 

nonattainment area, relative to what was proposed. As noted 

above in our response to the previous comment, the final 

nonattainment boundaries do not include the southern-most 

portion of Pinal County, the Table Top and Superstition 

Wilderness areas, and the largely undisturbed desert areas east 

of Township 8 East, except where the boundary extends farther to 

the east to include the Florence area and the Picacho Peak area. 

We are persuaded to shrink the boundary in part based on the 

building permit data provided by Pinal County that documents the 

extent to which the national recession has slowed growth 

generally in Pinal County, and particularly in the Interstate 8 

and Interstate 10 corridors. We agree that the recession and the 

number of homes already in foreclosure will likely delay 

significant growth in the corridors beyond the five-year horizon 

for reaching attainment of the standard. The Pinal Air Park 

monitor, located southwest of Interstate 10 near the southern 

21 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

border of Pinal County, is not included within the final 

boundary. However, as EPA proposed, the Eloy monitor, is part of 

the final nonattainment area, because EPA continues to believe 

that the sources in the Eloy area contribute to violations of 

the PM10 NAAQS farther north. 

Meteorology and Transport

Comment: ADEQ and Pinal County Air Quality (PCAQ) asserted that 

the meteorological data do not support the EPA’s inclusion of 

the southeastern portion of the nonattainment area. In brief, 

the comments are: 1) the southeast should not be included, since 

the Eloy monitor there is not violating; 2) the meteorological 

data relied on by the EPA do not substantiate transport from the 

southeast; 3) meteorological data show the cause of PM10

violations is local, not transport from the southeast; and 4) 

the limited data showing instances where measured exceedances 

have coincided with southeast winds does not justify including 

the southeast portion. 

Response: EPA has included areas to the southeast of the State’s 

recommended boundary, including those near the Eloy monitor, 

because of the contribution of southeast emissions to violations 

recorded at the Casa Grande and Pinal County Housing monitors. 

The EPA does not agree with the commenters' implicit assumption 

that the southeast portion must be the sole or main cause of 

violations in order for it to be included in the nonattainment 

22 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

area. While emissions from the southeast may not cause a 

violation at Eloy, they still contribute to violations farther 

northwest. 

Our conclusion that the area southeast of the State’s 

boundary in and around Eloy contributes to the violations 

farther northwest is based on (1) emissions inventory data (see 

table 3 of the TSD for the proposed rule) that shows that PM10

emissions from traffic on paved and unpaved roads, and 

agricultural and agricultural activities account for most of the 

overall inventory in Pinal County; (2) maps illustrating the 

locations of agricultural uses and paved and unpaved roads (see 

figure 4 and figure 9 of the TSD, respectively) and showing a 

concentration of such uses and roads in and around Eloy; (3) a 

map illustrating the distribution of overall PM10 emissions in 

the county (see figure 5 of the TSD) and showing similar rates 

of emissions generated in and around Eloy as the area where 

violations of the standard occur; meteorological data showing a 

strong component of winds from the southeast (see figure 10 of 

the TSD); and the absence of significant topographical barriers 

to transport from the area in and around Eloy to the area where 

violations occur (see figure 11 of the TSD). This contribution 

to violations warrants inclusion of this portion of the county 

in the nonattainment area. 

23 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

As discussed in EPA's proposal and in the Meteorology 

section of the TSD, we agree that it would be desirable to have 

additional meteorological data available. Nonetheless, EPA 

believes that there are sufficient meteorological data from the 

AZMET (Arizona Meteorological Network) stations within and 

around the proposed area to show that flow from the southeast 

toward the violating monitors occurs often. The EPA believes 

that this pattern exists even during the exceedance days 

discounted by ADEQ and PCAQ.11 The available meteorological 

data, along with the topography and the geographic distribution 

of sources of PM10 emissions, provide evidence that emissions 

sources in the southeast contribute to NAAQS violations. EPA has 

concluded that the nonattainment area boundary should lie 

further to the southeast than the Governor’s recommended 

boundary, though we have reduced the extent relative to the area 

we had proposed to include. 

Comment: Both ADEQ and PCAQ examined HYSPLIT12 back-trajectories 

for several high-wind exceedance days, along with hourly 

concentrations and wind data. From the abrupt changes in wind 

direction and increases in wind speed that often coincided with 

 

11 In their transport analyses, PCAQ and ADEQ focused on days with the wind 

trajectory's ending hour oriented from the southeast, but this does not 

consider other hours during the day that may have had flow from the 

southeast. 

