# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 71 Fed. Reg. 13021 2006

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Jul 30 16:32:00 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 49/Tuesday, March 14, 2006/Rules and Regulations

section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed inthe United States 

### Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby May 15, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis finalrule does not affect the finality ofthis rule forthe 

### purposes ofjudicial reviewnor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postponetheeffectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not 

### be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52



### Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 

### compounds.

Dated: February 22, 2006. AlanJ.Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region2.

EPart 52, chapter 1,title 40oftheCode ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:



### PART 52-[AMENDED]

w1.The authority citationforpart 52 continues toread as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 etseq. 

### Subpart FF-New Jersey

* 2.Section 52.1570 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(80) toread as follows: §52.1570 Identificationof plan.



### (c) * * * 

### (80) Revision to the NewJersey State Implementation Plan (SIP)for ozone concerning the control ofnitrogen oxides from the Schering Corporation's 

### CoGEN IIcogeneration facility located inUnion County submitted by the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental 

### Protection (NJDEP), dated March 31, 2005.

(i) Incorporation by reference: 

### (A)Conditions ofApproval, Alternative Maximum Emission Rate For NOx, Schering Corporation, Union, Union County, NewJersey facility identification number 40084 approved March 9, 2005.
[FRDoc. 06-2428 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0041; FRL-8045-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas forAirQuality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Particulate Matter of 10 Micronsor Less; Finding of Attainmentfor Yuma Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding Applicabilityof Certain Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final, action under the Clean AirAct to determine that theYuma nonattainment

area in Arizona has attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to anominal 10 micrometers (PM10). This determination is based upon monitored air quality data for thePM1o NAAQS during the years 1998-2000. EPA also finds that the Yuma area is currently in attainment ofthe PM1o NAAQS, and based on this finding, EPA is determining that certain Clean Air Act requirements are not applicable for

so long as the Yuma area continues to attain the PMIo NAAQS. DATES: This rule is effective on May 15, 2006, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 13, 2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule inthe FederalRegister informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09- OAR-2006-0041, by one ofthe following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

(2) E-mail: rosen.rebecca@epa.gov. (3) Mail ordeliver: Rebecca Rosen (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

### should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted throughthe www.regulations.govor e-mail. www.regulations.govis an anonymous 

### access system,and EPA willnot know your identity or contact information unless you provide it inthe body of your comment. Ifyou send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe public comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficultie's and cannot contact youfor clarification, EPA may not be ableto consider your comment.

Docket:The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.govand in hard 

### copy atEPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents inthe 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 notbe publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copymaterials, please schedule an appointment duringnormal business hours with the contact listed inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Rosen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4152, rosen.rebecca@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### Throughout this document,wherever "we," "us," or "our" areused,we mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Table ofContents
I.Background A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS} Are Considered in Today's Finding? B.What Is the Designation and Classification ofThis PMo Nonattainment Area? C.How Do We Make Attainment Determinations? II.What Is the Basis for EPA'sDetermination That the Yuma Nonattainment Area Has Attained the PM1oNAAQS? I.

What Are the Applicable Planning Requirements for the Yuma Nonattainment Area As a Result ofEPA's Attainment Determination? IV. EPA's Final Action V.Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1.Background

A. WhatNationalAmbientAir Quality Standards(NAAQS)Are Considered in Today'sFinding?



### Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ofless than or equal to 10micrometers (PMI 0) is the subject ofthis action. The NAAQS are limits 'for certain ambient air pollutants
set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. PMIo is among the ambient air 

### 13021

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13021 2006Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 49/ Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

pollutants for which EPAhas established ahealth-based standard.

PMlo causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep into the lungs, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA revised theNAAQS for particulate
matter with an indticator that includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers. See 40 CFR 50.6. The 24-hour primary PMlo standard is 150 micrograms per cubic
meter gig/m 3 with no more than one expected exceedance per year. The annual primary PM10 standard is 50jg/ M3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The secondary PMlo standards, promulgated
to protect against adverse welfare effects, are identical to the primary standards.

