[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21372-21378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11736]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81

[AZR91-0003; FRL-5503-7]


Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment 
Area; PM10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 21373]]

SUMMARY: In this document EPA is making a final finding that the 
Phoenix Planning Area (PPA) has not attained the PM10 (particulate 
matter 10 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter) national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date in the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, 
December 31, 1994. This finding is based on EPA's review of PM10 
ambient air quality data. As a result of this finding, the PPA is 
reclassified as a serious PM10 nonattainment area by operation of 
law. The intended effect of the reclassification is to allow the State 
18 months from the effective date of this action to submit a new State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating attainment of the PM10 
NAAQS by December 31, 2001, the CAA attainment date for serious areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wallace Woo, Chief, Plans Development 
Section (A-2-2), Air Planning Branch, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1207.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions Concerning Designation and 
Classification

    On November 15, 1990, the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments (CAA), PM10 areas meeting the qualifications of 
section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated nonattainment by 
operation of law. Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 188 
of the Act outlines the process for classification of the area and 
establishes the area's attainment date. Pursuant to section 188(a), all 
PM10 nonattainment areas were initially classified as moderate by 
operation of law upon designation as nonattainment. These nonattainment 
designations and moderate area classifications were codified in 40 CFR 
part 81 in a Federal Register notice published on November 6, 1991 (56 
FR 56694).
    Under section 188(c)(1) of the CAA, the attainment deadline for all 
PM10 nonattainment areas originally classified as moderate was no 
later than December 31, 1994. Under section 188(d), EPA may, upon 
application by a state, extend the attainment deadline if the state has 
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area 
in the applicable implementation plan. In addition, in order to qualify 
for an extension there must have been no more than one exceedance of 
the 24 hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the area 
in the year preceding the extension year, and the annual mean 
concentration of PM10 in the area for such year must be less than 
or equal to the standard. Under this provision, EPA may grant up to two 
one year extensions if these conditions have been met.

B. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment

    EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and 
188(b)(2) of the CAA, of determining within six months of the 
applicable attainment date, whether PM10 nonattainment areas have 
attained the NAAQS. Section 179(c)(1) of the Act provides that these 
determinations are to be based upon an area's air quality as of the 
attainment date, and section 188(b)(2) is consistent with this 
requirement. EPA makes the determinations of whether an area's air 
quality is meeting the PM10 NAAQS based upon air quality data 
gathered at monitoring sites in the nonattainment area and entered into 
the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). These data are 
reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 
EPA guidance at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K.
    Pursuant to Appendix K, attainment of the annual PM10 standard 
is achieved when the annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration is 
equal to or less than 50 g/m\3\. The annual average is 
determined by first calculating the average PM10 concentration for 
each calendar quarter. The annual average is then calculated by 
averaging the four calendar quarter averages. Attainment of the 24 hour 
standard is determined by calculating the expected number of 
exceedances of the 150 g/m\3\ limit per year. The 24 hour 
standard is attained when the expected number of exceedances is 1.0 or 
less. A total of three consecutive years of clean air quality data is 
generally necessary to show attainment of the 24 hour and annual 
standards for PM10. A complete year of air quality data, as 
referred to in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, is comprised of all four 
calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75 
percent of the scheduled sampling days.
    Under section 188(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, a moderate PM10 
nonattainment area must be reclassified as serious by operation of law 
after the statutory attainment date if the Administrator finds that the 
area has failed to attain the NAAQS. Pursuant to section 188(b)(2)(B), 
EPA must publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying those 
areas that failed to attain the standard and the resulting 
reclassification.