12 The HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model 

is used to compute simple air parcel trajectories, dispersion characteristics, 

and deposition simulations.

24 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

large increases in PM10 concentrations, they concluded that the 

PM10 is due to near-field impacts rather than to long-range 

transport. 

Response: While the analyses performed by ADEQ and Pinal County 

provide useful information for evaluating the PM10 exceedances, 

as discussed above, establishing nonattainment area boundaries 

requires us to take into account more than the sole or main 

cause of an exceedance. Even if the commenters are correct that 

on certain occasions “wind-transport from the southeast is not a 

dominant contributing factor” (ADEQ comments, p.4) and that the 

data “suggest a typical monsoon storm where local weather 

contributed to local impacts” (Pinal County comments, p.3), EPA 

remains convinced by the available evidence that transported 

emissions from the southeast nonattainment area nevertheless do 

contribute to exceedances. As discussed in more detail in the 

TSD for the EPA’s proposal and in the RTC document, the EPA 

believes that the meteorological data provide evidence for such 

a contribution. Other factors, including the geographic 

distribution of sources of emissions and the topography of Pinal 

County also reinforce EPA’s determination to include this 

portion in the nonattainment area. 

IV. Final Action 

For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and TSD, 

insofar as not modified here, the Response to Comments document, 

25 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

and this final rule, the EPA is taking final action pursuant to 

section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act to redesignate an area in 

western Pinal County, Arizona from “unclassifiable” to 

“nonattainment” for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard and is 

therefore also revising the boundaries of the existing “rest of 

state” unclassifiable area. EPA’s establishment of this new PM10

nonattainment area, referred to as “West Pinal,” is based on 

numerous recorded violations of the PM10 standard at various 

monitoring sites within the western portion of the county. With 

the exception of Indian country and certain Federal lands, the 

EPA’s nonattainment area boundaries generally encompass the land 

geographically located within Pinal County north of the eastwest line defined by the southern line of Township 9 South, Gila 

and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, and west of the northsouth line defined by the eastern line of Range 8 East, except 

where the boundary extends farther east in the Florence and 

Picacho Peak areas.13 In taking this action, the EPA concludes 

that the State’s recommended boundaries do not encompass the 

full geographic area from which emissions-generating activities 

contribute to the monitored PM10 violations. See figure 1 in the 

RTC document for a map that compares the State’s recommended 

boundaries to the EPA’s final boundaries. 

 

13 Townships to the east of the north-south line defined by the eastern line 

of Range 8 East that are included in the West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area 

are: T3S, R9E; T4S, R9E; T4S, R10E; T5S, R9E; and T5S, R10E. 

26 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

For this final action, we reduced the size of the 

nonattainment area relative to the area for which we proposed 

redesignation and believe that the final boundaries more closely 

align the nonattainment area boundaries with the areas in which 

PM10 violations are being monitored, as well as the areas that 

contribute to the monitored violations. Our conclusion is based 

on our analysis of the factors as set forth in the proposed rule 

and related TSD, and RTC document, with particular weight being 

given to the locations of those sources, including vehicle 

travel over paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural and 

construction activities, that comprise most of the overall PM10

inventory, the frequent occurrence of southeast winds, and the 

absence of topographical barriers. 

We are continuing to defer our decision regarding 

redesignation of the Ak-Chin and Gila River Indian Community 

lands, as well as TON’s Florence Village and San Lucy Farms, 

pending consideration of issues unique to tribal lands, 

completion of formal consultation with the tribal governments, 

and (in the case of the Gila River Indian Community) further 

review of air quality monitoring data including an evaluation of 

exceptional event claims. The existing Phoenix PM10 nonattainment 

area (including the Apache Junction portion of western Pinal 

County) is unaffected by this action. 

27 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Areas redesignated as nonattainment are subject to the 

applicable requirements of part D, title I of the Act and will 

be classified as moderate by operation of law (see section 

188(a) of the Act). Within 18 months of the effective date of 

this redesignation action, the State of Arizona must submit to 

the EPA an implementation plan for the area containing, among 

other things, the following requirements: (1) provisions to 

assure that reasonably available control measures (including 

reasonably available control technology) are implemented within 

4 years of the redesignation; (2) a permit program meeting the 

requirements of section 173 governing the construction and 

operation of new and modified major stationary sources of PM10; 

(3) quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 

years until the area is redesignated attainment and which 

demonstrates reasonable further progress, as defined in section 

171(1), toward timely attainment; and (4) either a demonstration 

(including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but 

no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the 

area’s designation as nonattainment, or a demonstration that 

attainment by such date is impracticable (see, e.g., section 

188(c), 189(a), 189(c), and 172(c) of the Act). We have issued 

detailed guidance on the statutory requirements applicable to 

28 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas [see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 

1992), and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)]. 

