+(,121/,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) 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 May 15, 2006. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: February 22, 2006.

Alan J. Steinberg,

Regional Administrator, Region 2.

E Part 52, chapter 1, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

w 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart FF-New Jersey

* 2. Section 52.1570 is amended by

adding new paragraph (c)(80) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1570 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(80) Revision to the New Jersey State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone

concerning the control of nitrogen

oxides from the Schering Corporation's

CoGEN II cogeneration facility located

in Union County submitted by the New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP), dated March 31,

2005.

(i) Incorporation by reference:

(A) Conditions of Approval,

Alternative Maximum Emission Rate

For NOx, Schering Corporation, Union,

Union County, New Jersey facility

identification number 40084 approved

March 9, 2005.

[FR Doc. 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 for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of Arizona; Particulate

Matter of 10 Microns or Less; Finding

of Attainment for Yuma Nonattainment

Area; Determination Regarding

Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final,

action under the Clean Air Act to

determine that the Yuma 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 a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10).

This determination is based upon

monitored air quality data for the PM1o

NAAQS during the years 1998-2000.

EPA also finds that the Yuma area is

currently in attainment of the 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 of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments,

identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2006-0041, by one of the

following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

on-line instructions.

(2) E-mail: rosen.rebecca@epa.gov.

(3) Mail or deliver: 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 through the

www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

www.regulations.gov is an anonymous

access system, and EPA will not know

your identity or contact information

unless you provide it in the body of

your comment. If you send e-mail

directly to EPA, your e-mail address

will be automatically captured and

included as part of the public comment.

If EPA cannot read your comment due

to technical difficultie's and cannot

contact you for clarification, EPA may

not be able to consider your comment.

Docket: The index to the docket for

this action is available electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California. While

all documents in the docket are listed in

the index, some information may be

publicly available only at the hard copy

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

some may not be publicly available in

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the

hard copy materials, please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Rosen, EPA Region IX, (415)

947-4152, rosen.rebecca@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever

"we," "us," or "our" are used, we mean

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA).

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS} Are Considered in

Today's Finding?

B. What Is the Designation and Classification

of This PMo Nonattainment Area?

C. How Do We Make Attainment

Determinations?

II. What Is the Basis for EPA's Determination

That the Yuma Nonattainment Area Has

Attained the PM1o NAAQS?

I. What Are the Applicable Planning

Requirements for the Yuma

Nonattainment Area As a Result of EPA's

Attainment Determination?

IV. EPA's Final Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Background

A. What National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) Are Considered in

Today's Finding?

Particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter of less than or

equal to 10 micrometers (PMI0) is the

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

pollutants for which EPA has

established a health-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 the NAAQS 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 50 jg/

M3 as an annual arithmetic mean. The

secondary PMlo standards, promulgated

to protect against adverse welfare

effects, are identical to the primary

standards.

B. What Is the Designation and

Classification of This PMo

Nonattainment Area?

Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments (CAA or "Act"), PMjo

areas meeting the requirements of either

(i) or (ii) of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the

Act were designated nonattainment for

PM1o by operation of law and classified

"moderate." These areas included all

former Group I PM 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 of these

areas were identified by footnote 4 in

the October 31, 1990 Federal Register

document). A Federal Register notice

announcing the areas designated

nonattainment for PM1o upon enactment

of the 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 of these 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). All other areas in the nation not

designated nonattainment at enactment

were designated unclassifiable (see

section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act).

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 ,by operation 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 o standards by December 31,

1994 for the Yuma area.'

C. How Do We Make Attainment

Determinations?

Pursuant to sections 179(c)(1) and

188(b)(2) of the Act, we have the

responsibility of determining within six

months of the 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)

of the Act are to be based upon an area's

"air quality as of the 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 of section

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. Data entered into the

AQS has been determined to meet

federal monitoring requirements (see 40

CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J;

40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58,

appendices A and B) and may be used

to determine the attainment status of

areas. We will also consider air quality

data from other air monitoring stations

in the nonattainment area 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 of the 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 of the

24-hour standard is determined by

calculating the expected number of days

in a year with PM10 concentrations

greater than 150 jig/m 3. The 24-hour

standard is attained when the expected

number of days per year with levels

above 150 jig/m 3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one.