C. Effect of Reclassification

    PM10 nonattainment areas reclassified as serious under section 
188(b)(2) of the CAA are required to submit, within 18 months of the 
area's reclassification, SIP revisions providing for the implementation 
of best available control measures (BACM) no later than four years from 
the date of reclassification. The SIP also must contain a demonstration 
that the implementation of BACM will provide for attainment of the 
PM10 NAAQS no later than December 31, 2001. EPA has provided 
specific guidance on developing serious area PM10 SIP revisions in 
an addendum to the General Preamble to Title I of the Clean Air Act. 
See 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

D. Proposed Finding of Failure to Attain

    On June 7, 1995 EPA proposed to find that the Phoenix Planning Area 
(PPA) had failed to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date. 60 FR 30046. This proposed finding was based on 
PM10 monitoring data collected by Maricopa County during the years 
1992 through 1994. The air quality monitoring data for the PPA showed 
three violations of the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS in 1992 and violations 
of the annual PM10 NAAQS in 1992 and 1993. The air quality 
monitoring data are discussed in detail in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM). 60 FR 30046, 30047. The following table summarizes 
the data on which EPA has based its finding of failure to attain:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        24 hour exceedances                       Annual exceedances            
             Site             ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Conc.               Date               1992                  1993        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4732 S. Central, Phoenix.....  171 g/m\3\          11/20/92  ....................  ....................
                               158 g/m\3\           12/2/92  ....................  ....................
1475 E. Pecos, Chandler......  156 g/m\3\          11/20/92  56 g/m\3\    58 g/m\3\  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 21374]]



    On October 20, 1995, the State requested, under section 188(d) of 
the CAA, that EPA extend the attainment deadline for the PPA from 
December 31, 1994 to December 31, 1995. This request was based on the 
lack of recorded exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in 1994. In 1995, 
however, the PPA recorded two exceedances of the 24 hour NAAQS. On June 
28, 1995 a concentration of 160 g/m\3\ was recorded at the 
Chandler monitoring site, and on July 30, 1995 a concentration of 252 
g/m\3\ was recorded, also at the Chandler monitoring site. 
Additionally, the annual average concentration at the Chandler site in 
1995 was 57.9 g/m\3\. Thus, while the State technically 
qualified for a one year attainment date extension, the 1995 violations 
effectively moot this request because the area cannot qualify for a 
second extension. Therefore, EPA does not intend to act on the State's 
extension request.

II. Response to Comments on Proposed Finding

    During the public comment period on EPA's proposed finding, the 
Agency received comment letters from: one State legislator; the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ); the Arizona Department of 
Transportation (ADOT); the Arizona Motor Transport Association; the 
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG); and the Maricopa County 
Board of Supervisors. The issues raised in these comment letters are 
summarized below and are followed by EPA's responses.

