[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67220-67227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27634]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0718; FRL-9219-7]
Determinations of Attainment by the Applicable Attainment Date
for the Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas PM10
Nonattainment Areas, Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/
Douglas nonattainment areas in Arizona attained the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers
(PM10) by the applicable attainment date of December 31,
1994. On the basis of this determination, EPA concludes that these
three ``moderate'' nonattainment areas are not subject to
reclassification by operation of law to ``serious.'' Lastly, on the
basis of a review of more recent ambient monitoring data, EPA has
determined that the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas
nonattainment areas are not currently attaining the PM10
standard.
DATES: This action is effective on January 3, 2011 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 2, 2010. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0718, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax at telephone number: (415)
947-4192; e-mail address: [email protected], or the above EPA, Region
IX address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
[[Page 67221]]
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. PM10 NAAQS
B. Designation and Classification of PM10 Nonattainment
Areas
C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
D. What PM10 planning has occurred for the Hayden,
Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Areas?
1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area
2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area
3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Area
II. EPA's Analysis
A. What does the air quality data show as of the December 31, 1994
attainment date?
1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area
2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area
3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Area
B. Does more recent air quality data also show attainment?
1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area
2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area
3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Area
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. PM10 NAAQS
The NAAQS are levels for certain ambient air pollutants set by EPA
to protect public health and welfare. PM10, or particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers, is among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established health-based standards. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA
promulgated two primary standards for PM10: A 24-hour
standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) and an
annual PM10 standard of 50 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA also
promulgated secondary PM10 standards that were identical to
the primary standards.
Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM10
standard but retained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 71 FR 61144
(October 17, 2006). The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained
when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour
concentration in excess of the standard (referred to herein as
``exceedance''), as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K, is equal to or less than one.\1\ See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard (150 [micro]g/m\3\) after rounding to
the nearest 10 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in 5 or greater
are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [micro]g/m\3\
would not be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150
[micro]g/m\3\ whereas a recorded value of 155 [micro]g/m\3\ would be
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 [micro]g/m\3\. See 40
CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Designation and Classification of PM10 Nonattainment
Areas
Areas meeting the requirements of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') were designated nonattainment for
PM10 by operation of law and classified ``moderate'' upon
enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These areas included
all former Group I PM10 planning areas identified in 52 FR
29383 (August 7, 1987), as further clarified in 55 FR 45799 (October
31, 1990), and any other areas violating the NAAQS for PM10
prior to January 1, 1989. 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) and a subsequent
Federal Register document correcting the description of some of these
areas was published on August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37654).
As former ``group I'' areas, the Hayden/Miami \2\ and Paul Spur/
Douglas \3\ areas were included in the list of initial moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas. Nogales, a former ``Group II''
area, was included in the initial list of moderate PM10
nonattainment areas based on monitored violations of the
PM10 NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989.\4\ Later in 1991, we
codified the PM10 nonattainment designations and moderate
area classifications in 40 CFR part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991). For ``moderate'' nonattainment areas such as the three Arizona
areas that are the subject of this document, CAA section 188(c) of the
1990 Amended Act establishes an attainment date of December 31, 1994.
The designations, classifications, and boundaries of these three
Arizona nonattainment areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On March 28, 2007, EPA approved a request by the State of
Arizona to split the Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment area
into two separate PM10 nonattainment areas. See 72 FR
14422 (March 28, 2007). In our March 28, 2007 direct final rule, we
also determined that the Miami PM10 nonattainment area
had attained the PM10 NAAQS. In today's action, we have
determined that the Hayden PM10 nonattainment area
attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date. The Hayden planning area straddles Gila and Pinal counties at
the confluence of the Gila and San Pedro rivers in east central
Arizona. The nonattainment area covers roughly 700 miles of
mountainous terrain. Cities and towns within this area include
Kearney (population roughly 2,800), Hayden (population roughly 800),
and Winkelman (population roughly 400).