Three consecutive years of air quality

data are necessary to show attainment of

Arizona submitted a moderate 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 on it.

the 24-hour and annual standards for

PM1o. See 40 CFR part 50 and appendix

K. A complete year of air quality data,

as referred to in 40 CFR part 50

Appendix K, includes all 4 calendar

quarters with each quarter containing

data from at least 75 percent of the

scheduled sampling days. 2

II. What Is the Basis for EPA's

Determination That the Yuma

Nonattainment Area Has Attained the

PM10 NAAQS?

The Yuma PM10 nonattainment area is

located in the lower Colorado River

Valley in the southwestern portion of

Yuma County. The PM~o nonattainment

area consists of 456 square miles, which

is roughly eight percent of the land area

of Yuma County (5,500 square miles).

Yuma County is located in the

southwestern portion of Arizona that

borders California and Mexico. The

cities of Yuma 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 of the Gila and

Colorado Rivers on the far western side

of the 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 of Economic

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 of the county's year-round

population resides in the city of Yuma.

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 of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ). This monitor was

located at the Yuma County Juvenile

Center in the city of Yuma from 1986

until the second quarter of 2002, after

which time it was relocated to the

nearby Yuma County Courthouse,

which is 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 ADEQ to the AQS database.

Table 1 also indicates which years had

2 However, as explained in more detail in the

following section of this notice, EPA guidelines

allow for data substitution only under

circumstances where data capture is at least 50

percent but less than 75 percent.

3 Arizona Department of Economic Security,

2006.

13022

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

four complete quarters of data 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 for Yuma

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 that year is followed by two PM10 concentrations measured during attainment for the applicable attainment

cbnsecutive years also with four that period were well below the date of December 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

I The data summary in Table 1 includes 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 second quarter in 1997, and the first

and fourth quarters in 2001 were not eligible for data substitution. The incomplete data from these quarters was included in the calculation of the

annual average for each of these years.

2The highest measured 24-hour-average concentration in 2001 was 150 .tg/m3

, which is equal to the 24-hour PMj 0 NAAQS, but which is not

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. 3 Data substitutio results in a 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. 4 We have received AQS data from 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 a given quarter to submit quality-assured monitoring data into AQS. See 40 CFR 58.28.

NA: Not Applicable.

Like the 1992-1994 period, the series

of three-year periods immediately

following 1992-1994 also show no

exceedances of the PM1o NAAQS 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 PM10

standard is attained when the expected

number of days per year with levels

above 150 gg/m 3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one.

When we apply data substitution per'

the above-referenced guideline for the

period 1998-2000, we find no

exceedances of the 24-hour PMo

NAAQS for the 1998-2000 period and

thus the expected number of days per

year with levels above 150 gtg/m 3

(averaged over that three-year period) is

zero. As such, pursuant to sections

179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the 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

4

The regulatory requirement for data capture in

40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, is 75 percent on a

quarterly basis. According to the "Guideline on Exceptions to Data Requirements for Determining

Attainment of Particulate Matter Standards" (see

EPA document 450/4-87-005, April 1987), when

data capture is at least 50 percent but less than 75

percent, data may be substituted for the missing

data. Per the 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 of the 24-hour

PMio NAAQS.

Also as noted above, attainment of the

annual PM1 o standard is achieved when

the annual arithmetic mean PM10

concentration over a three-year period is

equal to or less than 50 gg/m 3 . Review

of the data for calendar years 1998-2000

reveals an arithmetic average of 43.6 JRg/

M3 . As such, pursuant to sections

179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the Act, we

find that Yuma has attained the annual

PM10 NAAQS. As noted previously, the

data set for year 2001 is not complete,

but the data from the most recent

complete three-year period (2002-2004)

show that Yuma is currently in

attainment of the annual PM10 NAAQS.

of the years used to determine attainment may be

substituted for missing PM io data. The maximum

PMo value that was observed in that quarter over

the last three years is substituted for missing

scheduled sampling days.

a On August 18, 2002, ADEQ nueasured 170 gg/

m3 , 24-hour-average, at the Yuma monitoring

station; however, EPA concurred with ADEQ on the

exclusion of this 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 Attainment Determination?

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate PM 0 nonattainment areas,

such as the Yuma nonattainment area,

are set out in part D, subparts 1 and 4

of title I of the Act. We have issued

guidance in a General Preamble 6

describing how we will review SIPs and

SIP revisions submitted under title I of

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 of part D, subparts 1 and

2 of title I of the 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 of helping achieve

attainment of the 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 of Best Available Control Measures

(BACM) for anthropogenic PMo sources that

contributed to the event.

0 "General Preamble for the Implementation of

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990"

(57 FR 13490, April 16, 1992, as supplemented 57

FR 18070, April 28, 1992).

13023

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

This interpretation of the CAA is

known as the Clean Data Policy and is

the subject of two EPA memoranda. EPA

also finalized the statutory

interpretation set forth in the policy in

a final rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of

its "Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard-Phase 2" (Phase 2 Final

Rule). See discussion in the preamble to

the'rule at 70 FR 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 for the Fine Particle National

Ambient Air Quality Standards" are

equally pertinent to the interpretation of

provisions of subparts 1 and 4

applicable to PM10. Our interpretation

that an area that is attaining the

standards is relieved of obligations to

demonstrate RFP and to provide an

attainment demonstration and

contingency measures pursuant to part

D of the CAA, pertains whether the

standard is PM1o, ozone or PM2 .5.7

It has been EPA's longstanding

interpretation that the general

provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the

Act (sections 171 and 172) do not

require the submission of SIP revisions

concerning RFP for areas already

attaining the ozone NAAQS 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 PM1o provisions

of part 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 or meaningful.

With respect to the attainment

demonstration requirements of section

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

to the same result. CAA section

7

Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have

upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation

of subparts 1 and 2 with respect to ozone. Sierra

Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (loth Cir. 1996); Sierra -

Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our

Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032

(9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion).

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

provide for "a demonstration (including

air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will

provide for attainment by the applicable

attainment date * * *" As with the RFP

requirements, if an area is already

monitoring attainment of the standards,

EPA believes there is no need for an

area to make a further submission

containing additional measures to

achieve attainment. This is also

consistent with the interpretation of the

section 172(c) requirements provided by

EPA in the General Preamble (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). We have

interpreted the contingency measure

requirements of section 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 in both our Phase 2 Final

Rule and ozone and PM 2.

5 clean data

memoranda, we emphasize that the

suspension of a 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 of the

standard. If such an area experiences a violation of the 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 for a

NAAQS, has violated the relevant

standard, the State would again be

required to submit the pertinent CAA

requirements for the area.

With respect to the Yuma PM1o

nonattainment area, based on the

finding made herein that Yuma is

currently in attainment of the 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 of part D, subpart 1

contained in section 172 of the Act are

not applicable for so long as the Yuma

area continues to monitor attainment of

the PM10 NAAQS. If measurements of

ambient PM10 concentrations in the

Yuma area reveal a violation of the PM10

NAAQS, then the State of Arizona

would again be required to submit the

pertinent CAA requirements for.this

nonattainment area.8

IV. EPA's Final Action

Based on quality-assured data meeting

the requirements of 40 CFR part 50,

appendix K, we find that the Yuma,

Arizona nonattainment area has attained

the PM10 NAAQS. This action is a

finding of attainment under sections

179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the 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 of section 175A of the

CAA or determined that the area has

met the other CAA requirements 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 of the Yuma PM10 area to

attainment.

EPA also finds that, because the Yuma "moderate" nonattaimnent area is

currently in attainment of the PM10

NAAQS, the following CAA

requirements are not applicable for so

long as the area continues to attain the

PM10 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 of part

D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of

the Act.

We are publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial action

and anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

8 Note, however, that on January 17, 2006, EPA

published proposed revisions to the NAAQS for

particulate matter. See http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/

EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/. The proposed

revisions address two categories of particulate

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 of a primary 24-hour standard for

PM1e-2.5, EPA proposes to revoke the current 24-

hour PM,0 standard in all areas of the country

except in areas where there is at least one monitor

located in an urbanized area (as defined by the U.S.

Bureau of the Census) with a minimum population

of 100,000 that violates the current 24-hour PM1a

standard based on the most recent three years of

data. In addition, EPA proposes to revoke the

current annual PM 0 standard upon finalization of a primary 24-hour standard for PMI-2.5.

13024

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 13024 2006
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49/Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal should

adverse comments be filed. This action

will be effective May 15, 2006, without

further notice unless the EPA receives

relevant adverse comments by April 13,

2006.

If we receive such comments, then we

will publish a document withdrawing

the final rule and informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. We will not

institute a second comment period.

Parties interested in commenting should

do so at this time. If no such comments

are received, the public is advised that

this rule will be effective on May 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 of Management and Budget. For

this reason, this action is also not

subject to Executive Order 13211,

"Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

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

22, 2001). This action merely 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 of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this

rule does not impose any additional

enforceable duty, it does not contain

any unfunded mandate or significantly.

or uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

.This rule also does not have tribal

implicationsbecause it will not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This

action also does not have federalism

implications because it does not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

makes a determination based on air

quality data and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA. This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 "Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

The requirements of section 12(d) of

the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This rule does

not impose an informatioh collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a "major rule" as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be.filed in the United States

Cour of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 15, 2006. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 1, 2006.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 06-2430 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2

Frequency Allocations and Radio

Treaty Matters

CFR Correction

In Title 47 of the Code of Federal

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.

Harmful Interference. Interference

which endangers the functioning of a

radionavigation service or of other

safety services or seriously degrades,

obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a

radiocommunication service operating

in accordance with [the ITU] Radio

Regulations. (CS)

High Altitude Platform Station

(HAPS). A station located on an object

at an altitude of 20 to 50 km and at a

specified, nominal, fixed point relative

to the Earth. (RR)

[FR Doc. 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 Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical

Area 630 of the 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 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This

action is necessary to prevent exceeding

the B season allowance of the 2006 total

allowable catch (TAC) of pollock for

Statistical Area 630 of the 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 of the Gulf of

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 of 50

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The B season allowance of the 2006

TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630

of the 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 of the pollock TAC in

Statistical Area 630 was exceeded.

Therefore, the revised B season

allowance of the 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

of the 2006 TAC of pollock in Statistical

Area 630 of the GOA will soon be

reached. Therefore, the Regional

Administrator is establishing a directed

fishing allowance of 0 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 has been reached.

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting

directed fishing for pollock in Statistical

Area 630 of the GOA.

After the effective date of this 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 information 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

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 a timely fashion and would

delay the closure of pollock in

Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS

was unable to publish a notice

providing time for public comment

because the most recent, relevant data

only became available as of March 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 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,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 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 of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical

Area 610 of the 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 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This

action is necessary to prevent exceeding

the B season allowance of the 2006 total

allowable catch (TAC) of pollock for

Statistical Area 610 of the 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 in the

GOA exclusive economic zone

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

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 of 50

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The B season allowance of the 2006

TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610

of the 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

of the 2006 TAC of pollock in Statistical

Area 610 of the GOA will soon be

reached. Therefore, the Regional

Administrator is establishing a directed

fishing allowance of 4,160 mt, and is

setting aside the remaining 50 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 has been reached.

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting

directed fishing for pollock in Statistical

Area 610 of the GOA.

After the effective date of this 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 of pollock in

Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS

was-unable to publish a notice

providing time for public comment

because the most recent, relevant data

only became available as of March 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 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.

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,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries National Marine Fisheries 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.

032301 C]

RIN 0648-AP18

Atlantic Coastal 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 in response to

recommendations by the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission

(Commission) in Addenda II and III to

Amendment 3 of the Interstate Fishery

Management Plan for American 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 of seven 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 in this final rule is

May 1, 2006.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the American

lobster Environmental 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 the Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ) under the

authority of section 803(b) of the

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act),

16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., which states that,

in the absence of an 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 of Commerce

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 of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Purpose and Need for Management

American lobster are managed within

the framework of the Commission. The

Commission is a deliberative body

comprised of representatives 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 of the states and Federal

Government toward concerted

sustainable ends. The Commission

decides upon a management 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 of this

strategy.

The Commission reports that

American lobster (Hornarus

americanus) experience high fishing

mortality rates and are growth

overfished throughout their range (U.S./

Canada border to Cape Hatteras, North

Carolina). Overfishing is a rate of

removal that is too high and, if

continued, the removals would not be

sustainable. Growth overfishing, under

the Commission ISFMP, means thaf

most lobsters are harvested at or just

above the legal minimum size and the

maximum yield is not produced because

of high 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

of the resource is warranted to sustain

future viability of the lobster fishery.

Recruitment overfishing, under the

Commission ISFMP, means that the

number of new 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 in recruitment would

lead to a decline in egg production. The

Peer Review Report provided several

management recommendations on the

implications of the 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 of the

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 of compatible

Federal regulations. The Atlantic

Coastal Act directs the Federal

Government to support the management

efforts of the Commission. Additionally,

to the extent the Federal Government

seeks to regulate a Commission species,

those Federal regulations must be

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 of its American lobster

fishery management plan in

Amendment 3 to 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