29830 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: May 11, 2022. 

J.S. Franz, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10529 Filed 5–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 20 

International Competitive Services 

Price Changes 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final action. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is revising 

Notice 123, Price List, to reflect the price 

changes to Competitive Services as 

established by the Governors of the 

Postal Service. 

DATES: Effective July 10, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Kennedy at 202–268–6592 or Kathy 

Frigo at 202–268–4178. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New 

prices are posted under Docket Number 

CP2022–62 on the Postal Regulatory 

Commission’s website at http://

www.prc.gov. 

This final rule describes the 

international price changes for the 

following Competitive Services: 

• International Insurance. 

• International Postal Money Orders. 

• International Money Order Inquiry 

Fee. 

• International Money Transfer 

Service. 

New prices will be located on the Postal 

Explorer website at https://pe.usps.com. 

International Extra Services and Fees 

Depending on country destination 

and mail type, customers may add a 

variety of extra services to their 

outbound shipments and pay a variety 

of fees. 

The Postal Service proposes to 

increase fees for certain competitive 

international extra services as follows: 

• GXG insurance: There is no charge 

for GXG insurance for coverage up to 

$100. The fee for GXG insurance will 

increase to $2.10 for each additional 

$100 or fraction over $100, up to a 

maximum indemnity of $2,499 per 

shipment (the maximum indemnity 

varies by country). 

GXG Insurance coverage Fee 

Not over $100 ....................... $0.00 

Each additional $100 or fraction over $100 ................... 2.10 

Maximum insurance $2,499 (varies by 

country). 

• PMEI and PMI insurance: There is 

no charge for PMEI and PMI 

merchandise insurance coverage up to 

$200. The fee for PMEI and PMI 

merchandise insurance for each 

additional $100 or fraction over $200 is 

set forth in the table below, up to a 

maximum indemnity of $5,000 (the 

maximum indemnity varies by country). 

Indemnity limit not over Fee 

Up to $200 ............................ $0.00 

$200.01–$300.00 .................. 11.05 

300.01–400.00 ...................... 14.00 

400.01–500.00 ...................... 16.95 

500.01–600.00 ...................... 19.90 

600.01–700.00 ...................... 22.85 

700.01–800.00 ...................... 25.80 

800.01–900.00 ...................... 28.75 

$28.75 plus $2.95 per $100 or fraction 

thereof over $900 in declared value. 

Maximum insurance $5,000 (varies by 

country). 

• International Postal Money Orders: 

The fee for international postal money 

orders will increase to $49.65. 

• International Money Order Inquiry: 

The fee for international money orders 

inquiry will increase to $36.45. 

• International Money Transfer 

Service (Sure Money® service): Prices for 

international money transfer service 

will be as follows: 

International money transfer 

service 

(sure money) 

Fee 

$0.01–$750.00 ...................... $69.30 

750.01–1500.00 .................... 100.25 

Refunds ................................ 151.90 

Change of Recipient ............. 80.80 

Sarah Sullivan, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10500 Filed 5–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0249; FRL–8724–02– 

R9] 

Rescission of Clean Data 

Determination and Call for Attainment 

Plan Revision for the Yuma, AZ 1987 

PM10 Moderate Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

rescind its previously issued clean data 

determination (CDD) for the Yuma, 

Arizona ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment area 

(Yuma NAA) for the 1987 24-hour 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) 

because recent complete, qualityassured monitoring data show that the 

area has subsequently violated this 

NAAQS. We are also determining that 

the Arizona State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) is substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the PM10 standard in 

the Yuma NAA and calling for Arizona 

to revise the SIP to address this 

inadequacy. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 16, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0249. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https:// 

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4151, 

kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action and Re-Opening of 

Comment Period 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Environmental Justice Assessment 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action and Re-Opening of 

Comment Period 

On June 1, 2021, the EPA proposed to 

rescind our previously issued CDD for 

the Yuma NAA because recent 

complete, quality-assured monitoring 

data show that the area has 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29831 

1 86 FR 29219. 

2 86 FR 29221. 

3 86 FR 57769. 

4https://www.epa.gov/state-and-localtransportation/adequacy-review-stateimplementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity. 

5Memorandum dated January 27, 2022, from John 

Kelly, EPA Region IX, Air and Radiation Division, 

to Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0249. 

6Memorandum dated December 1, 2021, from 

Cara Gillen, Agriculture Advisor, EPA Region IX, 

Air and Radiation Division, to Docket ID No. EPA– 

R09–OAR–2021–0249. 

7 40 CFR 50.14(b)(8)(iii). 

8 40 CFR 50.14(b)(5)(ii). 

9 40 CFR 50.14(b)(8)(vii) and (viii)(A)–(C). 

subsequently violated the PM10

NAAQS.1 We also proposed to find that 

the Arizona SIP is substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

PM10 standard and to issue a SIP call 

requiring Arizona to revise its existing 

SIP to address this inadequacy. In order 

to cure this deficiency, we proposed to 

require Arizona to submit a Moderate 

nonattainment plan SIP submission 

meeting applicable requirements for 

such a SIP submission within 18 

months of finalizing the SIP call. We 

also proposed to set a new attainment 

date of no later than December 31, 2025, 

for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in 

this area because the original maximum 

statutory attainment date for this area 

under Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

section 188(c)(1) was December 31, 1994 

(approximately four years from the 

original designation).2 Finally, we 

proposed to reverse our previous 

finding that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in the Yuma PM10 Maintenance 

Plan were adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1)(vi). Please refer to our 

proposed rule for background 

information and additional explanation 

of the proposed actions. 