The State will also be required to submit contingency 

measures (for the new PM10 nonattainment area), pursuant to 

section 172(c)(9) of the Act, which are to take effect without 

further action by the State or the EPA, upon a determination by 

the EPA that an area has failed to make reasonable further 

progress or attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date (see 57 FR 13510-13512, 13543-13544). Pursuant to section 

172(b) of the Act, the EPA is establishing a deadline for 

submission of contingency measures to coincide with the 

submittal date requirement for the other SIP elements discussed 

above, i.e., 18 months after the effective date of 

redesignation. Lastly, the new PM10 nonattainment area will be 

subject to the EPA’s general and transportation conformity 

regulations (40 CFR part 93, subparts A and B) one year from the 

effective date of redesignation. See section 176(c)(6) of the 

Act.14 

Specifically, this section of the CAA provides areas, that 

for the first time are designated nonattainment for a given air 

 

14 The proposed rule mistakenly stated that any new PM10 nonattainment area 

would be subject to the EPA’s general and transportation conformity 

regulations upon the effective date of redesignation. See 75 FR at 60688. 

However, CAA section 176(c)(6) provides a one-year grace period for newly 

designated (in this case, newly redesignated) nonattainment areas, i.e., for 

the pollutant for which the area is newly designated (or redesignated) 

nonattainment. See also, 40 CFR 93.102(d) in EPA’s transportation conformity 

regulation and 40 CFR 93.153(k) in the EPA’s general conformity regulation.

29 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

quality standard, with a one-year grace period before conformity 

applies with respect to that standard. Because this is the first 

time that this portion of Pinal County is being designated 

nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS, it will have a one-year grace 

period before conformity applies for the PM10 NAAQS.15

The new West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area would be 

considered to be a “donut area” because portions of the area in 

Queen Creek and Apache Junction are within the area covered by a 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Maricopa 

Association Governments (MAG) and a portion lies outside of 

MAG’s boundaries. For the purposes of transportation conformity, 

a donut area is the geographic area outside a metropolitan 

planning area boundary, but inside the boundary of a designated 

nonattainment/maintenance area. The transportation conformity 

requirements for donut areas are generally the same as those for 

metropolitan areas. However, the MPO would include any projects 

occurring in the donut area in its regional emissions analysis 

of the metropolitan transportation plan and Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP). Therefore, the one-year grace period 

applies to donut areas in much the same way that it applies to 

 

15 For more information on how the one-year grace period applies for 

transportation conformity purposes, please see the proposed and final 

rulemaking entitled, “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Minor 

Revision of 18-Month Requirement for Initial SIP Submissions and Addition of 

Grace Period for Newly Designated Nonattainment Areas,” published October 5, 

2001 (66 FR 50954); and August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808), respectively. (The 

proposed and final rule can be found on EPA’s transportation conformity Web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/conf-regs-c.htm) 

30 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

metropolitan areas. That is, within one year of the effective 

date of an area’s designation, a donut area’s projects must be 

included in the MPO’s conformity determination for the 

metropolitan plan and TIP for those projects to be funded or 

approved. If, at the conclusion of the one-year grace period, 

the donut area’s projects have not been included in an MPO’s 

conformity determination, the entire nonattainment area’s 

conformity would lapse.16

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

the EPA has determined that redesignation to nonattainment, as 

well as the establishment of SIP submittal schedules, would 

result in none of the effects identified in Executive Order 

12866, section 3(f). Under section 107(d)(3) of the Act, 

redesignations to nonattainment are based upon air quality 

considerations. The redesignation, based upon air quality data 

showing that West Pinal is not attaining the PM10 standard and 

upon other air-quality-related considerations, does not, in and 

of itself, impose any new requirements on any sectors of the 

 

16 For more information on transportation conformity requirements in donut 

areas refer to Conformity Implementation in Multi-jurisdictional 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and New Air Quality 

Standards. In particular refer to question 4 in Part 1 and Part 2 of the 

guidance. The document is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b04012.pdf. 

