[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43020-43027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16143]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ-109-0051a; FRL-7233-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the moderate area plan and maintenance plan 
for the Bullhead City area in Arizona and granting a request submitted 
by the State to redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment 
for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers (PM 10). Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we 
are proposing approval and soliciting written comment on this action; 
if adverse written comments are received, we will withdraw the direct 
final rule and address the comments received in a new final rule; 
otherwise no further rulemaking will occur on this approval action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective August 26, 2002, without 
further notice, unless we receive adverse comments by July 26, 2002. If 
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Please address your comments to Dave Jesson, Air Planning 
Office (AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. You may inspect and copy the rulemaking 
docket for this notice at the following location during normal business 
hours. We may charge you a reasonable fee for copying parts of the 
docket. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Air 
Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-
3901.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the address listed below: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 
Library, First Floor, 3033 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region 9, at (415) 972-3957 or: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Action
II. Introduction
    A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in 
today's rulemaking?
    B. What is a State Implementation Plan?
    C. What is the classification of this area?
    D. What are the applicable CAA provisions for PM10 
moderate area plans?
    1. Statutory provisions.
    2. Clean data area approach.
    E. What are the applicable provisions for PM10 
maintenance plans?
    1. Statutory provisions.
    2. Limited maintenance plan (LMP) option.
    F. What are the applicable provisions for redesignation to 
attainment for PM10?
III. Revision to the Boundary
    A. What boundary change has the State proposed?
    B. Is the boundary change approvable?
IV. Review of the Arizona State Submittals Addressing these 
Provisions
    A. Is the moderate area plan approvable?
    1. Did the State meet the CAA procedural provisions?
    2. Has the State demonstrated that the area qualifies for the 
clean data policy?
    3. Do the emissions inventories meet CAA provisions?
    4. Do the plans meet the CAA provisions for RACM and RACT?
    5. Are the CAA provisions for new source review satisfied?
    B. Is the maintenance plan approvable?
    1. Has the State demonstrated that the area qualifies for the 
limited maintenance plan option?
    2. Do the emissions inventories meet CAA provisions?
    3. Do the plans meet the CAA provisions for contingency 
measures?
    4. Has the State committed to continue to operate an appropriate 
PM10 air quality monitoring network?
    C. Is the redesignation request approvable?
    1. Has the area attained the 24-hour and annual PM10 
NAAQS?
    2. Has the area met all relevant requirements under section 110 
and Part D of the Act?
    3. Does the area have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) 
of the Act?
    4. Has the State shown that the air quality improvement in the 
area is permanent and enforceable?
    5. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant 
to section 175A of the Act?
    D. Conformity
    1. Transportation conformity
    2. General conformity
V. Proposed Action
VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Summary of Action

    We are approving the moderate area plan and the maintenance plan 
for the Bullhead City PM10 nonattainment area (``Bullhead 
City'')\1\ and redesignating the area to attainment for the 24-hour and 
annual PM10 NAAQS. We are also approving the State of 
Arizona's request to revise the boundaries of the Bullhead City area by 
excluding 3 townships. As a result of the redesignation, the excluded 
townships become part of the State's unclassifiable area for 
PM10, and are not subject to the provisions of the 
PM10 maintenance plan for Bullhead City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the existing definition of the Bullhead City 
nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.303. Bullhead City is a city with 
a 2000 decennial census count of 33,769, located in western Mohave 
County across the Colorado River from Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2002, the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ) submitted the plan for the Bullhead City PM10 
nonattainment area as well as a request for a boundary change and 
redesignation of the area from nonattainment to attainment. On May 31, 
2002, we found that the submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 
CFR part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

II. Introduction

A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards are considered in 
Today's rulemaking?

    Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 
micrometers (PM10) is the pollutant that is the subject of 
this action. The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air 
pollutants set to protect public

[[Page 43021]]

health and welfare. PM10 is among the ambient air pollutants 
for which we have established such a health-based standard.
    PM10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep 
in the lung, aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the 
elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most 
vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), we revised the NAAQS for particulate 
matter with an indicator that includes only those particles with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. 
(See 40 CFR 50.6).
    The annual primary PM10 standard is 50 ug/m\3\ as an 
annual arithmetic mean. The 24-hour PM10 standard is 150 ug/
m\3\ with no more than one expected exceedance per year. The secondary 
PM10 standards, promulgated to protect against adverse 
welfare effects, are identical to the primary standards.

B. What Is a State Implementation Plan?

    The Clean Air Act requires States to attain and maintain ambient 
air quality equal to or better than the NAAQS. The State's commitments 
for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS are outlined in the State 
Implementation Plan (or SIP) for that State. The SIP is a planning 
document that, when implemented, is designed to ensure the achievement 
of the NAAQS. Each State currently has a SIP in place, and the Act 
requires that SIP revisions be made periodically as necessary to 
provide continued compliance with the standards.
    SIPs include, among other things, the following: (1) An inventory 
of emission sources; (2) statutes and regulations adopted by the State 
legislature and executive agencies; (3) air quality analyses that 
include demonstrations that adequate controls are in place to meet the 
NAAQS; and (4) contingency measures to be undertaken if an area fails 
to attain the standard or make reasonable progress toward attainment by 
the required date.
    The State must make the SIP available for public review and comment 
through a public hearing, it must be adopted by the State, and 
submitted to EPA by the Governor or her designee. EPA takes Federal 
action on the SIP submittal thus rendering the rules and regulations 
Federally enforceable. The approved SIP serves as the State's 
commitment to take actions that will reduce or eliminate air quality 
problems. Any subsequent revisions to the SIP must go through the 
formal SIP revision process specified in the Act.

C. What Is the Classification of This Area?

    Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (Act), 
PM10 areas meeting the requirements of either (i) or (ii) of 
section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated nonattainment for 
PM10 by operation of law and classified ``moderate.'' See 
generally, 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(4)(B). These areas included all former 
Group I PM10 planning areas identified in 52 FR 29383 
(August 7, 1987) and further clarified in 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 
1990), and any other areas violating the NAAQS for PM10 
prior to January 1, 1989 (many of these areas were identified by 
footnote 4 in the October 31, 1990 Federal Register document). A 
Federal Register notice announcing the areas designated nonattainment 
for PM10 upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments, known as 
``initial'' PM10 nonattainment areas, was published on March 
15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). A subsequent Federal Register document 
correcting some of these areas was published on August 8, 1991 (56 FR 
37654). These nonattainment designations and moderate area 
classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 in a Federal Register 
document published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). All other areas 
in the nation not designated nonattainment at enactment were designated 
unclassifiable (see section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act).
    In January and February of 1991, we notified the Governors of those 
States which recorded violations of the PM10 standard after 
January 1, 1989 that EPA believed that those areas should be 
redesignated as nonattainment for PM10. In September 1992 we 
proposed that several areas be redesignated nonattainment for 
PM10 and took final action on December 21, 1993 (58 FR 
67335). Bullhead City was among those areas listed. The effective date 
of the final action redesignating this area as nonattainment for the 
PM10 NAAQS was January 20, 1994.