B. WhatIs theDesignationand ClassificationofThis PMo Nonattainment Area? Upon enactment ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or "Act"), PMjo

areas meeting the requirements ofeither (i) or (ii)of section 107(d)(4)(B) ofthe Act were designated nonattainment for PM 1oby operation oflaw and classified "moderate." These areas included all former Group IPM 1o planning areas identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987) and further clarified in 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 1990), and any other

areas violating the NAAQS for PMjo prior to January 1, 1989 (many ofthese

areas were identified by footnote 4 in the October 31, 1990 FederalRegister document). A Federal Register notice announcing the areas designated nonattainment for PM1o upon enactment ofthe 1990 Act Amendments, known as "initial" PMlo nonattainment areas, was published on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). A subsequent Federal Register document correcting some ofthese areas

was published on August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37654). These nonattainment designations and moderate area classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 in a Federal Register document published on November 6, 1991. (56 FR 56694). Allother areas in the nation not designated nonattainment atenactment

were designated unclassifiable (see section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of theAct).

The Yuma plaming area was listed by EPA as a Group I area (see 52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987) and was designated nonattainment for PM10,byoperation of law and classified "moderate." In accordance with section 189(a)(2) of the CAA, Arizona was to submit a state implementation plan (SIP)by November 15, 1991 demonstrating attainment of the PM ostandards by December 31, 1994 for the Yuma area.'

C.HowDo We MakeAttainment Determinations?

Pursuant to sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) ofthe Act, we have the responsibility ofdetermining within six months ofthe applicable attainment date whether, based on air quality data, PM1o nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS by that date. The "applicable attainment date" is December 31, 1994 for areas, such as Yuma, that were designated as "moderate" nonattainment for PMo by operation of law under the 1990 Amended Act. Determinations under section 179(c)(1) ofthe Act are to bebased upon an area's "air quality as ofthe attainment date." Section 188(b)(2) is consistent with this requirement.

Generally, we will determine whether

an area's air quality meets the PM10 NAAQS for purposes ofsection 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) based upon data gathered at established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and national air monitoring stations (NAMS) in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Dataentered into the AQS has been determined to meet federal monitoring requirements (see40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFRpart 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A and B) and maybe used
to determine the attainment status of

areas. We will also consider air quality data from other air monitoring stations in the nonattainment area provided that the stations meet the federal monitoring requirements for SLAMS. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with our guidance at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K.Attainment ofthe annual PM~o standard is achieved when the annual arithmetic mean PM1o concentration

over a three-year period is equal to or less than 50 jig/m 3

. Attainment ofthe 24-hour standard is determined by calculating the expected number ofdays in a year with PM10 concentrations greater than 150 jig/m 3

. The 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number ofdays peryear with levels above 150 jig/m 3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than orequal to one. Three consecutive years ofair quality data are necessary to show attainment of

Arizona submitted amoderate area plan for the Yuma area on November 14, 1991; EPA found this plan to be incomplete on May 14, 1992. Arizona submitted a revised plan for Yuma on July 12, 1994. EPA found the revised plan to be complete but has
not taken action onit. the 24-hour and annual standards for PM1o.See 40 CFR part 50 and appendix K. A complete year ofair quality data,

as referred to in40 CFR part 50 Appendix K, includes all 4 calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from atleast 75 percent ofthe scheduled sampling days.2

II. WhatIs the Basis for EPA's Determination That the Yuma Nonattainment Area Has Attained the PM 10 NAAQS?
The Yuma PM 10 nonattainment area is located in the lower Colorado River Valley inthe southwestern portion of Yuma County. The PM~o nonattainment

area consists of 456 square miles, which is roughly eight percent ofthe land area ofYuma County (5,500 square miles). Yuma County is located in the southwestern portion ofArizona that borders California and Mexico. The cities ofYuma and Somerton are the largest population centers in the Yuma PM10 nonattainment area. The city of Yuma, the county seat, is located below the convergence ofthe Gila and Colorado Rivers on the far western side ofthe PM10 nonattainment area. The city of Somerton is located in the southwestern portion of the PM10 nonattainment area. Agriculture is the primary industry in Yuma County. The Arizona Department ofEconomic Security predicts that Yuma County's population is expected to increase by 37.5 percent from 138,025 in 2000 to 189,783 in 2015.3 Approximately onehalf ofthe county's year-round population resides in the city ofYuma. During the winter, Yuma County's population increases significantly due
to seasonal residents.