\3\ The Paul Spur/Douglas planning area covers approximately 220
square miles along the border with Mexico within Cochise County.
Cities and towns within this area include Douglas (population
roughly 20,000) and Pirtleville (population roughly 1,500). The
population of Agua Prieta, Mexico, which lies just across the border
from Douglas is roughly 70,000.
\4\ The Nogales planning area covers approximately 70 square
miles along the border with Mexico within Santa Cruz County. The
only significant population center in this area is the city of
Nogales with a population of roughly 21,000. The population of
Nogales, Mexico, which lies just across the border from Nogales,
Arizona is roughly 160,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
Section 188(b)(2) of the Act requires EPA to determine within six
months of the applicable attainment date whether, based on air quality
data, PM10 nonattainment areas attained the PM10
NAAQS by that date. Generally, EPA determines whether an area's air
quality is meeting the PM10 NAAQS based upon complete
(minimum of 75 percent of scheduled PM10 samples recorded),
quality-assured data gathered at established state and local air
monitoring stations (SLAMS) and national air monitoring stations (NAMS)
in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. Data from air monitors operated by State/local/tribal
agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be
submitted to AQS. EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining
the attainment status of an area. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50,
appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. EPA will also
consider air quality data from other air monitoring stations in the
nonattainment area provided that the stations meet the Federal
monitoring requirements for SLAMS, including the quality assurance and
quality control criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. 40 CFR 58.14
(2006) and 58.20 (2007); \5\ 71 FR 61236, 61242 (October 17, 2006). All
valid data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient air monitoring
regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and 58 on October 17, 2006. See 71 FR
61236. The requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were revised
and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR 58.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard is determined by
calculating the expected number of exceedances of the standard in a
year. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the
expected number of exceedances averaged over a three-year period is
less than or equal to one at each monitoring site within the
nonattainment area. Generally, three consecutive years of air quality
data are required to show attainment of the 24-hour PM10
[[Page 67222]]
standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and appendix K.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked
effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006),
this document discusses only attainment of the 24-hour
PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard
at a monitoring site, the monitor must provide sufficient data to
perform the required calculations in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The
amount of data required varies with the sampling frequency, data
capture rate and the number of years of record. In all cases, three
years of representative monitoring data that meet the 75 percent
criterion of the previous paragraph should be utilized, if available,
and would suffice. More than three years may be considered, if all
additional representative years of data meeting the 75 percent
criterion are utilized. Data not meeting these criteria may also
suffice to show attainment; however, such exceptions must be approved
by the appropriate Regional Administrator in accordance with EPA
guidance. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3.
D. What PM10 planning has occurred for the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul
Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Areas?
Along with the new designations, classifications, and attainment
dates, the CAA as amended in 1990 also established new planning
requirements. All initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas
had the same applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994. States
containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were
required to develop and submit to EPA by November 15, 1991, a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision providing for implementation of
reasonably available control measures (RACM) for the control of
PM10, and either a demonstration that the plan would provide
for attainment by the applicable attainment date (December 31, 1994) or
a demonstration that attainment by such date was impracticable. See CAA
section 189(a).
1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area
By November 15, 1991, States were required to submit SIP revisions
addressing certain CAA requirements for initial PM10
nonattainment areas. The State of Arizona relied upon a SIP revision
(``Final PM10 State Implementation Plan for the Hayden Group
I Area,'' September 1989) (herein referred to as the ``1989 Hayden
PM10 Plan'') that it had submitted on October 16, 1989 to
meet the requirements of the CAA as amended in 1990 for the Hayden/
Miami moderate PM10 nonattainment area. See letter from
Edward Z. Fox, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ), to Daniel W. McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
dated February 3, 1992. The inventory in the 1989 Hayden
PM10 Plan identifies the ASARCO copper smelter and related
sources, such as the smelter stack, copper ore tailings, ore crushing,
the slag dump, road dust, smelter building fugitives, and copper ore,
as the principal sources of PM10 emissions in the Hayden
portion of the Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment area.