31 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

economy. Similarly, the establishment of new SIP submittal 

schedules would merely establish the dates by which SIPs must be 

submitted, and would not adversely affect entities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 

et. seq., a redesignation to nonattainment under section 

107(d)(3), and the establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for 

a redesignated area, do not, in and of themselves, directly 

impose any new requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex 

Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 

1985)(agency’s certification need only consider the rule’s 

impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule). 

Instead, this rulemaking simply makes a factual determination 

and establishes a schedule to require the State to submit SIP 

revisions, and does not directly regulate any entities. 

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA certifies that 

today’s action does not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those 

terms for RFA purposes. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

32 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, the EPA has concluded that this rule 

is not likely to result in the promulgation of any Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or for 

the private sector, in any one year. It is questionable whether 

a redesignation would constitute a federal mandate in any case. 

The obligation for the state to revise its State Implementation 

Plan that arises out of a redesignation is not legally 

enforceable and at most is a condition for continued receipt of 

federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such 

an action creates any enforceable duty within the meaning of 

section 421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and if it 

does the duty would appear to fall within the exception for a 

condition of Federal assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of 

UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I). 

Even if a redesignation were considered a Federal mandate, 

the anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not 

exceed $100 million to either the private sector or state, local 

and tribal governments. Redesignation of an area to 

nonattainment does not, in itself, impose any mandates or costs 

on the private sector, and thus, there is no private sector 

mandate within the meaning of section 421(7) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 

658(7)). The only cost resulting from the redesignation itself 

33 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

is the cost to the State of Arizona of developing, adopting, and 

submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost will 

not exceed $100 million, this action (if it is a federal mandate 

at all) is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). The EPA has also 

determined that this action would not result in regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because only the State would take any action as 

result of today’s rule, and thus the requirements of section 203 

(2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism implications.” This rule will not 

have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132, because it merely redesignates an area for Clean Air Act 

planning purposes and does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this rule. 

34 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

35 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 

tribal implications.” The area redesignated in today’s action 

does not include Indian country, and the EPA is deferring action 

on the Indian country that lies within or adjacent to the newly 

redesignated area, including the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation, the 

Pinal County portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation, and 

TON’s Florence Village and San Lucy Farms. In formulating its 

further action on these areas, the EPA has been communicating 

with and plans to continue to consult with representatives of 

the Tribes, as provided in Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, 

the EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent that 

it applies to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

(“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks”) (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks. 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

36 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to 

evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new 

regulation. The EPA believes that the requirements of NTTAA are 

inapplicable to this action because they would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

Today’s action redesignates an area to nonattainment for an 

ambient air quality standard. It will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on any communities 

in the area, including minority and low-income communities. 

K. Congressional Review Act
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

37 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., 

as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 

The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of 

this document in the Federal Register]. 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 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

38 

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, 

Intergovernmental relations, National parks, Particulate Matter, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

___________________ __________________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

Region IX 

 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

39 

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 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart C - Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 

2. In § 81.303, the “Arizona–PM-10” table is amended by adding 

a new entry for “Pinal County” after the entry for “Mohave 

County (part)” and before the entry for “Rest of State” to read 

as set forth below. 

§81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

Arizona–PM-10 

Designated Area Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

 

 * * * * * * * 

Pinal County (part) 

 West Pinal 

1. Commencing at a point 

which is the 

intersection of the 

western line of Range 

2 East, Gila and Salt 

River Baseline and 

Meridian, and the 

[Insert 

Date 30 

days 

after 

publica

tion] 

Nonatta

inment 

[Insert 

Date 30 

days 

after 

publica

tion] 

Moderat

e 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

40 

northern line of 

Township 4 South, 

which is the point of 

beginning: 

2. Thence, proceed 

easterly along the 

northern line of 

Township 4 South to a 

point where the 

northern line of 

Township 4 South 

intersects the western 

line of Range 7 East; 

3. Thence, northerly 

along the western line 

of Range 7 East to a 

point where the 

western line of Range 

7 East intersects the 

northern line of 

Township 3 South; 

4. Thence, easterly along 

the northern line of 

Township 3 South to a 

point where the 

northern line of 

Township 3 South 

intersects the western 

line of Range 8 East; 

5. Thence, northerly 

along the western line 

of Range 8 East to a 

point where the 

western line of Range 

8 East intersects the 

northern line of 

Township 1 South; 

6. Thence, easterly along 

the northern line of 

Township 1 South to a 

point where the 

northern line of 

Township 1 South 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

41 

intersects the eastern 

line of Range 8 East; 