The initial public comment period for 

the proposed rule started on June 1, 

2021 and ended on July 1, 2021. Due to 

an inadvertent administrative oversight, 

the EPA did not post all the documents 

contained in the docket until June 23, 

2021. On October 19, 2021, the EPA reopened the comment period for the 

proposed rule for an additional 30 days, 

to allow for a full comment period with 

access to all docket materials.3 In 

response to a comment from the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ), we also sought public comment 

on whether we should set a maximum 

attainment date of December 31, 2027 

(roughly six years from the expected SIP 

call effective date), rather than 

December 31, 2025 (roughly four years 

from the expected SIP call effective 

date), for the Yuma NAA, if we were to 

finalize our proposed finding of 

inadequacy and SIP call. 

In addition to the two public 

comment periods described in the above 

paragraphs, the EPA also held a 

comment period that was announced on 

our Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality (OTAQ) website.4 The purpose 

of this comment period was to invite 

public comment on our proposed 

reversal of our previous finding that the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 

Yuma PM10 Maintenance Plan were 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1)(vi). We posted our 

announcement of the public comment 

period on the OTAQ website on June 4, 

2021, and requested comments be 

submitted by July 6, 2021. We also met 

with the Yuma Interagency Work Group 

on June 22, 2022, to inform them of this 

proposal.5

Finally, on October 21, 2021, EPA 

Region IX staff met with representatives 

of the Arizona Farm Bureau to discuss 

issues affecting the agricultural sector, 

including in the Yuma NAA.6

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

We did not receive any comments 

during the comment period announced 

on our OTAQ website. During the two 

comment periods the EPA announced in 

the Federal Register, we received a total 

of 13 comment letters from the 

following parties: ADEQ, the Arizona 

Farm Bureau Federation, the Seed Trade 

Association of Arizona, the WelltonMohawk Natural Resource Conservation 

District, the Yuma County Department 

of Development Services, the Yuma 

County Farm Bureau, the Yuma Fresh 

Vegetable Association, the Yuma 

Natural Resource Conservation District, 

and the Laguna Natural Resource 

Conservation District. We summarize 

and respond to these comments below. 

In addition, on October 5, 2021, 

Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark 

Kelly sent a letter to EPA Administrator 

Michael Regan regarding the proposed 

rule. The EPA’s Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air, Joe Goffman, 

responded to this letter on November 

17, 2021. We have included the 

Senators’ letter and the EPA’s responses 

in the docket for this action. 

Comment 1: Several commenters 

expressed opposition to the proposed 

CDD rescission and SIP call, arguing 

that the EPA and ADEQ should instead 

evaluate whether recent exceedances in 

the Yuma NAA qualify for exclusion 

under the EPA’s Exceptional Events 

Rule (EER). The commenters noted that 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in the 

Yuma NAA are generally due to high 

wind events that could qualify as 

exceptional events (EEs). Some of the 

commenters also asserted that the EPA 

should develop and approve a new EER. 

Two commenters added that the CAA 

does not mandate that a SIP revision be 

developed prior to submission of an EE 

demonstration. 

Two commenters quoted 40 CFR part 

50 appendix K, section 2.4(a), which 

defines an EE as an uncontrollable event 

caused by natural sources of particulate 

matter or an event that is not expected 

to recur at a given location and allows 

for the use of more than three years of 

representative data in calculating a PM10

design value in order to reduce the 

effect of such events. 

In addition, several commenters 

stated that, after many years of 

stakeholder meetings and studies by 

ADEQ and independent contractors, the 

sources of PM10 dust in the Yuma NAA 

are well documented. They expressed 

opposition to any ‘‘reset’’ of this 

previous work. Commenters also 

pointed to controls that have already 

been implemented for specific sources 

of PM10 in the Yuma NAA. 

Response 1: We agree with 

commenters that exceedances of the 

1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma 

NAA are often associated with high 

wind that could potentially qualify for 

treatment as natural events under the 

EPA’s EER. In order to qualify for such 

treatment, all the applicable criteria 

under the EER must be met, including 

a demonstration that reasonable control 

measures were applied at the time of the 

event.7 Specifically, for a high wind 

dust event to qualify as a natural event, 

the state must show that the windblown 

dust is entirely from natural 

undisturbed lands in the area or that all 

anthropogenic sources are reasonably 

controlled.8 We are not aware of any 

evidence to suggest that windblown 

dust in the Yuma NAA is entirely from 

natural undisturbed lands. Therefore, in 

order to meet this requirement, the state 

must provide evidence of the effective 

implementation and enforcement of SIPapproved or other enforceable controls 

on the anthropogenic sources within the 

state’s jurisdictional boundaries that 

cause or contribute to the monitored 

exceedance or violation.9

In a number of formal and informal 

communications over the last several 

years, the EPA has indicated to ADEQ 

that we believe the current controls on 

anthropogenic sources that contribute to 

the exceedances and are within the 

state’s jurisdiction do not fully meet the 

requirements for enforceable, reasonable 

controls under the EER. In 2015, based 

on identified deficiencies in existing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
29832 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

10Letter dated November 19, 2015, from Elizabeth 

Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 

IX, to Eric Massey, Air Quality Division Director, 

ADEQ, 3. 

11See, e.g., email dated October 26, 2019, from 

Meredith Kurpius, EPA, to Tim Franquist, ADEQ, 

subject: ‘‘Yuma PM10 EE process.’’ 

12Letter dated September 10, 2020, from 

Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air and Radiation 

Division, EPA Region IX, to Misael Cabrera, 

Director, ADEQ. 

13 Id. 

14 Id. 15CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). 

16 40 CFR 50.14(b)(8)(v). 

17 52 FR 24634, 24667 (July 1, 1987). 

18Public Law 109–59, title VI, § 6013(a), August 

10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1882 (codified in CAA section 

319(b)). 

19 72 FR 13560 (March 22, 2007). 

20 81 FR 68216. 

21 40 CFR 50.1(j). 