D. What Are the Applicable CAA Provisions for PM10 Moderate 
Area Plans?

    The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the 
Act. We have issued guidance in a General Preamble describing our views 
on how we will review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under title I of 
the Act, including those containing moderate PM10 
nonattainment area SIP provisions. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 
18070 (April 28, 1992). The General Preamble provides a detailed 
discussion of our interpretation of the Title I requirements.
1. Statutory Provisions
    States with initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 
were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions 
by November 15, 1991:
    (a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures 
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in 
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of 
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no 
later than December 10, 1993;
    (b) Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that 
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable 
but no later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment 
by that date is impracticable;
    (c) Pursuant to section 189(c)(1), for plan revisions demonstrating 
attainment, quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
    (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable 
to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major 
stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where the 
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the 
area.
    In addition, States must submit a permit program for the 
construction of new and modified major stationary sources in 1992 and 
contingency measures in 1993. See sections 189(a) and 172(c)(9).
2. Clean Data Area Approach
    The clean data areas approach applies the clean data policy concept 
already in place for ozone to selected PM10 nonattainment 
areas in order to approve control measures for these areas into the 
SIP. The approach only applies to PM10 areas with simple 
PM10 source problems, such as residential wood combustion 
and fugitive dust problems. If an area meets the following 
requirements, the State will no longer be required to develop an 
attainment demonstration. The requirements for the approach are:
    (a) The area must be attaining the PM10 NAAQS with the 
three most recent years of quality assured air quality data.
    (b) The State must continue to operate an appropriate 
PM10 air quality

[[Page 43022]]

monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, in order to 
verify the attainment status of the area.
    (c) The control measures for the area, which were responsible for 
bringing the area into attainment, must be approved by EPA. EPA would 
also need to find that the area has adopted RACM/RACT, and make a 
finding that the area attained the 24-hour and annual PM10 
NAAQS.
    (d) An emissions inventory must be completed for the area. In 
addition to the above requirements for the use of the clean data areas 
approach, any requirements that are connected solely to designation or 
classification, such as new source review (NSR) and RACM/RACT, will 
remain in effect. However, the requirements under CAA section 172(c) 
for developing attainment demonstrations, RFP demonstrations and 
contingency measures are waived due to the fact that the areas which 
are eligible under this approach have already attained the 
PM10 NAAQS and have met RFP.
    Any sanctions clocks that may be running for an area due to failure 
to submit, or disapproval of any attainment demonstration, RFP or 
contingency measure requirements, are stopped. In addition, areas are 
still required to demonstrate transportation conformity using the 
build/no-build test, or the no-greater-than-1990 test. 40 CFR 93.119. 
The emissions budget test would not be required, because the 
requirements for an attainment demonstration and RFP, which establish 
the budgets, no longer apply. The applicable tests for general 
conformity still apply. The use of the clean data areas approach does 
not constitute a CAA section 107(d) redesignation, but only serves to 
approve nonattainment area SIPs required under Part D of the CAA.

E. What are the applicable provisions for PM10 maintenance 
plans?

1. Statutory Provisions
    CAA section 175A provides the general framework for maintenance 
plans. The maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the NAAQS 
for at least 10 years after redesignation, and must include any 
additional control measures as may be necessary to ensure such 
maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans are to contain such 
contingency provisions as we deem necessary to assure the prompt 
correction of a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 
The contingency measures must include, at a minimum, a requirement that 
the State will implement all control measures contained in the 
nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation. Beyond these provisions, 
however, CAA section 175A does not define the content of a maintenance 
plan. Our primary guidance on maintenance plans and redesignation 
requests is a September 4, 1992 memo from John Calcagni, entitled 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'' (``Calcagni memo'').
2. Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option
    On August 9, 2001, EPA issued new guidance on streamlined 
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from 
Lydia Wegman entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 
PM10 Nonattainment Areas''). This policy allows maintenance 
plans for areas having a low risk of future exceedances to omit air 
quality modeling, future year emission inventories, and some of the 
standard analyses to determine transportation conformity with the SIP.
    To qualify for the LMP option, the area should be maintaining the 
NAAQS, and the average PM10 design value for the area, based 
upon the most recent 5 years of air quality data at all monitors in the 
area, should be at or below 40 ug/m3 for the annual and 98 
ug/m3 for the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS with no 
violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area. See section IV of 
the LMP Option memo cited above. The 40 and 98 ug/m3 limits 
are margin of safety (MOS) limits for the relevant PM10 
standard for a given area. In addition, the area should expect only 
limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions 
(including fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle 
regional emissions analysis test.
    As discussed below in Section IV.B.1, the State has demonstrated 
that the LMP option is appropriate for the Bullhead City nonattainment 
area.