The Yuma PM1o nonattainment area has one SLAMS monitor operated by the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ). This monitor was located at theYuma County Juvenile Center in the city ofYuma from 1986 until the second quarter of2002, after which time it was relocated to the nearby Yuma County Courthouse, whichis also located in the city of Yuma. ADEQ measures ambient (24- hour-average) PMio concentrations in Yuma at a frequency of once every six days.

Table 1 summarizes the PMo data collected in Yuma from 1992-2005 and reported by ADEQto the AQS database. Table 1also indicates which years had

2However, as explained in more detail in the following section ofthis notice, EPA guidelines allow for data substitution only under circumstances where data capture is at least 50 percent but less than 75 percent.

3Arizona Department ofEconomic Security, 2006. 

### 13022

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13022 2006Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 49/Tuesday, March 14, 2006/Rules and Regulations

four complete quarters ofdata complete quarters of data. As shown in corresponding standard of 50 Fg/m 3

. (including any allowable data Table 1,no exceedances of the 24-hour However, even with allowable data substitution 4), making the data from PM,o NAAQS of 150 [ig/m 3 were substitution, the data capture forYuma that year eligible for use in determining measured in Yuma during the 1992- was not sufficient for the 1992-1994 whether the area has attained the PM1 o 1994 period and the annual-average period to allow us to make a finding of NAAQS, if thatyear is followed by two PM 10 concentrations measured during attainment for the applicable attainment cbnsecutive years also with four that period were well below the date ofDecember 31, 1994.

TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF 24 HOUR AND ANNUAL PM 10 CONCENTRATIONS (gG/M 3) FOR YUMA, 1992-20051

Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Highest 24-hour-average

........................ 62 65 66 75 103 108 112 100 132 2150 125 127 114 86 Annual average ...................................... 29.0 33.9 37.3 41.5 52.1 42.4 39.7 36.7 354.3 41.2 51.8 38.1 45.0 30.8 Four complete quarters?

........... ... ..... .. . . . Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 4NA
IThe data summary inTable 1includes substituted data and was analyzed according to the "Guideline on Exceptions to Data Requirements for Determining Attainment of Particulate Matter Standards." See footnote 4.The fourth quarter in 1994, the secondquarter in 1997, and the first and fourth quarters in2001 were not eligible for data substitution. The incomplete datafrom these quarters was included inthe calculation of the annual average for each ofthese years.

2The highest measured 24-hour-average concentration in2001 was 150 .tg/m3

, which is equal to the 24-hour PMj0 NAAQS, but which isnot considered an "exceedance." Under EPA regulations, an exceedance of the 24-hour-average standard represents concentrations of 155 hg/m3

or greater. See 40 CFR 50, appendix K.

3Data substitutio results ina conservative estimate of the annual average. See footnote 4. For example, the annual average for 2000 of 54.3 gg/m 3 would be reduced to 42.3 ,ug/m3 if data substition was not used. The method of data substitution was used to calculate annual averages for 1993-1997, 2000-2002, and 2004.

4We have received AQS datafrom ADEQ through September 30, 2005. States are required to report data to AOS on a rolling basis and have until 90 days from the end of agiven quarter to submit quality-assured monitoring data into AQS. See 40 CFR 58.28.

NA: Not Applicable.

Like the 1992-1994 period, the series ofthree-year periods immediately following 1992-1994 also show no exceedances ofthe PM1oNAAQS but an incomplete data set in 1997 prevents us from making an attainment finding until 1998-2000, the first three-year period * after the applicable attainment date with sufficient data capture to make an attainment finding consistent with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix K.

As noted above, the 24-hour PM 10 standard is attained when the expected number ofdays per year with levels above 150 gg/m 3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than orequal to one. When we apply data substitution per' the above-referenced guideline for the period 1998-2000, we find no exceedances ofthe 24-hour PMo NAAQS forthe 1998-2000 period and thus the expected number ofdays per year with levels above 150 gtg/m 3 (averaged overthat three-year period) is

zero. As such, pursuant to sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) ofthe Act, we find that Yuma has attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Since 2000, there is one year (2001) in which four complete quarters of data are not available, but

4The regulatory requirement for data capture in 40 CFRpart 50, Appendix K, is75 percent on a quarterly basis. According to the "Guideline on Exceptions to DataRequirements forDetermining Attainment ofParticulate Matter Standards" (see EPA document450/4-87-005, April 1987),when data capture is at least 50 percent butless than 75 percent, data may be substituted for themissing data. Perthe above-referenced guideline, monitoring data from the same quarter in any one because the data from the most recent three-year period (2002-2004) are complete and show no exceedances, 5
and because the latest available information for 2005 also reveals no exceedances, we conclude that Yuma is currently in attainment ofthe 24-hour PMio NAAQS.