22 86 FR 29221 (citing EPA, Air Quality System 

(AQS) ‘‘Design Value Report,’’ dated March 3, 

2021.) 

controls for paved roads, we 

recommended that ‘‘ADEQ re-direct its 

efforts away from attempts to 

demonstrate past exceedances as 

exceptional events and towards 

developing a PM10 State Implementation 

Plan pursuant to CAA §§ 110, 182 and 

189.’’ 10 However, due to the suspension 

of attainment-related requirements 

under the CDD, ADEQ was not required 

to develop such a plan. In the absence 

of such a requirement, ADEQ and the 

EPA have instead worked with 

stakeholders in the Yuma NAA for 

several years on the development of a 

‘‘prospective assessment’’ of reasonable 

controls for the Yuma NAA.11 As noted 

by commenters, through this process 

ADEQ and stakeholders have made 

significant progress in understanding 

the sources that contribute to 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in the 

Yuma NAA. 

In 2020, ADEQ submitted a draft 

outline of a prospective assessment of 

controls on specific source sectors in the 

Yuma NAA. The EPA provided 

feedback on this draft, noting that it did 

not include any proposed new 

requirements to implement ‘‘reasonable 

controls’’ on several significant source 

categories in the area.12 We explained 

that, under the EER, the EPA would not 

be able to concur on PM10 exceptional 

events demonstrations in the Yuma 

NAA without the necessary enforceable 

and reasonable controls for all 

significant anthropogenic sources under 

the State’s jurisdiction.13 Therefore, we 

indicated that it would be necessary for 

ADEQ to develop new or revised rules 

for these source categories before the 

EPA would be able to concur on 

exceptional events demonstrations for 

the Yuma NAA and ultimately 

redesignate the area to attainment.14

Following these communications, 

ADEQ, the EPA, and stakeholders have 

continued to work on the development 

of new and revised rules for the affected 

source categories. 

However, to date, no governmental 

entity has adopted any new enforceable 

requirement to implement controls on 

any PM10 sources in the Yuma NAA. 

While we appreciate the efforts of 

various parties to voluntarily implement 

control measures, such as street 

sweeping and agricultural dust controls, 

the implementation of such voluntary 

measures does not meet the CAA and 

EER requirements for enforceable 

control measures. In the absence of 

enforceable, reasonable controls 

measures for all significant 

anthropogenic sources under the State’s 

jurisdiction, high wind events in the 

Yuma NAA would not qualify for 

treatment as EEs under the EER. 

We recognize the commenters’ 

frustration regarding the lack of progress 

toward redesignation of the Yuma NAA 

to attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. 

However, we do not agree with the 

suggestion that rescission of the CDD 

and issuance of a SIP call constitutes a 

‘‘reset’’ of the current process. On the 

contrary, by establishing firm deadlines 

by which enforceable control measures 

must be submitted to the EPA and 

implemented by the relevant sources, 

we believe this action may serve to 

expedite implementation of enforceable, 

reasonable controls, which is a 

prerequisite to the EPA’s concurrence 

on EE demonstrations. We also note that 

the EPA is not permitted to approve a 

redesignation to attainment unless the 

EPA determines that ‘‘improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions,’’ 

and that a plan demonstrating the area 

will continue to maintain the NAAQS is 

in place, among other requirements.15

With respect to the suggestion that the 

EPA develop a new EER, we note that 

the EER was last revised in 2016 and the 

EPA has concurred on EE 

demonstrations submitted by many 

states, including Arizona, under the 

provisions of the revised EER. The 

commenters did not indicate which 

aspect of the EER they believe should be 

revised, or why they believe the rule’s 

current provisions are problematic. 

Regardless, any potential revision to the 

EER is outside the scope of this current 

rulemaking. 

If, by a ‘‘new EER,’’ commenters are 

referring to submittal of new EE 

demonstrations by ADEQ, we do not 

expect that we would be able to concur 

upon such demonstrations at this time 

due to the lack of enforceable, 

reasonable controls, as described in the 

preceding paragraphs. Furthermore, 

while we agree that the CAA does not 

require that a state develop a SIP 

submission before an EE demonstration, 

the EPA cannot concur on such a 

demonstration under the EER unless 

enforceable, reasonable controls are in 

place at the time of the event. Under the 

EER, the EPA considers enforceable 

control measures implemented in 

accordance with a SIP to be reasonable 

controls, if they were approved within 

five years of the event and address all 

sources necessary to fulfill the 

applicable CAA requirements for the 

SIP.16 Therefore, a SIP submission 

including control measures to address 

the anthropogenic sources contributing 

to the monitored exceedance would 

help to ensure that the EER provisions 

were met for any future EE 

demonstrations for the relevant monitor 

and NAAQS. 

Finally, we note that 40 CFR part 50 

appendix K section 2.4(a) was 

promulgated in 1987 as part of the 

original implementing regulations for 

the 1987 PM10 NAAQS.17 It has not been 

revised since Congress amended the 

CAA to address EEs in CAA section 319 

in 2005,18 or since the EER was 

promulgated in 2007 19 and revised in 

2016.20 The EER includes a more 

detailed definition of an EE than the 

definition cited by the commenters. The 

EER definition specifies, among other 

things, that an EE must be ‘‘not 

reasonably controllable or preventable’’ 

and must ‘‘be determined by the 

Administrator in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional 

event.’’ 21 As described in the preceding 

paragraphs, we expect that we would 

not be able to concur on an EE 

demonstration for the Yuma NAA under 

40 CFR 50.14 at this time due to a lack 

of enforceable, reasonable controls on 

sources within the State’s jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, as noted in our 

proposal, the Yuma NAA has had a 

violating design value for the 1987 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS every year since 

2006.22 Therefore, even if we were to 

consider more than three years of 

representative data pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 50 appendix K section 2.4(a), the 

Yuma NAA would still be violating the 

PM10 NAAQS. 