F. What Are the Applicable Provisions for Redesignation to Attainment 
for PM10?

    The 1990 CAA Amendments revised section 107(d)(3)(E) to provide 
five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be 
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment:
    (1) The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS;
    (2) The area has met all relevant requirements under section 110 
and Part D of the Act;
    (3) The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the 
Act;
    (4) The air quality improvement must be due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions; and,
    (5) The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant 
to section 175A of the Act.

III. Revision to the Boundary

A. What Boundary Change Has the State Proposed?

    The Bullhead City nonattainment area contains the equivalent of 
about six townships within more than 200 square miles (40 CFR 81.303). 
Bullhead City is located in the east-central part. The existing 
Bullhead City nonattainment area is defined by the following townships:

T21N, R20-21W, excluding Lake Mead National Recreational Area
T20N, R20-22W
T19N, R21-22W, excluding the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation

    Although the modeling domain of the nonattainment area extends into 
eastern portions of Clark County, Nevada, the actual nonattainment area 
only includes portions of Mohave County, Arizona.
    The ADEQ has proposed shrinking the area to exclude the following 3 
townships (108 square miles) in the east and south of the nonattainment 
area as defined in 40 CFR 81.303: T21N, R20W; T20N, R20W; and T19N, 
R21W. As a result, the nonattainment and maintenance area would be:

T21N, R21W, excluding Lake Mead National Recreational Area
T20N, R21-22W
T19N, R22W, excluding the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation.

B. Is the Boundary Change Approvable?

    The State's rationale for shrinking the nonattainment area is that 
the land proposed for exclusion is undisturbed desert terrain, without 
industrial or commercial activity. A July 2001 field study confirmed 
this to be the case, and no development is anticipated in the 
foreseeable future. The majority of the three townships is Federal land 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management and State land managed by the 
Arizona State Land Department.
    CAA Section 107(d)(3)(D) authorizes states to submit revised 
designations, and gives us authority to approve such redesignations if 
they do not interfere with the effectiveness or enforceability of the 
applicable SIP. Since the State has provided evidence that the excluded 
area will remain undisturbed desert for the foreseeable future, EPA 
approves the boundary revision.

[[Page 43023]]