A. Economic Impacts of EPA's Finding

    Comment: EPA's determination in the proposed rulemaking that a 
finding of failure to attain the PM10 standard is not subject to 
certain requirements in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 or the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act is incorrect, as is EPA's certification that this 
action does not have a significant impact on small entities.
    Response: Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA is 
required to determine whether regulatory actions are significant and 
therefore should be subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
review, economic analysis, and the requirements of the E.O. The E.O. 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may meet at least one of the four criteria 
identified in section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the 
rule may ``have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities.''
    Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), 2 U.S.C. Secs. 1501-1571, requires EPA to 
assess whether various actions undertaken in association with proposed 
or final regulations include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to 
State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq., 
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact 
of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C Secs. 603 and 
604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    Under section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA findings of failure to 
attain are based upon air quality considerations, and reclassification 
of nonattainment areas must occur by operation of law in light of 
certain air quality conditions. Such findings and reclassification do 
not, in-and-of-themselves, impose any new requirements on any sectors 
of the economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements for the 
differently classified areas are clearly defined, and because those 
requirements are automatically triggered by classifications that, in 
turn, are triggered by air quality values, findings of failure to 
attain and reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially 
adverse impact on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
    This conclusion does not in any way reflect a determination 
regarding estimated or actual impacts of a reclassification on 
Arizona's economy. It is important to understand that the sole 
regulatory action that EPA is taking under the CAA involves only a 
factual finding of whether the Phoenix area attained the PM10 
standards by December 31, 1994, the statutory attainment date for 
moderate areas. If EPA finds that the area has failed to attain by the 
deadline, then the area is reclassified as serious, not by EPA, but by 
operation of law. A finding by EPA that an area has failed to timely 
attain the PM10 standards is based on air quality monitoring data 
collected by Maricopa County and ADEQ from 1992 through 1994. The 
statute does not require any action on EPA's part, since the CAA 
specifies automatic reclassification of an area as a result of a 
finding that the area has not attained the PM-10 standards. See section 
188(b)(2). Because EPA's role in making such a finding is essentially 
ministerial, the Agency has concluded that it does not impose any new 
requirements or mandates on any sector of the State economy.
    For the above reasons, EPA has determined that the finding of 
failure to attain being made today would result in none of the effects 
identified in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not a 
significant regulatory action, as defined in the E.O. Similarly, EPA 
has concluded that the finding of failure to attain does not constitute 
a Federal mandate within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Act. 
Furthermore, the Agency has certified that the redesignation of the 
attainment status of an area under section 107(d) of the CAA does not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 46 FR 8709 (January 
27, 1981). Because the regulatory impact of reclassification under 
section 188(b) of the CAA is no different substantively from that 
associated with designations, such actions are also not expected to 
have significant impacts on small entities.
    EPA wishes to emphasize, however, that the reclassification of the 
Phoenix area is only the first step in developing a strategy to bring 
ambient concentrations of PM10 in the area to healthful levels. As 
with the State's moderate area SIP, which EPA approved on April 10, 
1995 (60 FR 18010), development of a control strategy for the State's 
serious area SIP will involve an assessment of the economic feasibility 
of implementing any particular control measure. If Arizona determines 
that a measure cannot be implemented because it is not economically 
feasible, the State need only provide EPA with a reasoned justification 
for that determination. EPA believes there will be sufficient 
opportunity for ADEQ and other State agencies, local planning agencies, 
the general public, and the regulated community to assess the economic 
impacts of control measure implementation while they develop the 
serious area SIP.

B. State Monitoring and Modeling Study

    Comment: ADEQ claims that reclassification is not necessary because 
the State and local governments have undertaken a study to better 
characterize the sources contributing to the nonattainment problem in 
the PPA.

[[Page 21375]]

The study will enable the State to define the control measures 
necessary to attain and maintain the PM10 NAAQS. As a result the 
PPA will be able to demonstrate attainment by implementing reasonably 
available control measures (RACM) rather than BACM.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the difficulties in assessing the 
contributions from various sources to total PM10 concentrations 
and fully supports the State's efforts to accurately identify those 
sources which have caused the PPA to be in nonattainment of the 
standards. Nonetheless, section 188(b)(2) of the CAA does not afford 
EPA any discretion in determining whether the area has in fact attained 
the PM10 NAAQS by the statutorily mandated attainment date. EPA 
regulations generally require three years of ambient monitoring data in 
order to assess an area's attainment status. See 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix K. As discussed in section I.D. of this notice, based on air 
quality data collected during the years 1992 through 1994, EPA has 
determined that the PPA has not attained the PM10 NAAQS.
    Moreover, the State recently reported two additional violations of 
the PM10 NAAQS at the Chandler monitoring site in 1995. While for 
the purposes of this rulemaking EPA is only considering air quality 
data from 1992 through 1994, these 1995 violations further support 
EPA's determination that PPA has failed to attain the PM10 
standard.

C. EPA's Current Review of the PM10 NAAQS

    Comment: Reclassification of the PPA is untimely in light of the 
pending revision of the PM NAAQS. State and local agencies will have to 
spend considerable resources to develop a plan for a standard that may 
no longer be in effect.
    Response: Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires that 
``not later than December 31, 1980, and at five-year intervals 
thereafter'' EPA review and revise, if warranted, air quality criteria 
and national ambient air quality standards. EPA is currently under 
court order to complete its review of the particulate matter NAAQS by 
June 28, 1997.
    This review may or may not result in a replacement and/or revision 
of the PM10 NAAQS. The Agency is currently considering the 
addition of a new PM NAAQS that targets fine particulate matter, such 
as particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 
nominal 2.5 micrometers. However, the Agency is also considering 
retaining a PM10 standard. Although the PM NAAQS review process is 
incomplete at this time, recent epidemiologic studies show consistent 
positive associations of ambient PM exposure with adverse health 
effects, including mortality and morbidity. Given the significant 
health effects associated with PM, vigorous enforcement of the current 
PM10 requirements is critical to ensure protection of the public 
health. Until a revision of the NAAQS occurs, the current NAAQS and the 
requirements relating to them remain in force. In the event that a new 
NAAQS is promulgated, a transition policy that addresses current 
requirements and ensures protection of the public health will be 
developed.