7. Thence southerly along 

the eastern line of 

Range 8 East to a 

point where the 

eastern line of Range 

8 East intersects the 

Northern line of 

Township 3 South; 

8. Thence easterly along 

the northern line of 

Township 3 South to a 

point where the 

northern line of 

Township 3 South 

intersects the eastern 

line of Range 9 East; 

9. Thence southerly along 

the eastern line of 

Range 9 east to a 

point where the 

eastern line of Range 

9 East intersects the 

northern line of 

Township 4 South; 

10. Thence easterly along 

the northern line of 

Township 4 South to a 

point where the 

northern line of 

Township 4 South 

intersects the eastern 

line of Range 10 East; 

11. Thence southerly 

along the eastern line 

of Range 10 East to a 

point where the 

eastern line of Range 

10 East intersects the 

southern line of 

Township 5 South; 

12. Thence westerly 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

42 

along the southern 

line of Township 5 

South to a point where 

the southern line of 

Township 5 South 

intersects the eastern 

line of Range 8 East; 

13. Thence southerly 

along the eastern line 

of Range 8 East to a 

point where the 

eastern line of Range 

8 East intersects the 

northern line of 

Township 8 South; 

14. Thence easterly along 

the northern line of 

Township 8 South to a 

point where the 

northern line of 

Township 8 South 

intersects the eastern 

line of Range 9 East; 

15. Thence southerly 

along the eastern line 

of Range 9 east to a 

point where the 

eastern line of Range 

9 East intersects the 

northern line of 

Township 9 South; 

16. Thence easterly along 

the northern line of 

Township 9 South to a 

point where the 

northern line of 

Township 9 South 

intersects the eastern 

line of Range 10 East; 

17. Thence southerly 

along the eastern line 

of Range 10 East to a 

point where the 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

43 

eastern line of Range 

10 East intersects the 

southern line of 

Township 9 South; 

18. Thence westerly along 

the southern line of 

Township 9 South to a 

point where the 

southern line of 

Township 9 South 

intersects the western 

line of Range 7 East; 

19. Thence northerly 

along the western line 

of Range 7 East to a 

point where the 

western line of Range 

7 East intersects the 

southern line of 

Township 8 South; 

20. Thence westerly along 

the southern line of 

Township 8 South to a 

point where the 

southern line of 

Township 8 South 

intersects the western 

line of Range 6 East; 

21. Thence northerly 

along the western line 

of Range 6 East to a 

point where the 

western line of Range 

6 East intersects the 

southern line of 

Township 7 South; 

22. Thence, westerly 

along the southern 

line of Township 7 

South to a point where 

the southern line of 

Township 7 South 

intersects the quarter 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

44 

section line common to 

the southwestern 

southwest quarter 

section and the 

southeastern southwest 

quarter section of 

section 34, Range 3 

East and Township 7 

South; 

23. Thence, northerly 

along the along the 

quarter section line 

common to the 

southwestern southwest 

quarter section and 

the southeastern 

southwest quarter 

section of sections 

34, 27, 22, and 15, 

Range 3 East and 

Township 7 South, to a 

point where the 

quarter section line 

common to the 

southwestern southwest 

quarter section and 

the southeastern 

southwest quarter 

section of sections 

34, 27, 22, and 15, 

Range 3 East and 

Township 7 South, 

intersects the 

northern line of 

section 15, Range 3 

East and Township 7 

South; 

24. Thence, westerly 

along the northern 

line of sections 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Range 

3 East and Township 7 

South, and the 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

45 

northern line of 

sections 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Range 

2 East and Township 7 

South, to a point 

where the northern 

line of sections 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Range 

3 East and Township 7 

South, and the 

northern line of 

sections 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Range 

2 East and Township 7 

South, intersect the 

western line of Range 

2 East, which is the 

common boundary 

between Maricopa and 

Pinal Counties, as 

described in Arizona 

Revised Statutes 

sections 11-109 and 

11-113; 

25. Thence, northerly 

along the western line 

of Range 2 East to the 

point of beginning 

which is the point 

where the western line 

of Range 2 East 

intersects the 

northern line of 

Township 4 South; 

26. Except that portion 

of the area defined by 

paragraphs 1 though 21 

above that lies within 

the Ak-Chin Indian 

Reservation, Gila 

River Indian 

Reservation, and the 

Tohono O’odham 
This document is a prepupblication version, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, on 

5/22/2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

46 

Nation’s Florence 

Village and San Lucy 

Farms. 

 * * * * * * * 

* * * * *