IV. Review of the Arizona State Submittal Addressing these Provisions

A. Moderate Area Plan

1. Did the State meet the CAA procedural provisions?
    Prior to adoption by the State, the plan received proper public 
notice and was the subject of a public hearing in Bullhead City on 
December 18, 2001.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In June 1995, ADEQ submitted a PM10 plan for 
Bullhead City. That plan, which addressed the moderate SIP 
provisions, is superseded by the current submittal, which covers 
both moderate plan and maintenance plan provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Has the State demonstrated that the area qualifies for the clean 
data policy?
    a. Based on the past 3 years of air quality data, is the area 
attaining both the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS? An area 
has attained the 24-hour standard when the average number of expected 
exceedances per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a 
three-year period. (40 CFR 50.6) To make this determination, three 
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data were collected 
in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR part 58, including 
appendices). On February 15, 2002, EPA issued a determination that the 
Bullhead City area had attained the PM10 NAAQS. 67 FR 7082.
    The Bullhead City area has one PM10 monitoring site 
located at the United States Post Office building at the northeast 
corner of State Route 95 and 7th Street. There have been no recorded 
exceedances of either the annual or 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in 
the area. The area has attained both the annual and 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS for the past 3 years. Indeed, the last exceedance 
of the 24-hour NAAQS occurred on May 30, 1991, and the last exceedance 
of the annual NAAQS was a 52 ug/m3 concentration for 1989. 
Thus, the submittal demonstrates that the area has met the ambient 
attainment requirements for both the 24-hour and annual PM10 
NAAQS.
    b. Is the State continuing to operate an appropriate 
PM10 air quality monitoring network? Demonstrating that an 
area has attained the PM10 NAAQS involves submittal of 
ambient air quality data from an ambient air monitoring network 
representing peak PM10 concentrations, which should be 
stored in the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). Once 
the area has been redesignated, the State will continue to operate an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The maintenance 
plan contains provisions for continued operation of air quality 
monitors that provide such verification. ADEQ has committed to continue 
operating an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. This 
commitment satisfies the obligation to maintain an adequate monitoring 
program in the area.
    c. Has EPA approved the control measures responsible for bringing 
the areas into attainment? The measures implemented in Bullhead City 
beginning in 1990 and used for the attainment demonstration are listed 
below:
    1. During active construction projects on State roads, the Arizona 
Department of Transportation (ADOT) paved intersecting unpaved roads up 
to the State road alignment.
    2. Mohave County paved unpaved parking areas and roadways, and 
added sidewalks, curbs, and gutters in Davis Camp Park.
    3. ADOT paved shoulders and installed curbs along Arizona State 
Highway 95.
    4. Mohave County paved 8.85 miles of roads that were unpaved in 
1989. Bullhead City paved more than 12 miles of roads that were unpaved 
in 1989.
    5. Bullhead City paved more than 12 miles of previously unpaved 
roads in 1989.
    6. ADEQ implemented Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-607 that 
requires control of storage piles to minimize fugitive emissions.
    Implementation of these measures helped bring the area into timely 
attainment of both the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS, and 
the measures thus meet the CAA requirement for RACM. Measures 1-5 are 
fully constructed and are permanent by their very nature. Measure 6 has 
previously been approved by EPA and remains a Federally enforceable 
component of the SIP. Therefore, we conclude that the submittal 
demonstrates that the controls responsible for bringing the area into 
attainment have been fully carried out or are fully approved SIP 
regulations.
    In addition to these permanent or SIP enforceable controls, the 
following strategies are also employed in the Bullhead City area: ADOT 
established contract specifications requiring erosion control plans for 
State construction projects in PM10 nonattainment areas per 
standard specification 104.9; ADOT implemented Encroachments in Highway 
Rights-of-Way, Rule No. R17-3-712, which authorizes ADOT to issue 
permits to allow private landowners and tenants egress onto the State 
Highway System (in 1988, the section was renumbered, without change, as 
R17-3-702) but directs mitigation of trackout nuisances; Bullhead City 
implemented a grading ordinance requiring control of dust during 
grading and excavation and requiring that property be left in a 
condition that prevents dust from arising; and smoke management plan 
requirements were implemented by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, and Arizona Department of State Lands, in cooperation with 
ADEQ. These supplemental strategies contributed still further fugitive 
dust emission reductions and public health protection. Continued 
implementation of the measures will help ensure that the Bullhead City 
area maintains the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS.
3. Do the emissions inventories meet CAA provisions?
    The Bullhead City plan includes emission inventories for 1999 to 
show emission levels in a recent, representative year during which 
there were no violations of the PM10 standards. This 
inventory is summarized in Table IV-1, while Table IV-4 presents an 
inventory of industrial sources, all of which emit less than 3 tons per 
year of PM10. This inventory is consistent with our most 
recent guidance on emission inventories for nonattainment areas, and 
reflects the latest information available, including 2000 census 
data.\3\ We approve the emissions inventory under CAA section 172(c)(3) 
as current, accurate, and complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM10 Emission Inventory Requirements, EPA-450/2-
93, USEPA 1993. Emissions factors were generally derived using 
methodologies from the Procedures Document for National Emission 
Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 1985-1999 (NEI Procedures), USEPA 
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Do the plans meet the CAA provisions for RACM and RACT?
    The measures listed above in Section IV.A.2.c. reflect effective 
control for an important emissions category in the Bullhead City area: 
reentrained dust from traffic on paved and unpaved roads. These 
measures, along with the cessation of a singular construction project 
more than 10 years ago, were implemented expeditiously and have proven 
sufficient to prevent violations of the NAAQS over the past 10 years. 
We therefore conclude that the controls reflect RACM and we approve the 
plan as meeting the RACM provisions of CAA Section 189(a)(1)(C).
    CAA Section 189(e) requires RACT provisions for gaseous precursors 
of PM10 except where EPA determines that such sources do not 
contribute