Comment 2: A few commenters noted 

that much of the land in the Yuma NAA 

is owned by the federal government, the 

state government, or local tribes. They 

indicated that ADEQ cannot control 

sources of dust on these lands. 

Commenters also stated that 

uncontrolled dust enters the Yuma NAA 

from Mexico and Imperial County, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29833 

23 40 CFR 50.14(b)(8)(vii). 

24ARS 49–106. Statewide application of rules. 

25 42 U.S.C. 7418(a) and (b). 

26See, e.g., ADEQ 2020 Annual Network Plan, 

Appendix C, 15. 

27 86 FR 29220. 

28Letter dated October 29, 2021, from Gwen 

Yoshimura, Section Chief, Air Quality Analysis 

Office, EPA Region 9, to Daniel Czecholinski, 

Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ. 

29See, e.g., ADEQ 2020 Annual Network Plan, 

Appendix C, 15. 

30 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 1.1.1(b). 

31See, e.g., ADEQ 2020 Annual Network Plan, 

Appendix C, 15. 

32 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.6(b)(3). 

33See, e.g., ADEQ 2009 Annual Network Plan, 

122. 

34EPA, AQS ‘‘Design Value Report,’’ dated March 

26, 2021. 

35CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C). 

36See, e.g., General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 

13540–13541 (April 16, 1992). 

California, which are outside of ADEQ’s 

jurisdiction. 

Response 2: We agree with the 

commenters’ assertion that ADEQ does 

not have authority to regulate PM10

emissions in Mexico or California, on 

any Indian reservation land, or in any 

other area where a tribe has jurisdiction. 

Under the EER, the State is not required 

to demonstrate that reasonable controls 

were in place for emissions-generating 

activity outside of the State’s 

jurisdictional boundaries.23 The CAA 

and the EPA’s Tribal Authority Rule 

also contain provisions addressing 

emissions from sources on tribal land 

and other states and countries in 

relation to SIPs. This action will not 

affect or alter ADEQ’s authorities or 

obligations with respect to such 

emissions outside of its jurisdiction. 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

assertion that ADEQ lacks authority to 

regulate sources of emissions on state or 

federal government land. Under Arizona 

State law, rules adopted by ADEQ apply 

throughout the State.24 Furthermore, 

under CAA section 118, federal agencies 

must comply with all federal, state, 

interstate, and local requirements 

concerning air pollution control, unless 

expressly exempted by the President.25

Therefore, in the absence of a specific 

exemption, or an explicit preemption, 

air pollution control rules adopted by 

ADEQ apply to both governmental and 

nongovernmental entities. 

Comment 3: One commenter 

expressed concern that data collected at 

the Yuma NAA monitoring station are 

not representative of ambient PM10

concentrations in the Yuma NAA. The 

commenter pointed to differences in 

reported concentrations between the 

current and previous locations of the 

monitoring station and to localized 

dusty conditions near the current 

monitoring site. 

Response 3: The commenter appears 

to be referring to the Yuma Supersite, 

which is the site of the only regulatory 

PM10 monitor in the Yuma NAA. 

ADEQ’s annual monitoring network 

plans provide information about the 

location and characteristics of this 

monitor.26 As noted in our proposal, the 

EPA found that the 2018–2020 annual 

network plans (ANPs) submitted by 

ADEQ met the relevant PM10

requirements under 40 CFR part 58.27

We have also approved ADEQ’s 2021 

ANP with respect to these 

requirements.28 These ANPs document 

that the monitoring objective of the 

Yuma Supersite PM10 monitor is 

NAAQS comparison and its site type is 

population-oriented, 29 meaning that it 

is located to measure typical 

concentrations in areas of high 

population density.30 Consistent with 

this objective and site type, the monitor 

is sited at the neighborhood scale,31

meaning that it represents particulate 

matter concentrations, as well as land 

use and land surface characteristics, 

within an area of approximately a few 

kilometers.32 ADEQ’s selection of this 

monitoring site, and the EPA’s approval 

of the ANPs including this site, 

document that the monitor is properly 

sited and the data is representative of 

ambient PM10 levels in this area. 

The fact that the current monitor may 

record higher concentrations of PM10

than the previous monitor, which was 

located on the roof of the Yuma 

Courthouse,33 does not suggest that the 

monitor is improperly sited, given its 

monitoring objective, site type, and 

scale of representativeness. We also note 

that, even before the State relocated the 

PM10 monitor to the Yuma Supersite, 

the Yuma NAA had a violating design 

value every year between 2006 and 

2010, based on monitoring data from the 

Courthouse monitor.34 Therefore, we do 

not agree with the commenter’s 

suggestion that data from the Yuma 

Supersite may be unrepresentative of 

ambient PM10 concentrations in the 

Yuma NAA. 

Comment 4: One commenter asserted 

that, in proposing to rescind the CDD 

and issue a SIP call, the EPA failed to 

consider the cost and effectiveness of 

additional regulation that this action 

will impose on the local economy. The 

commenter also stated that it supports 

affordable effective measures that 

significantly reduce PM10, but not 

‘‘measures put in place for regulatory 

purposes only; measures that are not 

effective, cannot be proven to work or 

only address an insignificant portion of 

PM10.’’ 

Response 4: We disagree with the 

commenter that the EPA should 

consider costs prior to finalizing this 

action. The EPA interprets the CAA’s 

nonattainment planning requirements as 

permitting the Agency to issue a CDD, 

which suspend a state’s requirement to 

submit certain attainment planning 

requirements for as long as an area is 

attaining the NAAQS. In this case, the 

area is factually no longer attaining the 

NAAQS, and it is therefore not 

reasonable to interpret the Act as 

permitting the suspension of mandatory 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

applicable to the State to provide for the 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in this 

area. We therefore do not agree with the 

commenter that the EPA may consider 

cost or effectiveness of regulation in 

rescinding the CDD, where the area is 

no longer attaining the NAAQS. 