D. Air Quality Monitoring

    Comment: There should be a more detailed review of the 
circumstances surrounding the location of the two monitoring sites 
which recorded exceedances to insure that the locations are not 
anomalies improperly reflecting local conditions. It would not be 
appropriate to impose a classification upon the entire region due to 
what may be anomalies for just two sites out of nine.
    Response: In order to meet Federal monitoring regulations, agencies 
which operate air monitoring networks are required to design these 
networks in order to meet certain monitoring objectives. These 
objectives are to determine: 1) the highest concentrations expected to 
occur in the area covered by the network; 2) representative 
concentrations in areas of high population density; 3) the impact on 
ambient pollution levels of significant sources or source categories; 
and 4) general background concentration levels. See 40 CFR part 58, 
Appendix D.
    Both the South Phoenix and Chandler sites are located in order to 
measure PM10 concentrations in areas of high population density. 
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) and ADEQ, 
the agencies responsible for operating the pollutant monitoring network 
in the PPA, conduct an annual review of the monitoring network as 
required by Federal regulations. See 40 CFR part 58.26 and 40 CFR part 
58, Appendix F. EPA believes the South Phoenix and Chandler monitoring 
stations are correctly sited and meet all applicable Federal 
requirements.
    Comment: According to section 2.11 of the Quality Assurance 
Handbook for Air Pollution Control, PM10 monitors have a precision 
error of 10% when addressing the PM10 24 hour NAAQS. 
Therefore, two of the recorded violations, with readings below 165 
g/m3, could be within the NAAQS when this error variation is 
accounted for.
    Response: EPA's quality assurance procedures establish minimum 
acceptable operating limits for PM10 sampling equipment. The 
10% to which the commenter refers is not directly related 
to the final PM10 ambient concentration, but rather to the air 
flow rate through the PM10 sampler. The ambient concentration is 
calculated from the particle mass collected on a filter medium, the 
volume of air pulled through the filter, and the amount of time the 
sampler is operated. The 10% to which the commenter refers 
is the acceptable range of deviation for the air flow rate through the 
sampler. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes the validity of the commenter's 
concern regarding the 10% threshold. However, this 10% 
threshold is not an allowance or a leeway to adjust data, rather it is 
a limit which if exceeded alerts the field or laboratory monitoring 
personnel to a possible sample validity problem. Readings beyond the 
10% threshold can mean heavy filter loading or decreases in the sampler 
flow rate. Air flow rates beyond this 10% threshold may necessitate 
invalidating all samples collected since the last sampler calibration. 
See Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Control, section 
2.11.3.4, Sample Validation and Documentation.
    Comment: According to EPA's Exceptional Event Guideline, high winds 
are defined as an hourly speed of greater than or equal to 30 mph or 
gusts equal to or greater than 40 mph with little or no precipitation. 
The western regional climate center in Reno, Nevada reported that 
November 20, 1992 was the windiest day of the quarter in the PPA with 
wind speeds up to 40 mph and no precipitation. Therefore the exceedance 
recorded on that date (156 g/m3) should be classified as an 
exceptional event. Furthermore, all of the PM10 NAAQS violations 
in the PPA were impacted by short term construction activities. The 
Exceptional Event Guideline states that construction and demolition 
activities are exceptional events.
    Response: EPA has established criteria and procedures to identify 
or ``flag'' data which may be affected by ``exceptional events'' in its 
``Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected 
by Exceptional Events,'' July 1986 (Guideline). Under the flagging 
system, state and local air pollution control agencies are responsible 
for initially identifying and documenting data influenced by 
exceptional events. These agencies are expected to develop the 
appropriate

[[Page 21376]]

background information necessary to support a decision to flag an 
individual piece of data. The agencies must then submit the information 
to EPA for concurrence. Flagging a piece of data or data set does not 
exclude that data from being used for nonattainment designations or 
classifications. The actual exclusion would only be allowed if, as a 
result of a public review process, the responsible government agency, 
in this case EPA, determines that the data are inappropriate for use in 
a specific regulatory activity. Neither the MCESD nor ADEQ requested 
that these data be flagged as exceptional events, nor were these data 
proposed to be excluded from any specific regulatory action.
    Notwithstanding the fact that the State did not initiate the 
flagging process, EPA would have evaluated whether the exceedances in 
question were affected by exceptional events had the commenter provided 
documentation demonstrating that they qualified as such. There are 
basically two issues which must be addressed in order to determine 
whether an exceedance of the NAAQS was due to an exceptional event. 
First, there must be a link between a specific PM10 generating 
activity (e.g., forest or structural fire, construction/demolition 
activity) and the suspect data. Second, there must be a determination 
that the activity is not likely to recur.
    Regarding high winds, the commenter only referenced part of the 
definition in the Guideline of a high wind event. The definition in 
full is ``hourly windspeed of greater than or equal to 30 mph or gusts 
equal to or greater than 40 mph, with [little or] no precipitation. The 
high wind condition with [little or] no precipitation and dry soil must 
be associated with a significant contribution (estimated to be > 85% by 
weight) of crustal material on the PM sampling medium.'' The commenter 
did not provide any supporting information on the type of particulate 
matter which contributed to the PM10 exceedance on November 20, 
1992. Furthermore, no information was provided to show that this wind 
event was itself exceptional, i.e. that it was not expected to recur.
    As to construction activities, the commenter again only sites a 
portion of the definition of construction/demolition activities that 
would qualify as exceptional events. The Guideline states that 
construction/demolition activities that last for only a short period of 
time, are within a reasonable distance of the monitoring site and that 
are implementing all reasonable control measures may be flagged as 
exceptional events. Flagged data should be limited to sites that are 
classified as micro- or middle-scale and downwind with respect to the 
construction activity. The Chandler monitoring site is classified as a 
neighborhood scale site. See 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D for an 
explanation of the difference in spatial scales. As with the high wind 
claim, the commenter also did not address the likelihood of the 
construction activity's recurrence. In the State's approved moderate 
area PM10 SIP, construction activities are recognized as 
controllable sources of PM10 and are now regulated under Maricopa 
County Rule 310.
    To summarize, the commenter did not provide any supporting 
information or data showing that the high winds or construction 
activities did, in fact, have a direct causal link to the PM10 
NAAQS exceedances or, if so, the magnitude of the contribution from 
these sources. The commenter simply asserted that the high winds and 
construction activities occurred. Furthermore, the commenter did not 
address the likelihood of the recurrence of these conditions. In fact, 
the SIP development process is intended to prevent exceedances from 
anthropogenic activities such as construction by providing for planning 
by the State and local community to help ensure such activities 
adequately mitigate their contribution to PM10 air quality 
problems.
    Comment: The two locations where violations were recorded are only 
two of nine SLAMS sites and data from the seven clean sites should also 
be considered in deciding whether the PPA should be reclassified. The 
recorded violations are only 14%, 5%, and 4% over the PM10 NAAQS 
and these values are not ``seriously'' in excess of the PM10 
NAAQS.
    Response: Maricopa County's nine station network is only a 
representative sample of the PPA's air quality. These nine stations 
cover 2,920 square miles. Monitoring is only conducted on a one in 
every six day schedule. Therefore, for every one sample taken, there 
are five days for which the air quality is unknown. If there were other 
sites set up to represent conditions similar to those of the violating 
sites, it is possible that more violations would have been recorded.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR, part 50, Appendix K, an exceedance is defined 
as a value which is measured above the level of the 24 hour standard 
after rounding to the nearest 10 g/m3 (i.e. values ending 
in 5 or greater are rounded up). Therefore, had the highest recorded 
values in the 1992 to 1994 period been 154 g/m3 or less, 
the concentrations would not have been considered exceedances of the 
NAAQS. However, the PM10 concentrations recorded in the Phoenix 
area, 156 g/m3, 158 g/m3, and 171 
g/m3, are above that level and are therefore considered 
exceedances.
    Further, the claim that the exceedances were not ``seriously in 
excess'' of the NAAQS is without validity. The PM10 NAAQS are set 
at a level required to protect public health. The standards are 
designated levels, not ranges, of PM10 above which the air quality 
is considered unhealthy. The reclassification of the PPA is based on 
the fact that violations of the standards have occurred, and continue 
to occur, rather than on the severity of the violations.

E. National PM10 Standard

    Comment: EPA should not apply a nationwide PM10 standard to an 
arid Southwest region such as the PPA.
    Response: Section 109 of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate primary 
and secondary NAAQS for certain types of air pollutants. These 
standards are based on criteria which reflect current scientific 
knowledge of the effect of these pollutants on public health and 
welfare.
    On July 1, 1987 EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM10. 52 FR 
24663 (July 1, 1987). While the types of sources and the ability to 
control them differ from one area of the country to another, the human 
health effects of PM10 pollution are the same whether one resides 
in New York City or Phoenix. Therefore, in order to protect human 
health, the standards must be the same nationwide.
    However, unlike the NAAQS, the SIP development process is intended 
to address variability in source types. While the CAA does impose 
certain minimum control requirements, ultimately it is up to the state 
and the affected local communities to choose the particular control 
measures that best address their unique air pollution problem. In 
developing the control measures, a state may consider the economic and 
technological feasibility of implementing a particular control measure.

III. Today's Final Action

    EPA is today taking final action to find that the PPA did not 
attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994, the CAA attainment 
date for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. As a result of this 
final finding, the PPA is reclassified by operation of law as a serious 
PM10 nonattainment area.

IV. Executive Order (EO) 12866

    Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA is required to 
determine whether regulatory actions

[[Page 21377]]

are significant and therefore should be subject to OMB review, economic 
analysis, and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive 
Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely 
to result in a rule that may meet at least one of the four criteria 
identified in section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the 
rule may ``have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities.''
    The Agency has determined that the finding of failure to attain 
finalized today would result in none of the effects identified in 
section 3(f). Under section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, findings of failure 
to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas are based upon 
air quality considerations and must occur by operation of law in light 
of certain air quality conditions. They do not, in-and-of-themselves, 
impose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition, 
because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to 
the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are 
automatically triggered by classifications that, in turn, are triggered 
by air quality values, findings of failure to attain and 
reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact 
on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

V. Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq., 
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact 
of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C Secs. 603 and 
604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    As discussed in sections II.A. and IV of this notice, findings of 
failure to attain and reclassification of nonattainment areas under 
section 188(b)(2) of the CAA do not in-and-of-themselves create any new 
requirements. Therefore, I certify that today's final action does not 
have a significant impact on small entities.

VI. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must assess whether various actions undertaken in association with 
proposed or final regulations include a Federal mandate that may result 
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to 
State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    EPA believes, as discussed above, that the finding of failure to 
attain and reclassification of the Phoenix Planning Area are factual 
determinations based upon air quality considerations and must occur by 
operation of law and, hence, do not impose any federal 
intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7407, 7501-7515, 7601.

    2. Section 81.303 is amended by revising the table for Arizona--PM-
10, to read as follows:


Sec. 81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                                 Arizona--PM-10                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Designation                           Classification          
         Designated Area          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date                 Type                  Date              Type        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cochise County:                                                                                                 
    Paul Spur/Douglas planning        11/15/90  Nonattainment...............     11/15/90  Moderate.            
     area.                                                                                                      
        Township 23 South, Range                                                                                
         25 East (T23S, R25E):                                                                                  
            T23S,R26E                                                                                           
            T23S, R27E                                                                                          
            T23S, R28E                                                                                          
            T24S, R25E                                                                                          
            T24S, R26E                                                                                          
            T24S, R27E                                                                                          
            T24S, R28E                                                                                          
Santa Cruz County:                                                                                              
    Nogales planning area........     11/15/90  Nonattainment...............     11/15/90  Moderate.            
        The portions of the                                                                                     
         following Townships                                                                                    
         which are within the                                                                                   
         State of Arizona and lie                                                                               
         east of 111 deg.                                                                                       
         longitude:                                                                                             
            T23S, R13E                                                                                          
            T23S, R14E                                                                                          
            T24S, R13E                                                                                          
            T24S, R14E                                                                                          
    Rillito planning area........     11/15/90  Nonattainment...............     11/15/90  Moderate.            

[[Page 21378]]

                                                                                                                
        Townships:                                                                                              
            T11S, R9E                                                                                           
            T11S, R10E                                                                                          
            T11S, R11E                                                                                          
            T11S, R12E                                                                                          
            T12S, R8E                                                                                           
            T12S, R9E                                                                                           
            T12S, R10E                                                                                          
            T12S, R11E                                                                                          
            T12S, R12E                                                                                          
Pima County                                                                                                     
    Ajo planning area............     11/15/90  Nonattainment...............     11/15/90  Moderate.            
        Township T12S, R6W, and                                                                                 
         the following sections                                                                                 
         of Township T12S, R5W:                                                                                 
            a. Sections 6-8                                                                                     
            b. Sections 17-20,                                                                                  
             and                                                                                                
            c. Sections 29-32                                                                                   
Maricopa and Pinal Counties                                                                                     
    Phoenix planning area........     11/15/90  Nonattainment...............      6/10/96  Serious.             
        The rectangle determined                                                                                
         by, and including--                                                                                    
            T6N, R3W                                                                                            
            T6N, R7E                                                                                            
            T2S, R3W                                                                                            
            T2S, R7E                                                                                            
            T1N, R8E                                                                                            
Yuma County:                                                                                                    
    Yuma planning area...........     11/15/90  Nonattainment...............     11/15/90  Moderate.            
        Townships:                                                                                              
            T7S-R21W, R22W;                                                                                     
            T8S-R21W, R22W, R23W,                                                                               
             R24W                                                                                               
            T9S-R21W, R22W, R23W,                                                                               
             R24W, R25W;                                                                                        
            T10S-R21W, R22W,                                                                                    
             R23W, R24W, R25W                                                                                   
Pinal and Gila Counties:                                                                                        
    Hayden/Miami planning area...     11/15/90  Nonattainment...............     11/15/90  Moderate.            
        Townships: T4S, R16E T5S,                                                                               
         R16E T6S, R16E plus the                                                                                
         portion of Township T3S,                                                                               
         R16E that does not lie                                                                                 
         on the San Carlos Indian                                                                               
         Reservation, and the                                                                                   
         rectangle formed by, and                                                                               
         including, Townships                                                                                   
            T1N, R13E                                                                                           
            T1N, R15E                                                                                           
            T6S, R13E                                                                                           
            T6S, R15E                                                                                           
Gila County (part):                                                                                             
    Payson: T10N, Sections 1-3,        1/20/94  Nonattainment...............      1/20/94  Moderate.            
     10-15, 22-27, and 34-36 of                                                                                 
     R9E; T11N, Sections 1-3, 10-                                                                               
     15, 22- 27, and 34-36 of                                                                                   
     R9E; T10-11N, R10E; T10N,                                                                                  
     Sections 4-9, 16-21, and 28-                                                                               
     33 of R11E; T11N, Sections 4-                                                                              
     9, 16-21, and 28-33 of R11E..                                                                              
Mohave County (part):                                                                                           
    Bullhead City: T21N, R20-21W,      1/20/94  Nonattainment...............      1/20/90  Moderate.            
     excluding Lake Mead National                                                                               
     Recreation Area; T20N, R20-                                                                                
     22W; T19N, R21-22W excluding                                                                               
     Fort Mohave Indian                                                                                         
     Reservation..                                                                                              
    Rest of State................     11/15/90  Unclassifiable..............                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-11736 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P