[[Page 43024]]

significantly to PM10 levels exceeding the standard. There 
are no major stationary sources in the nonattainment area, and total 
emissions associated with all industrial sources account for only 0.18 
percent of PM10 emissions in 1999. For this reason and 
because the historic violations of the PM10 NAAQS were the 
direct result of massive highway construction activities in the late 
1980's, no sources within the Bullhead City area are subject to the 
RACT requirement, either with respect to primary or secondary 
PM10 emissions.
5. Are the CAA provisions for new source review satisfied?
    For the Bullhead City nonattainment area, ADEQ administers the 
preconstruction review and permitting provisions of Arizona 
Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 2, Articles 1, 3, 4, and 5. All 
new major sources and modifications to existing major sources are 
subject to the new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) requirements of these rules. We have not yet fully 
approved the State's NSR rules but, for major sources and modifications 
of PM10 emissions, we have delegated to Arizona the 
authority to administer the PSD program.
    Section 172(c)(5) requires NSR permits for the construction and 
operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in 
nonattainment areas. We have determined that areas being redesignated 
from nonattainment to attainment do not need to comply with the 
requirement that an NSR program be approved prior to redesignation 
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without 
part D nonattainment NSR in effect. The rationale for this decision is 
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994 
(``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment''). We have determined that the 
ADEQ maintenance demonstration for Bullhead City does not rely on 
nonattainment NSR and, therefore, the State need not have a fully 
approved nonattainment NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request. The ADEQ's PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21 will 
become effective in the area with respect to PM10 upon 
redesignation of the area to attainment, pursuant to the delegation 
agreement between EPA and ADEQ dated March 12, 1999.

B. Maintenance Plan

1. Has the State demonstrated that the area qualifies for the LMP 
option?
    Section II.E. of the plan discusses how the area meets each of the 
LMP option criteria for use of this option.
    First, the area should be attaining the NAAQS. Table III-2 of the 
plan summarizes quality assured ambient data showing that the Bullhead 
City area has continued to meet both the 24-hour and annual 
PM10 NAAQS for the period 1996-2000.
    Second, the design values for the past 5 years must be at or below 
the margin of safety levels identified in the LMP option. The annual 
average PM10 design value for the area from 1996 through 
2000 data is 17 ug/m\3\, and the 24-hour average design value is 79 ug/
m\3\, both of which are below the MOS limits of 40 and 98 ug/m\3\, 
respectively.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis test in the LMP option. The calculated value is 18 ug/m\3\ for 
the annual average PM10 standard, which is less than the 40 
ug/m\3\ MOS limit for annual, and the calculated value is 84 ug/m\3\ 
for the 24-hour average PM10 standard, which is less than 
the 98 ug/m\3\ MOS limit.
    Therefore, the State has shown that the area qualifies for the 
streamlined maintenance plan provisions under the LMP option. We have 
concluded in Sections IV.A. that the plan submittal meets the moderate 
area plan provisions for emissions inventories, permanent and 
enforceable control measures, and maintenance of adequate monitoring. 
There is one remaining maintenance plan provision under the LMP option 
not previously discussed: contingency measures.
2. Does the plan meet the CAA provisions for contingency measures?
    The maintenance plan must include contingency control measures 
which will go into effect automatically to correct any future violation 
of the NAAQS. These provisions must include a requirement that the 
State will implement all measures contained in the nonattainment area 
SIP. The August 9, 2000 LMP option memo states that the contingency 
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
    ADEQ has included 9 contingency measures in the maintenance plan 
(see table below entitled ``Bullhead City Area Contingency Measures'').

                 Bullhead City Area Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Contingency measures                  Implementing entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Bullhead City grading ordinance to      Bullhead City.
 determine if additional action is needed
 (Bullhead City Zoning Regulation, Chapter 15.40
 Grading [September 1998]).
Pave unpaved roads located in the PM10            Bullhead City and/or
 maintenance area.                                 Mohave County.
Pave additional unpaved parking areas in Davis    Mohave County.
 Camp Park (South Beach parking areas).
Continuation of standards for the installation    Bullhead City.
 and maintenance of landscaping and screening
 (Bullhead City Zoning Regulation, Chapter
 17.48, Landscaping and Screening Regulations).
Continuation of cleanup of roadways after         Mohave County.
 rainstorms.
Continuation of the requirement for all           Mohave County.
 commercial establishments to pave parking lots
 (Mohave County Zoning Regulations, Section 26
 Off-Street Parking Standards).
Continuation of Smoke Management Plan--State and  U.S. Forest Service,
 Federal land managers conducting prescribed       U.S. Bureau of Land
 burning must register with ADEQ for proposed      Management, Arizona
 burning activities--Arizona Administrative Code   State Land
 (A.A.C) R-18-2-Article 15 (Forest & Range         Department, ADEQ.
 Management Burns).
Review of the requirement for dust control        ADEQ.
 measures for material storage piles to
 determine if additional action is needed
 (A.A.C. R-18-2-607).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State also committed to determine whether or not violations 
have been recorded within 6 months of the close of each calendar year, 
and to review and determine the appropriate contingency measure(s) by 
the end of the same calendar year. Finally, the State committed to 
implement the selected contingency measure(s) within 1 year of 
determining that a violation has occurred. We conclude that these 
measures and commitments meet the contingency measure provision of CAA 
Section 175A(d).

[[Page 43025]]

C. Redesignation Requests

1. Has Bullhead City attained the 24-hour and annual PM10 
NAAQS?
    The area has attained the 24-hour standard when the average number 
of expected exceedances per year is less than or equal to one, when 
averaged over a three-year period. (40 CFR 50.6) To make this 
determination, three consecutive years of complete ambient air quality 
data were collected in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR 
part 58, including appendices).
    As discussed above, there have been no recorded exceedances of 
either the annual or 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the area in the 
past 3 years. The area has attained both the annual and 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS for the past 3 years.
2. Has the area met all relevant requirements under section 110 and 
Part D of the Act?
    The Calcagni memo directs States to meet all of the applicable 
section 110 and part D planning requirements for redesignation 
purposes. EPA interprets the Act to require State adoption and EPA 
approval of the applicable programs under section 110 and part D that 
were due prior to the submittal of a redesignation request, before EPA 
may approve a redesignation request.
    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for 
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited 
to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after 
reasonable notice and public hearing, provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems, and procedures 
necessary to monitor ambient air quality, implementation of a permit 
program, provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs, criteria for 
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting, 
provisions for modeling, and provisions for public and local agency 
participation.
    Part D includes additional provisions for nonattainment areas, 
listed generally in CAA section 172(c) and specifically for 
PM10 in sections 188-9. These additional Part D provisions 
include: implementation of RACM as expeditiously as practicable, 
reasonable further progress, emissions inventories, and quantification 
of growth allowances (if the State elects to establish such 
allowances). See the General Preamble for further explanation of these 
requirements.
    For purposes of redesignation, the Arizona SIP was reviewed to 
ensure that all requirements under the Act were satisfied. The Arizona 
SIP was approved under section 110 of the Act as satisfying all 
applicable section 110 and Part D provisions. These approvals are 
codified in 40 CFR 52.123. We are approving the SIP with respect to the 
special Part D provisions for PM10 nonattainment areas (CAA 
sections 188-9) in Section IV.A. above.
3. Does the Bullhead City Area have a fully approved SIP under section 
110(k) of the Act?
    We are approving in today's action the moderate area and 
maintenance plan for the Bullhead City Area, and confirming that the 
SIP meets other applicable provisions of the CAA.
4. Has the State shown that the air quality improvement in the area is 
permanent and enforceable?
    The submittal shows that the improvements in air quality were not 
due to temporary economic downturn or unusually favorable meteorology 
(p. 14). On the contrary, economic growth has continued over the past 
10 years since the area attained the NAAQS, and the area has 
experienced the full range of weather conditions in that period. As 
discussed above, attainment is the result of the cessation of unusual 
construction activities and the establishment of permanent and 
enforceable controls on fugitive dust emissions.
5. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the Act?
    We are fully approving the maintenance plan, as allowed by the LMP 
guidance, in Section IV.B. above.