Further, the rescission of the CDD and 

issuance of a SIP call does not in and 

of itself impose any new costs or 

establish any new control measures. 

ADEQ will determine how to revise its 

SIP to meet Moderate area 

nonattainment plan requirements in 

response to the SIP call. The applicable 

requirements for a Moderate PM10 NAA 

include implementation of reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for sources of PM10 and any 

necessary PM10 precursors.35 The EPA 

interprets the PM10 RACM requirement 

to allow states to exclude de minimis 

source categories, and to consider both 

technological feasibility and the cost of 

control in determining which control 

measures are reasonably available, 

subject to the overarching requirement 

to provide for attainment of the NAAQS 

in the area.36 Therefore it would be 

inappropriate and premature for the 

EPA to analyze the potential costs of 

controls prior to ADEQ’s development 

of a SIP submission. 

Comment 5: One commenter asserted 

that if the monitoring station 

measurements continue to increase due 

to naturally occurring PM10 or 

unrepresentative, localized dusty 

conditions near the station, there is the 

potential for ever-changing controls 

such as contingency measures, findings 

of SIP inadequacy, or changes in 

designation. 

Response 5: Please refer to Response 

3 concerning the representativeness of 

the Yuma Supersite PM10 monitor. With 

respect to potential increases in 

‘‘naturally occurring’’ PM10, as 

discussed in Response 1, for a high 

wind dust event to qualify as a natural 

event, the State must show that the 

windblown dust is entirely from natural 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
29834 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

37CAA section 172(c)(9). 

38CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). 39 72 FR 32295 (June 12, 2007). 

40 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987). 

41See 52 FR 24672, 24681 (July 1, 1987) (Group 

I SIPs ‘‘will have to contain full PM10 control 

strategies including a demonstration of attainment 

. . .’’ and Group II SIPS must include an 

enforceable commitment to ‘‘adopt and submit to 

EPA a PM10 control strategy that assures attainment 

. . .’’) 

undisturbed lands in the area or that all 

anthropogenic sources are reasonably 

controlled. 

Concerning contingency measures, we 

note that such measures are a required 

element of a Moderate area 

nonattainment plan that the State must 

submit.37 However, such contingency 

measures would only be triggered if the 

EPA finds that the area failed to make 

reasonable further progress or to attain 

the NAAQS by the new attainment date. 

Prior to making a finding of failure to 

attain, we would consider any EE 

demonstrations submitted by ADEQ 

under the criteria set forth in the EER. 

If the State has met the criteria for 

exceptional events, including the 

requirement for reasonable controls on 

anthropogenic sources, then the EPA 

would be able to concur upon the 

demonstrations and exclude the 

relevant data. 

With respect to a finding of SIP 

substantial inadequacy, we are 

determining that the Arizona SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA. This 

determination is based on 15 years of 

monitoring data showing violations of 

the PM10 NAAQS, rather than any shortterm or temporary increase in PM10

concentrations. To the extent that there 

could be a future finding of substantial 

inadequacy in the Arizona SIP, that 

would be for the EPA to determine 

based on its assessment of the relevant 

facts at such time, not in this action. 

Section 110(k)(5) explicitly provides 

that the EPA may elect to issue a SIP 

call ‘‘whenever’’ it determines that a 

state’s existing SIP has substantial 

inadequacy. 

Regarding the commenter’s concerns 

about the Yuma NAA designation 

changing, the Yuma NAA is already 

designated nonattainment. That 

designation is not changing in this 

action. Any future change in 

designation for this area for purposes of 

the 1987 PM10 NAAQS would be a 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. In order to redesignate the 

area to attainment, the EPA would have 

to determine, among other things, that 

the area had attained the PM10 NAAQS 

due to reductions in emissions resulting 

from permanent and enforceable control 

measures.38 To the extent that the 

commenter is concerned about the 

potential for changes in designation in 

general, this is a feature of the CAA. 

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) either the 

State or the EPA can initiate a change 

in designation through the proper 

process when the facts justify such a 

change. 

Finally, if by ‘‘designation’’ the 

commenter intended to say 

‘‘classification,’’ the EPA agrees that 

further controls could be required 

should the area fail to meet its new 

Moderate area attainment date. Such 

failure could lead to a reclassification to 

Serious nonattainment. This 

reclassification would require the state 

to meet additional more stringent 

Serious area requirements. Again, prior 

to making a determination that the area 

failed to attain by the applicable 

attainment date, we would consider any 

EE demonstrations submitted by ADEQ 

under the criteria set forth in the EER. 

Comment 6: Three commenters 

recommended that, concurrent with 

review of potential EEs, ADEQ develop 

and submit to the EPA a SIP revision in 

case there are not enough qualifying 

EER events to put the Yuma NAA back 

into compliance. They stated that they 

did not want a repeat of the August 

2006 Yuma SIP that was submitted and 

recalled by ADEQ. 

Response 6: This final SIP call will 

require ADEQ to submit a SIP revision, 

which, as discussed in Response 1, may 

also help ADEQ to meet the requirement 

for reasonable controls under the EER. 

We interpret the commenters’ reference 

to the ‘‘August 2006 Yuma SIP’’ to mean 

the ‘‘Yuma Maintenance Plan’’ 

submitted by ADEQ on August 17, 2006 

(Yuma Maintenance Plan). We note that 

ADEQ has not withdrawn this SIP 

revision and the EPA has not taken 

action to approve or disapprove this SIP 

revision at this time. The EPA did find 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets in 

the Yuma Maintenance Plan adequate 

for transportation conformity 

purposes,39 but, as discussed in Section 

IV of this document, we are now 

reversing that finding. 