Also as noted above, attainment ofthe annual PM 1 ostandard is achieved when the annual arithmetic mean PM 10 concentration over a three-year period is equal to or less than 50 gg/m 3

.Review ofthe data for calendar years 1998-2000 reveals an arithmetic average of43.6 JRg/ M3

. As such, pursuant to sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) ofthe Act, we find that Yuma has attained the annual PM10 NAAQS. As noted previously, the data set for year 2001 is notcomplete, but the data from the most recent complete three-year period (2002-2004) show that Yuma is currently in attainment ofthe annual PM10 NAAQS.

ofthe years used to determine attainment may be substituted formissing PM io data.The maximum PMo value that was observed in that quarter over the last threeyears is substituted formissing scheduled sampling days.

aOn August 18, 2002, ADEQ nueasured 170gg/

m3

,24-hour-average, at the Yuma monitoring station; however, EPA concurred with ADEQ on the exclusion ofthis data from design value calculations due to a high wind event that occurred Ill. What Are the Applicable Planning Requirements for the Yuma Nonattainment Area as a Result of EPA's AttainmentDetermination?

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM 0 nonattainment areas, such as the Yuma nonattainment area,
are set out inpart D, subparts 1 and 4 oftitle I ofthe Act. We have issued guidance in aGeneral Preamble 6 describing how we will review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under title Iof the Act, including those containing moderate PM1o nonattainment area SIP provisions.

In nonattainment areas where monitored data demonstrates that the NAAQS have already been achieved, EPA has determined hat certain requirements ofpart D, subparts 1and 2 oftitle I ofthe Act (with respect to 1- hour ozone) do not apply. Therefore, we do not require certain submissions for

an area that has attained the NAAQS. These include reasonable further progress (RFP)requirements, attainment demonstrations and contingency
measures, because these provisions have the purpose ofhelping achieve attainment ofthe NAAQS.

on that date. ADEQ has prepared a Natural Events Action Plan [NEAP) in response to that event. The NEAP includes the development and implementation ofBest Available Control Measures (BACM) for anthropogenic PMo sources that contributed to the event.

0"General Preamble for the Implementation of TitleI ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990" (57 FR 13490, April 16, 1992, as supplemented 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992). 

### 13023

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13023 2006Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 49/Tuesday, March 14, 2006/Rules and Regulations

This interpretation ofthe CAA is known as the Clean Data Policy and is the subject oftwo EPA memoranda. EPA also finalized the statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in

afinal rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of its "Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2" (Phase 2 Final Rule). See discussion inthe preamble to the'rule at 70 FR 71612, 71645-46 (November 29, 2005). EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in detail in our Phase 2 Final Rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard," and our December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled "Clean Data Policy forthe Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards" are equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions ofsubparts 1and 4 applicable to PM10. Our interpretation that an area that is attaining the standards is relieved ofobligations to demonstrate RFP and toprovide an attainment demonstration and contingency measures pursuant to part D of the CAA, pertains whether the standard is PM1o, ozone or PM2 .5. 7 It hasbeen EPA's longstanding interpretation that the general provisions ofpart D, subpart 1 ofthe Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the submission ofSIP revisions concerning RFP for areas already attaining the ozoneNAAQS because the stated purpose of-RFP is-to ensure attainment by the applicable date. 57 FR at 13564. EPA believes the same reasoning applies to the PM 1oprovisions ofpart D, subpart 4. CAA section 189(c)(1), applicable to PM10 nonattainment areas, states that revisions shall contain milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show reasonable further progress "toward attainment by the applicable date," as defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary ormeaningful.