D. Conformity

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule 
apply to nonattainment areas and attainment areas with maintenance 
plans. Both rules provide that conformity can be demonstrated by 
showing that the expected emissions from planned actions are consistent 
with the emissions budget for the area.
1. Transportation Conformity
    Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are 
treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the 
maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying 
areas would experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS 
violation would result.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited 
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas 
remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40 
CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) in the area or the State will still need to document and ensure 
that: (1) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; (2) transportation plans and projects 
comply with the fiscal constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108; (3) the 
MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable requirements 
of 40 CFR 93.105; (4) conformity of transportation plans is determined 
no less frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan 
amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance 
with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104; (5) the latest 
planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40 
CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do not cause or contribute 
to any new localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, 
in accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and (7) 
project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as 
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    The adequacy review period for these SIP submissions is concurrent 
with the public comment period on this direct final rule. Because 
limited maintenance plans do not contain budgets, the adequacy review 
period for these maintenance plans serves to allow the public to 
comment on whether limited maintenance is appropriate for these areas. 
Interested parties may comment on the adequacy and approval of the 
limited maintenance plans by submitting their comments on the proposed 
rule published concurrently with this direct final rule.
    Our action on the limited maintenance plans for these areas will 
also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq. Once there, click on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for 
``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity.''
2. General Conformity
    For Federal actions which are required to address the specific 
requirements of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements 
applies particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will 
not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate 
current violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this 
requirement can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and 
indirect emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined 
and

[[Page 43026]]

documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable 
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other 
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions 
budgets specified in the applicable SIP.'' 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of 
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the State and 
local air quality agencies. Such emissions budgets are unlike and not 
to be confused with those used in transportation conformity. Emissions 
budgets in transportation conformity are required to limit and restrain 
emissions. Emissions budgets in general conformity allow increases in 
emissions up to specified levels.
    ADEQ has not chosen to include any specific emissions allocations 
for Federal projects that would be subject to the provisions of general 
conformity.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the boundary revision, the moderate area plan, and 
the maintenance plan for the Bullhead City Area, and we are 
redesignating the area from nonattainment to attainment for the 24-hour 
and annual PM10 NAAQS. We are publishing this action without 
prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and 
anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section 
of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the State plan and 
redesignate the area if relevant adverse comments are filed. This rule 
will be effective August 26, 2002, without further notice unless 
relevant adverse comments are received by July 26, 2002. If we receive 
such comments, this action will be withdrawn before the effective date. 
All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent 
final rule based on the proposed action. We will not institute a second 
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this action will be effective August 26, 2002.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
    Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2002. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 6, 2002.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

[[Page 43027]]

Subpart D--Arizona

    2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (103) The following plan was submitted on February 7, 2002, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Bullhead City Moderate Area PM10 Maintenance Plan 
and Request for Redesignation to Attainment, adopted on February 7, 
2002.
* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec. 81.303 the PM10 table is amended by revising 
the entry for the Mohave County (part) to read as follows:


Sec. 81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                                  Arizona--PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date \1\               Type              Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Mohave County (part):             August 26, 2002....  Attainment.........
    Bullhead City: T21N, R21W,
     excluding Lake Mead
     National Recreation Area:
     T20N, R21-22W; T19N, R22W
     excluding Fort Mohave
     Indian Reservation .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-16143 Filed 6-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P