Comment 7: Two commenters 

expressed support for a maximum 

attainment date of December 31, 2027, 

rather than the December 31, 2025 date 

proposed by the EPA. Both commenters 

asserted that a period of approximately 

six years was necessary to fully 

implement control measures in the area 

in time to achieve three years of clean 

data prior to the attainment date. One 

commenter elaborated on the statutory 

basis for such a deadline, noting that 

CAA section 188(c)(1) establishes two 

alternative attainment deadlines for 

Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas: 

Four years after designation for areas 

designated in 1990, and six years after 

designation for all other areas. The 

commenter asserted that the CAA does 

not require the EPA to set the new 

maximum attainment date according to 

the shorter deadline and that the sixyear deadline would be more 

appropriate for the Yuma NAA. The 

commenter then provided additional 

background concerning the history of 

the EPA’s PM10 nonattainment 

requirements and noted that the fouryear deadline for areas designated under 

CAA 107(d)(4) was specifically designed 

for areas that had been required to 

submit SIPs containing attainment 

demonstrations prior to enactment of 

the CAA Amendments of 1990. The 

commenter argued that application of 

this deadline to areas subject to 

subsequent SIP calls requiring 

submission of a new attainment 

demonstration would be inappropriate 

and that such areas should be given the 

normal six years to attain. 

Response 7: We agree with the 

commenters that an attainment date of 

as expeditiously as possible, but not 

later than December 31, 2027, is 

appropriate for the Yuma NAA. Because 

the original attainment date of 

December 31, 1994, has elapsed, CAA 

section 110(k)(5) provides the EPA with 

discretion to adjust this date ‘‘as 

appropriate.’’ We proposed a maximum 

attainment date of December 31, 2025 

(approximately four years from our 

expected final action) because the Yuma 

NAA’s original maximum attainment 

date was approximately four years from 

its designation as a NAA in 1990. 

However, as noted by one of the 

commenters, the December 31, 1994 

date applied only to areas that were 

designated nonattainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(4), i.e., those areas that 

had either been identified as ‘‘Group I 

areas’’ because they had a high 

probability of violating the NAAQS, or 

that had, in fact, violated the NAAQS 

prior to January 1, 1989. Most of these 

areas, including the Yuma NAA, which 

had been identified as a Group I area,40

were already required to have submitted 

attainment demonstrations.41 In 

contrast, for newly designated NAAs 

which were not previously required to 

submit a nonattainment plan for the 

1987 PM10 NAAQS, CAA section 

188(c)(1) set a maximum attainment 

date of ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than the end of the sixth 

calendar year after the area’s 

designation as nonattainment.’’ The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29835 

42CAA section 172(a)(2)(D). 

43EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent 

dataset and approach for combining environmental 

and demographic indicators. EJSCREEN is available 

at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen. The 

EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and 

demographic indicators and EJ Indexes representing 

the Yuma NAA. Our analysis is included in the file 

titled ‘‘Environmental Justice in Yuma 1987 PM10 

Nonattainment Area.pdf,’’ available in the 

rulemaking docket for this action. 

44EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators 

(e.g., air toxics cancer risk, lead paint exposure, and 

traffic proximity and volume) and demographic 

indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and 

linguistically isolated populations). Depending on 

the indicator, a community that scores highly for an 

indicator may have a higher percentage of its 

population within a demographic group or a higher 

average exposure or proximity to an environmental 

health hazard compared to the state, region, or 

national average. EJSCREEN also reports EJ indexes, 

which are combinations of a single environmental 

indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. 

For additional information about environmental 

and demographic indicators and EJ indexes 

reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ‘‘EJSCREEN 

Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening 

Tool—EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,’’ 

section 2 (September 2019). 

45EPA, ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,’’ 

section 4 (June 2016). 

EPA acknowledges, as noted by the 

commenter, that areas such as Yuma 

that were designated nonattainment 

prior to 1990 would therefore have had 

a shorter maximum period of time to 

attain the NAAQS, i.e., only four years 

from the enactment of section 188(c) to 

1994, whereas newly designated areas 

would have a maximum outer 

attainment date of six years. 

In this action, however, the EPA must 

determine an appropriate new 

attainment date, as contemplated in 

CAA section 110(k)(5), due to the 

passage of time since the nonattainment 

designation of the Yuma NAA and 

intervening events. Because the 2006 

CDD suspended the obligation for 

development and submittal of an 

attainment demonstration, the Yuma 

NAA is in a different position now than 

it was in 1990, when an attainment 

demonstration had already been 

required for the area. Therefore, after 

consideration of comments on this 

issue, we agree that an attainment date 

of as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than December 31, 2025, is not 

appropriate for the Yuma NAA. We also 

note that, if we were newly designating 

the Yuma NAA as nonattainment for 

this NAAQS, the maximum attainment 

date would be December 31, 2028 (i.e., 

the end of the sixth calendar year after 

the area’s designation as 

nonattainment). However, given that the 

area has been designated nonattainment 

for more than thirty years and ADEQ 

has already undertaken substantial work 

to characterize the sources contributing 

to nonattainment in the Yuma NAA and 

to develop rules to regulate sources 

within its jurisdiction, we do not 

consider it appropriate to provide six 

full calendar years before the maximum 

attainment date. 

In determining the ‘‘appropriate’’ 

attainment date for the Yuma NAA 

under CAA section 110(k)(5), we have 

considered both the provisions of 

188(c)(1) (described above) and the 

provisions of CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), 

which sets attainment dates for all 

nonattainment areas, except those for 

which attainment dates are specifically 

provided under other provisions of title 

I, part D.42 In particular, section 

172(a)(2)(A) provides a default 

attainment date of as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

from the nonattainment designation, but 

permits the EPA to extend this date, as 

appropriate, up to 10 years from the 

date of designation as nonattainment, 

considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability and 

feasibility of pollution control measures. 