In 1994, we proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of
the 1989 Hayden PM10 Plan. See 59 FR 36116 (July 15, 1994).
In our 1994 proposed action, we identified deficiencies in the 1989
Hayden PM10 Plan including the failure of the plan to
address the Miami portion of the Hayden/Miami PM10
nonattainment area and the failure to meet the general monitoring
requirements for the entire nonattainment area. (As noted above in
footnote 2, we have since approved ADEQ's request to split the Hayden
and Miami portions of the area into separate PM10
nonattainment areas.) We have not finalized our 1994 proposed limited
approval/limited disapproval or otherwise taken action on the 1989
Hayden PM10 Plan.
2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area
Arizona did not submit the required moderate PM10 plan
by the November 15, 1991 deadline for the Nogales nonattainment area,
and on December 16, 1991, we made a finding of failure to submit the
moderate PM10 plan for Nogales. See letter from Daniel W.
McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, to Fife Symington,
Governor of Arizona, dated December 16, 1991. See 57 FR 19906 (May 8,
1992). In response, on June 14, 1993, ADEQ submitted the ``Final State
Implementation Plan for the Nogales PM10 Nonattainment
Area,'' June 1993 (herein referred to as the ``1993 Nogales
PM10 Plan''), to EPA as a SIP revision. We found the plan to
be complete and notified the State of our finding by letter dated
November 30, 1993.
The 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan identifies emissions sources
located in Mexico as the principal sources affecting ambient
PM10 concentrations in the area, and includes an analysis
which concludes that the plan would be adequate to attain the
PM10 NAAQS but for emissions emanating from outside the
United States. Section 179B (``International Border Areas'') of the CAA
provides EPA with the authority to approve such a demonstration. We
have not taken action to approve or disapprove the 1993 Nogales
PM10 Plan.
3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Area
Similar to the situation in Hayden, the State of Arizona relied
upon a SIP revision (``Final PM10 State Implementation Plan
for the Paul Spur Group I Area,'' July 1990) (herein referred to as the
``1990 Paul Spur PM10 Plan'') that it had submitted prior to
the CAA Amendments of 1990 (in this instance, June 25, 1990) to meet
the requirements of the CAA as amended in 1990 for the Paul Spur
portion of the Paul Spur/Douglas moderate PM10 nonattainment
area. See letter from Edward Z. Fox, Director, ADEQ, to Daniel W.
McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated February 3,
1992. The 1990 Paul Spur PM10 Plan identifies the lime plant
located at Paul Spur as the only significant source of emissions in the
immediate vicinity and includes control measures for this source of
emissions.
ADEQ did not submit the required plan for the Douglas portion of
the Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment area by the November 15, 1991
deadline, and thus, on December 16, 1991, we made a finding of failure
to submit a moderate PM10 plan for Douglas portion of Paul
Spur/Douglas PM10 nonattainment area. See letter from Daniel
W. McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, to Fife Symington,
Governor of Arizona, dated December 16, 1991. See 57 FR 19906 (May 8,
1992). In response, on June 17, 1993, ADEQ submitted the ``Final State
Implementation Plan for the Douglas PM10 Nonattainment
Area,'' April 1993 (herein referred to as the ``1993 Douglas
PM10 Plan''), to EPA as a SIP revision. We found the plan to
be complete by letter dated November 30, 1993. Similar to the Nogales
plan, the 1993 Douglas PM10 plan identifies emissions
sources located in Mexico as the principal sources of emissions
affecting ambient PM10 concentrations in the area, and
includes an analysis which concludes that the plan would be adequate to
attain the PM10 NAAQS but for emissions emanating from
outside the United States.
A decade later, and based on a number of years of ambient data
showing that the standard had been attained, ADEQ withdrew the 1993
Douglas PM10 Plan. See letter from Stephen A. Owens,
Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX,
dated December 22, 2004. Recently, ADEQ revoked the 2004 withdrawal of
the 1993 Douglas PM10 Plan; thus, once again, the plan is
subject to EPA approval or disapproval
[[Page 67223]]
action as a revision to the Arizona SIP. See letter from Benjamin H.