With respectto the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 189(a)(1)(B) an analogous rationale leads to the same result. CAA section

7Three U.S. Circuit Courts ofAppeals have upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation ofsubparts 1and 2 with respect to ozone. Sierra Clubv. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (loth Cir. 1996); Sierra

- Clubv. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our Children's EarthFoundationv.EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion). 189(a)(1)(B), requires that the plan provide for "a demonstration (including airquality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date * * *"As with the RFP requirements, ifan areais already monitoring attainment ofthe standards, EPA believes there is no need foran
area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation ofthe section 172(c) requirements providedby EPA in the General Preamble (57 at 13564), the December 14, 2004 memorandum, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the May 10, 1995 memorandum.

- Other SIP submission requirements

are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Wehave interpreted the contingency measure requirements ofsection 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer applying when an
area has attained the standard because those "contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date." (57 FR at 13564); May 10, 1995 memorandum at 5-6.

Here, as inboth our Phase 2 Final Rule and ozone and PM 2. 5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension ofa requirement to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, contingency, and other related requirements exists only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment ofthe standard. Ifsuch an area experiences a violation ofthe NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would uo longer exist. Therefore, should EPA at some future time determine that an area that had clean data,but which has not yet been redesignated as attainment fora NAAQS, has violated the relevant standard, the State would again be required to submit the pertinent CAA requirements forthe area.

With respect to the Yuma PM1o nonattainment area, based on the finding made herein that Yuma is currently in attainment ofthe PM 10 NAAQS and based on the rationale given above, we have determined that the part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RFP provisions established by section 189(c)(1), and the attainment demonstration, RFP and contingency

measure provisions ofpart D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 ofthe Act are not applicable for so long as the Yuma

area continues to monitor attainment of the PM1 0 NAAQS. If measurements of ambient PM10 concentrations in the Yuma area reveal a violation ofthe PM1 0 NAAQS, then the State ofArizona would again be required to submit the pertinent CAA requirements for.this nonattainment area.8

IV. EPA's FinalAction

Based on quality-assured data meeting the requirements of40 CFR part 50, appendix K, we findthat the Yuma, Arizona nonattainment area has attained the PM 1 0 NAAQS. This action is a finding ofattainment under sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act and not a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan meeting the requirements ofsection 175A ofthe CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAArequirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 will remain moderate nonattainment for this area until such time as Arizona meets the CAA requirements for redesignation ofthe Yuma PM10 area to attainment.

EPA also finds that, because the Yuma "moderate" nonattaimnent area is currently in attainment ofthe PM10 NAAQS, the following CAA requirements are not applicable for so long as the area continues to attain the PM1 0 NAAQS: the part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RFP provisions established by section 189(c)(1), and the attainment demonstration, RFP and contingency measure provisions ofpart D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act.

We are publishingthis rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as anoncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section

8 Note, however, that onJanuary 17, 2006, EPA published proposedrevisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter. See http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/. The proposed revisions address two categories ofparticulate
matter: fine particles which are particles 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and "inhalable coarse" particles which are particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (PMo-2,5s}. Upon finalization ofa primary 24-hour standard for PM1e-2.5, EPAproposestorevoke the current24- hourPM,0 standard in all areas ofthe country except in areas where there is at least one monitor located in an urbanized area (as defined bythe U.S. Bureau ofthe Census) with a minimum population of 100,000 that violates the current 24-hour PM1a standardbased onthe most recent threeyears of data. In addition, EPA proposes to revoke the current annual PM 0 standard upon finalization of

a primary 24-hour standard forPMI-2.5. 

### 13024

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13024 2006

### Federal Register

### /Vol. 71, No. 49/Tuesday, March 14, 2006

### /Rules and Regulations

ofthis Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve asthe proposal should adverse comments be filed. This action willbe effective May 15, 2006, without further notice unless the EPAreceives relevant adverse comments by April 13, 2006.