Although these provisions of section 

172(a)(2)(A) would normally be 

superseded by 188(c)(1) for newly 

designated PM10 NAAs, in this instance 

the maximum statutory attainment dates 

of section 188(c)(1) for the Yuma NAA 

have long since passed. In such 

circumstances, the EPA considers it 

reasonable to look to section 

172(a)(2)(A) for relevant guideposts, 

along with 188(c)(1), in setting an 

appropriate maximum attainment 

deadline under 110(k)(5) for the Yuma 

NAA, as if the area were newly 

nonattainment. Because the Yuma NAA 

remains classified as Moderate and 

because additional controls for the 

Yuma NAA are clearly available and 

feasible, we do not believe a lengthy 

extension (i.e., a year or more) beyond 

the five-year deadline set forth in 

section 172(a)(2)(A) is appropriate. 

However, we find that an extension of 

several months beyond the five-year 

default maximum attainment date is 

appropriate in order to align the 

maximum attainment date with the end 

of the calendar year, consistent with 

end-of-year attainment dates specified 

for PM10 in CAA section 188(c)(1). In 

this case, the triggering action for the 

new attainment plan requirements is the 

final CDD rescission and SIP call, rather 

than the initial designation of the area 

as nonattainment. The final effective 

date for these actions is June 16, 2022. 

Therefore, we are finalizing a maximum 

attainment date of December 31, 2027, 

for the Yuma NAA pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(5). 

III. Environmental Justice Assessment 

To identify environmental burdens 

and susceptible populations in 

underserved communities in the Yuma 

NAA, and to examine the implications 

of our proposed action on these 

communities, we performed a 

screening-level analysis using the EPA’s 

environmental justice (EJ) screening and 

mapping tool (‘‘EJSCREEN’’).43 Our 

screening-level analysis included 

multiple environmental and 

demographic indicators, including the 

EJSCREEN ‘‘Demographic Index,’’ 

which is the average of an area’s percent 

minority and percent low income 

populations, i.e., the two demographic 

indicators explicitly named in Executive 

Order 12898. The Demographic Index 

for the Yuma NAA exceeds the 75th 

percentile, compared to the United 

States as a whole.44

As discussed in the EPA’s EJ technical 

guidance, people of color and lowincome populations often experience 

greater exposure and disease burdens 

than the general population, which can 

increase their susceptibility to adverse 

health effects from environmental 

stressors.45 Underserved communities 

can also experience reduced access to 

health care, nutritional, and fitness 

resources, further increasing their 

susceptibility. 

This final action requires the State of 

Arizona to submit to the EPA a SIP 

revision providing for attainment of the 

1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma 

NAA. The development of required SIP 

elements will result in air quality 

improvements and human health 

benefits for all Yuma NAA residents, 

including those in underserved 

communities. Conversely, failure to 

make the determinations in this final 

action could inhibit or delay the 

attainment of the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS in the Yuma NAA, which could 

negatively impact health effects for all 

Yuma NAA residents and could 

perpetuate the EJ concerns potentially 

faced by communities in these areas, 

including Cocopah and Fort Yuma 

(Quechan) tribes, which have lands 

within the Yuma NAA. Thus, we 

believe that finalizing our proposed 

action will help to reduce 

disproportionate health, environmental, 

economic, and climate impacts on 

disadvantaged communities in the 

Yuma NAA and that this action will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
29836 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

46EPA, AQS, 2020 ‘‘Design Value Report,’’ dated 

January 26, 2022. 

47EPA, AQS, 2021 preliminary ‘‘Design Value 

Report,’’ dated January 26, 2022. 

48See CAA section 110(k)(5) (‘‘Any finding under 

this paragraph shall, to the extent the Administrator 

deems appropriate, subject the State to the 

requirements of this chapter to which the State was 

subject when it developed and submitted the plan 

for which such finding was made . . .’’) 

49CAA section 189(a)(1)(A). On November 2, 

2015, the EPA published a final limited approval 

and limited disapproval of revisions to ADEQ’s new 

source review permitting rules. 80 FR 67319. On 

May 4, 2018, the EPA approved additional rule 

revisions to address many of the deficiencies 

identified in the 2015 action. 83 FR 19631. 

Accordingly, we do not expect that any revisions 

to ADEQ’s permit program would be necessary to 

address this requirement. 

50CAA section 189(a)(1)(B). 

51CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C). 

52CAA section 189(c). Consistent with the 

General Preamble, 57 FR 13539, the starting point 

for counting the three-year periods in 189(c)(1) will 

be the due date for the SIP submittal, i.e., 18 months 

from this final action. 

53CAA section 189(e). 

54CAA section 172(c)(2). 

55CAA section 172(c)(3). 

56CAA section 172(c)(6). 

57CAA section 172(c)(9). 

58 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1). 

59 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). 

IV. Final Action 

The EPA has evaluated the comments 

on the proposed action. We have also 

reviewed the most recent monitoring 

data from the Yuma Supersite PM10

monitor. Based on certified data from 

2020, the monitor had a 2018–2020 

design value of 5.4.46 Based on 

preliminary data from 2021, the monitor 

had a 2019–2021 design value of 2.7.47

These design values show continued 

violations of the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS and are therefore consistent 

with our proposed actions. Taking into 

consideration these data, and for the 

reasons described in the proposal and in 

our responses to comments in section II 

of this document, we conclude that it is 

appropriate to finalize the proposed 

CDD rescission and SIP call. Therefore, 

we are finalizing the rescission of the 

2006 CDD for the Yuma NAA and 

reinstating the requirements that were 

suspended under that CDD. 

