Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
EPA ID: [EPA-R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0006; FRL-8029-2]
SUBJECT CATEGORY: AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to determine that the Ajo
moderate PM
determination, EPA is also determining that certain Clean Air Act
requirements are not applicable for so long as the Ajo area continues
to attain the PM
SUMMARY: Arizona,
A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are Considered in Today's Finding?
B. What Is the Designation and Classification of This PM
C. How Do We Make Attainment Determinations?
II. What Is the Basis for EPA's Determination That the Ajo Area Has Attained the PM
III. What Are the Applicable Planning Requirements for the Ajo Area as a Result of EPA's Attainment Determination?
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Statutory And Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Are Considered in Today's Finding?
The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air pollutants
set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. Particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers,
or PM
PM
On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA 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 24hour primary PM
B. What Is the Designation and Classification of This PM
Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or the
Act), PM
Ajo, Arizona was among the areas listed in the March 15, 1991
Federal Register action (see 56 FR at 11103) as meeting the
requirements of either (i) or (ii) of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act
and was designated nonattainment for PM
\1\ Arizona submitted a moderate area plan for the Ajo area on November 14, 1991 but EPA has not taken action on it.
Pursuant to sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) of the Act, we have the
responsibility of determining within six months of the applicable
attainment date whether, based on air quality data, PM
Generally, we will determine whether an area's air quality is
meeting the PM
Attainment of the annual PM
II. What Is the Basis for EPA's Determination That the Ajo Area Has Attained the PM
The Ajo PM
[[Page 6354]]
located approximately in the center of this 47 square mile
nonattainment area. Ajo is one of several early settlements in Arizona
in which mining and copper smelting was of prominent importance. When
the New Cornelia mine, operated by Phelps Dodge, closed in 1986, the
population of the Ajo area significantly declined. More recent growth
in the Ajo area may be attributed to additional employers in the local
economy, as well as retirees moving into the area. Employment is mainly in the commercial, service, and tourism sectors.
Ajo has one SLAMS monitor operated by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Table 1 summarizes the oneinsix day
PM
Table 1.Summary of 24 Hour and Annual PM10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m\3\) for Ajo, 20022004
Year
2002 2003 2004
Maximum 24 hour concentration................... 50 139 43
Annual average.................................. 18.7 22.7 19.3
3year annual average........................... 21
The PM
\2\ We have received AQS data from ADEQ through September 30,
2005 and the Ajo nonattainment area continues to attain both
PM
Review of the annual standard for calendar years 2002, 2003, and
2004 reveals that Ajo also attained the annual PM
III. What Are the Applicable Planning Requirements for the Ajo Area as a Result of EPA's Attainment Determination?
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM
In nonattainment areas where monitored data demonstrates that the NAAQS have already been achieved, EPA has determined that certain requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 2 of the Act do not apply. Therefore we do not require certain submissions for an area that has attained the NAAQS. These include reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements, attainment demonstrations, and contingency measures, because these provisions have the purpose of helping achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
This interpretation of the CAA is known as the Clean Data Policy
and is the subject of two EPA memoranda. EPA also finalized the
statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in a final rule, 40
CFR 51.918, as part of its ``Final Rule to Implement the 8hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality StandardPhase 2'' (Phase 2 Final Rule).
See discussion in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71612, 7164571646
(November 29, 2005). EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in
detail in our Phase 2 Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John
S. Seitz, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' and our
December 14, 2004 memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled ``Clean Data
Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards''
are equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions of subparts 1
and 4 applicable to PM
It has been EPA's longstanding interpretation that the general
provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the Act (sections 171 and 172) do
not require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP for areas
already attaining the ozone NAAQS because the stated purpose of RFP is
to ensure attainment by the applicable date. 57 FR at 13564. EPA
believes the same reasoning applies to the PM
With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for ``a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date. * * *'' As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment of the standards, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble (57 FR at 13564), the December 14, 2004 memorandum and of the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the May 10, 1995 memorandum.
Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We have interpreted the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) as no longer applying when an area has attained the standard, because those ``contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.'' (57 FR at 13564; May 10, 1995 memorandum at 5 6.)
Both Sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C) require ``provisions to
assure that reasonably available control measures'' (RACM) are
implemented in a nonattainment area. However, the Ajo area was able to
attain the PM
[[Page 6355]]
for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, the requirement for RACM no longer applies.
Here, as in both our Phase 2 final rule and ozone and
PM
\5\ Note, however, that on December 20, 2005, EPA proposed
revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter. See 71 FR 2620,
January 17, 2006. The proposed revisions address two categories of particulate matter: Fine particles which are particles 2.5
micrometers in diameter and smaller; and ``inhalable coarse''
particles which are particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers
(PM
PM
Based on qualityassured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, we find that the Ajo, Arizona nonattainment area
has attained the PM
EPA also finds that, because the Ajo area has continued to attain the NAAQS, the following CAA requirements no longer apply: The part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of 189(a)(1)(c), the RFP provisions established by section 189(c)(1), and the attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions of part D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act.
We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal should adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective April 10, 2006, without further notice unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comments by March 10, 2006.
If we receive such comments, then we will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on April 10, 2006, and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does not impose any additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 1044).
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 97249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 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. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 10, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
[[Page 6356]]
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 24, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 061174 Filed 2706; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 941053901, (520) 6221622,
tax.wienke@epa.gov.
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 50 CFR Part 17 33 CFR Part 117 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 50 CFR Part 229 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522