If we receive such comments, then we willpublish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. Ifno such comments

arereceived, the public is advised that this rule willbe effective on May 15, 2006 and no further action will be taken

on the proposed rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66FR 28355,, May 22, 2001). This action merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does not impose any additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly.

or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

.This rule also does nothave tribal implicationsbecause it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilitiesbetween the Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 97249,November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does nothave substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does not alter the relationship orthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

The requirements ofsection 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does notimpose an informatioh collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published inthe Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as definedby 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action mustbe.filed in the United States Cour ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby May 15, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend thetime within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall notpostpone 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 ofSubjects

40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: March 1,2006. Wayne Nastri, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIX. [FR Doc. 06-2430 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2
Frequency Allocationsand Radio Treaty Matters

CFRCorrection

In Title47 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, parts 0 to 19, revised as of October 1,2005, on page 474, § 2.1 is corrected by adding the following definitions to read as follows:
§2.1 Terms and definitions.

HarmfulInterference.Interference which endangers the functioning ofa radionavigation service or ofother safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with [the ITU] Radio Regulations. (CS)

HighAltitudePlatformStation (HAPS). A station located on an object
at an altitude of20 to 50 km and at a specified, nominal, fixed pointrelative
to the Earth. (RR)



### [FRDoc. 06-55513 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 060216044-6044-01; I.D. 030906A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone OffAlaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630 ofthe Gulf of Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 ofthe GulfofAlaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season allowance ofthe 2006 total allowable catch (TAC) ofpollock for Statistical Area 630 ofthe GOA. 

### 13025

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13025 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 49/Tuesday, March 14, 2006/Rules and Regulations.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 10, 2006, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., August 25, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish ofthe Gulfof Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The B season allowance ofthe 2006 TAC ofpollock in Statistical Area 630 ofthe GOA is 1,861 metric tons (mt)as established by the 2006 and 2007 harvest specifications for groundfish of, the GOA (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby decreases the B season pollock allowance by 811 mt, the ambunt the A

season allowance ofthe pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 was exceeded. Therefore, the revised B season allowance ofthe pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is therefore 1,050 mt (1,861 mt minus 811 mt).

In accordance with §679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance ofthe 2006 TAC ofpollock in Statistical Area 630 ofthe GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of0 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 1,050 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance hasbeen reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 ofthe GOA.

After the effective date ofthis closure the maximum retainable amounts at §679.20(e) and (f) apply at anytime during a trip.
Classification

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. TheAssistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in atimely fashion and would delay the closure ofpollock in Statistical Area 630 ofthe GOA. NMFS

was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data onlybecame available as ofMarch 8, 2006.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30 day delay in the effective date ofthis action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon thereasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public
comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authoity: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: March 9,2006. Alan D.Risenhoover, ActingDirector, OfficeofSustainable Fisheries, National MarineFisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-2440 Filed 3-9-06; 2:50 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 060216044-6044-01; I.D. 030906B]

Fisheries ofthe Exclusive Economic Zone OffAlaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610 ofthe Gulf of Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 ofthe GulfofAlaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season allowance ofthe 2006 total allowable catch (TAC) ofpollock for Statistical Area 610 ofthe GOA. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 14, 2006, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., August 25, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery inthe GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan forGroundfish ofthe Gulfof Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority ofthe MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance withthe FMP appear at subpart H of50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The B season allowance ofthe 2006 TAC ofpollock in Statistical Area 610 ofthe GOA is 4,210 metric tons (mt)as established by the 2006 and 2007 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance ofthe 2006 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 ofthe GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of4,160 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 50mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 ofthe GOA.

After the effective date ofthis closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f)apply at any time during a trip.

Classification

This action responds to the best available ififormation recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public i fnterest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure ofpollock in Statistical Area 610 ofthe GOA. NMFS was-unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as ofMarch 8, 2006. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30 day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above forwaiver of prior notice and opportunity for public
comment.

This action is required by §679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

### 13026

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13026 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 49/Tuesday, March 14, 2006/Rules and Regulations

Dated: March 9,2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, ActingDirector, Office ofSustainable Fisheries National MarineFisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-2439 Filed 3-9-06; 2:50 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 697
[Docket No. 010413093-6056-04; I.D. 032301C]

RIN 0648-AP18


### AtlanticCoastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions;American Lobster Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. o ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS amends regulations to modify the management measures applicable to the Federal American lobster (Homarus americanus)fishery. This action is inresponse to recommendations by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) inAddenda II and IIIto Amendment 3 ofthe Interstate Fishery Management Plan forAmerican Lobster (ISFMP). The lobster management

measures are intended to increase protection to American lobster broodstock throughout the stock's range, and will apply to lobsters harvested in

one or more ofseven Lobster Conservation Management Areas (LCMA). In addition, NMFS will clarify existing Federal lobster regulations. To allow adequate time to modify lobster trap gear to meet new gear configuration requirements, the effective date of actions identified inthis final rule is May 1, 2006. DATES: Effective May 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe American lobsterEnvironmental Assessment/ Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/ RLRI/FRFA) prepared for this regulatory action are available upon request from Harold Mears, Director, State, Federal and Constituent Programs Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ross, NMFS, Northeast Region, (978) 281-9234, fax (978) 281-9117.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Authority
These final regulations modify Federal lobster conservation midnagement measures in theExclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)under the authority ofsection 803(b) ofthe Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), 16 U.S.C. 5101 etseq., which states that, in the absence ofan approved and implemented Fishery Management Plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.) and, after consultation with the appropriate Fishery Management Council(s), the Secretary ofCommerce may implement regulations to govern fishing in the EEZ, i.e., from 3 to 200 nautical miles (nm)offshore. These regulations must be (1) compatible with the effective implementation of an ISFMP developed by the Commission and (2) consistent with the national standards set forth in section 301 ofthe Magnuson-Stevens Act. Purpose and Need for Management

American lobster are managed within the framework ofthe Commission. The Commission is a deliberative body comprised ofrepresentatives both from the Atlantic coastal states and the Federal Government. The Commission

serves to develop fishery conservation and management strategies for certain coastal species and coordinates the efforts ofthe states and Federal Government toward concerted sustainable ends. The Commission decides upon amanagement strategy, then forwards that strategy to the states and Federal Government along with a recommendation that the states and Federal Government take action (e.g., enact regulations) in furtherance ofthis strategy.

The Commission reports that American lobster (Hornarus americanus) experience high fishing mortality rates and are growth overfished throughout their range (U.S./ Canadaborder to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina). Overfishing is arate of removal that is too high and, if continued, the removals would notbe sustainable. Growth overfishing, under the Commission ISFMP, means thaf most lobsters are harvested ator just above the legal minimum size and the maximum yield is not produced because ofhigh fishing mortality on these smaller lobsters. In March 2000, the Commission issued an American lobster stock assessment report that concluded that the resource is growth overfished. That assessment was further evaluated by an external peer review, which took place during May 2000. The stock
assessment external peer review concluded that fishing rates are unacceptably high, recruitment overfishing is occurring, and that a precautionary approach in management ofthe resource is warranted to sustain future viability ofthe lobster fishery. Recruitment overfishing, under the Commission ISFMP, means that the number ofnew lobsters available to the fishery each year is reduced by high fishing mortality rates. Since most egg production" is from recruits and the first molt group above the minimum legal size, a decline inrecruitment would lead to a decline in egg production. The Peer Review Report provided several management recommendations on the implications ofthe stock assessment report, including recommendations to address increasing lobster mortality and
to rebuild stocks. The Commission completed an updated and peer reviewed American lobster stock
assessment in late 2005. Results ofthe assessment and peer review recommendations are being evaluated at this time by the Commission. Based on the peer reviewed stock assessment information currently available,

measures identified in this regulatory action will not be contrary to the updated assessment results.

The Commission has developed a plan to end the overfishing and has requested assistance from the Federal Government in the form ofcompatible Federal regulations. The Atlantic Coastal Act directs the Federal Government to support the management efforts ofthe Commission. Additionally, to the extent the Federal Government seeks to regulate a Commission species, those Federal regulations mustbe compatible with the Commission plan. The measures in this regulatory action respond to: the biological need to address increasing lobster mortality and to rebuild stocks; the practical need to have uniform state and Federal ' regulations; and, the legal need to support the Commission plan in complementary fashion. Background

The Commission set forth the foundation ofits American lobster fishery management plan in Amendment 3to the ISFMP (Amendment 3) in December 1997. The Federal Government issued compatible regulations that complemented Amendment 3 in December 1999. The Amendment 3 regulations established assorted measures to directly, even if preliminarily, address overfishing (e.g., trap caps and minimum gauge sizes). Amendment 3 created seven lobster 

### 13027

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13027 2006