We are also finding, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(5), that the Arizona SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the 1987 24-hour PM10

NAAQS in the Yuma NAA. In order to 

address this inadequacy, we are issuing 

a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), 

requiring the State to submit a SIP 

revision meeting the applicable 

nonattainment plan requirements of the 

CAA for Moderate PM10 NAAs.48 These 

requirements include: (i) An approved 

permit program for construction of new 

and modified major stationary 

sources; 49 (ii) a demonstration that the 

plan provides for attainment by no later 

than the applicable Moderate area 

attainment date or a demonstration that 

attainment by that date is 

impracticable; 50 (iii) provisions for the 

implementation of RACM and RACT; 51

(iv) quantitative milestones that will be 

used to evaluate compliance with the 

requirement to demonstrate reasonable 

further progress (RFP); 52 (v) evaluation 

and regulation of PM10 precursors; 53 (vi) 

a description of the expected annual 

incremental reductions in emissions 

that will demonstrate RFP; 54 (vii) 

emissions inventories, as necessary; 55

(viii) other control measures (besides 

RACM and RACT) as may be needed for 

attainment; 56 (ix) contingency 

measures,57 and (x) a motor vehicle 

emissions budget for the purpose of 

determining the conformity of 

transportation programs and plans 

developed by the metropolitan planning 

organization for the area.58 The EPA’s 

longstanding guidance on these 

statutory requirements is embodied in 

the ‘‘The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) Amendments.’’ 59

We are requiring Arizona to submit 

this Moderate nonattainment plan SIP 

submission within 18 months of the 

effective date of this final action. We are 

establishing an attainment date for the 

1987 PM10 NAAQS in the Yuma NAA 

of as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than December 31, 2027. 

Consistent with this attainment date, 

implementation of RACM/RACT will be 

required no later than January 1, 2027. 

Furthermore, as discussed in Response 

1, in order for exceedances associated 

with high wind events to qualify for 

exclusion under the EER, the state must 

provide evidence of the effective 

implementation and enforcement of SIPapproved or other enforceable controls 

on the anthropogenic sources within the 

State’s jurisdictional boundaries that 

cause or contribute to the monitored 

exceedance or violation. Given the 

prevalence of high wind events in the 

Yuma NAA and the fact that PM10

design values are based on three years 

of ambient monitoring data, we expect 

that ADEQ would need to require 

implementation of reasonable controls 

on these sources no later than January 

1, 2025, in order for the Yuma NAA to 

attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 

31, 2027. 

Finally, we are reversing our previous 

adequacy finding for the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in the Yuma 

Maintenance Plan to a finding of 

inadequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1)(vi). This reversal will 

require transportation agencies to 

determine conformity using interim 

emission tests pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.119, instead of the current practice of 

using the past maintenance plan motor 

vehicle emissions budgets as part of a 

budget test. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action is a determination that the 

Yuma NAA is no longer attaining the 

1987 p.m.10 NAAQS, based on the EPA’s 

review of air quality data, and a SIP call 

under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. 

Upon a finding that a SIP is deficient, 

section 110(k)(5) of the CAA directs the 

Agency to require the state to correct the 

deficiency. Therefore, this action does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those required by the CAA 

itself. For that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority 

populations, low-income populations 

and/or indigenous peoples, as specified 

in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) and discussed in 

Section III of this document. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29837 

In addition, this action does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

obligations discussed herein do not 

apply to Indian tribes and thus this 

action will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. Nonetheless, the EPA intends 

to notify the Cocopah and Fort Yuma 

(Quechan) tribes, which have lands 

within the Yuma NAA and were 

identified in our EJ screening analysis 

noted in Section III of this document. 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 18, 2022. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 5, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends chapter I, 

title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.126 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.126 Control strategy and regulations: 

Particulate matter. 

* * * * * 

(d) Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), 

the State of Arizona is required to 

submit a revision to the Arizona SIP for 

the Yuma PM10 nonattainment area 

(NAA) to the EPA by November 17, 

2023. The SIP revision must, among 

other elements, provide for attainment 

of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the 

Yuma NAA as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2027. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10060 Filed 5–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0558; FRL–9224–02– 

R3] 

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 

Revision of the Maximum Allowable 

Sulfur Content Limit for Number 2 and 

Lighter Commercial Fuel Oil in 

Allegheny County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania on behalf of the Allegheny 

County Health Department (ACHD). The 

revision updates Allegheny County’s 

portion of the Pennsylvania SIP, which 

includes regulations concerning sulfur 

content in fuel oil. This revision 

pertains to the reduction of the 

maximum allowable sulfur content limit 

for Number 2 (No. 2) and lighter 

commercial fuel oil, generally sold and 

used for residential and commercial 

furnaces and oil heat burners for home 

or space heating, water heating or both, 

from the current limit of 500 parts per 

million (ppm) to 15 ppm. EPA is 

approving these revisions to the 

Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 16, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0558. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https:// 

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Silverman, Planning & 

Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. The telephone number is (215) 

814–5511. Mr. Silverman can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

silverman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 26, 2021 (86 FR 67418), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed 

approval of a SIP revision that 

incorporates ACHD’s updated lowsulfur fuel oil provisions into the 

Pennsylvania SIP. The SIP revision was 

submitted by Pennsylvania on 

December 1, 2020, requesting that EPA 

incorporate ACHD’s revisions to 

Allegheny County’s Regulations, 

codified at Article XXI section 2104.10, 

into the Pennsylvania SIP. In response 

to the NPRM, EPA received one 

comment supporting the proposed 

action which can be found in the 

docket. EPA received no adverse 

comments. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

The SIP revision incorporates 

amendments to Article XXI section 

2104.10 which set the maximum 

allowable sulfur content limit for 

various fuel types into the Pennsylvania 

SIP. The amendments to Article XXI 

section 2104.10, reduce the SIP 

approved maximum allowable sulfur 

content limit for No. 2 and lighter 

commercial fuel oil, generally sold for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES