[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