Grumbles, Director, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX, dated September 13, 2010. We have not taken action to
approve or disapprove either the 1990 Paul Spur PM10 Plan or
the 1993 Douglas PM10 Plan.
II. EPA's Analysis
A. What does the air quality data show as of the December 31, 1994
attainment date?
ADEQ is responsible for monitoring ambient air quality outside the
metropolitan areas in Arizona. ADEQ submits monitoring network plan
reports to EPA on an annual basis. These reports discuss the status of
the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58. Beginning
in 2007, EPA reviews these annual plans for compliance with the
applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. With respect to
PM10, we have found that ADEQ's annual network plans meet
the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to
ADEQ concerning ADEQ's annual network plan reports for years 2007,
2008, and 2009 that have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
Furthermore, we concluded in our Technical System Audit Report
(September 2010) for ADEQ's ambient air quality monitoring program (a
copy of which has been placed in the docket) that ADEQ's ambient air
monitoring network currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the
minimum number of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS for all of the
criteria pollutants, and that all of the monitoring sites are properly
located with respect to monitoring objectives, spatial scales and other
siting criteria.
1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area
ADEQ has operated a PM10 monitor at the Old Town Jail
site, which is near the center of the Town of Hayden, for many years,
including the period 1992 through 1994. The Old Town Jail monitoring
site is part of the ADEQ's SLAMS network and is located roughly one-
half mile west of the ASARCO smelter. During the 1992-1994 period, ADEQ
used a filter-based method (low-volume dichotomous monitor) to monitor
ambient PM10 concentrations, sampling PM10
concentrations every sixth day. The Old Town Jail monitor was sited to
provide PM10 concentration data at a neighborhood scale \7\
for the purpose of determining source impacts from ASARCO operations.
Table 1 below summarizes the PM10 concentration data
collected at the Old Town Jail site over the 1992-1994 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In this context, ``neighborhood scale'' refers to conditions
throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with
dimensions of a few kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D,
section 4.6.
Table 1--Summary of PM10 Monitoring Data, Hayden Nonattainment Area, 1992-1994 a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest 24-hour PM10 concentration Expected
([mu]g/m3) exceedances
Monitoring site --------------------------------------- per year
---------------
1992 1993 1994 1992-1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Old Jail.......................................... 85 68 67 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 NAAQS = 150 [mu]g/m3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: AQS QuickLook report dated June 23, 2010.
As noted above, to be considered ``complete,'' valid measurements
must be made for 75% of all the scheduled sampling dates in each
quarter of the year, and generally, three years of representative
monitoring data that meet the 75 percent criterion should be utilized,
where available.
During the 1992-1994 period, the data collected by ADEQ meets the
completeness criterion for all quarters except for the fourth quarter
of year 1994, when the number of valid samples was one short of
constituting a complete quarter. EPA may find that data not meeting the
completeness criterion suffice to show attainment. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K, section 2.3(b). Relevant considerations that we take into
account when evaluating whether data not meeting the completeness
criterion would suffice include, but are not limited to, monitoring
site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, consistency and levels of
the valid concentration measurements that are available, and nearby
concentrations. See, e.g., considerations taken into account for
analogous circumstances involving evaluating of ambient lead (Pb)
concentrations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix F, section 4(d).
In this instance, we find that data that is available is sufficient
to determine whether the area attained the standard by the applicable
attainment date. First, we note the large extent to which the maximum
monitored levels during the 1992-1994 period (67 to 85 [micro]g/m\3\--
see table 1 above) fall below the applicable standard (150 [micro]g/
m\3\). We also note that 11 of the 12 quarters in question were
complete (based on the 75% criterion), and that the one quarter that
did not meet the criterion was but one sample short. Further, we have
reviewed the monitoring data for year 1995, which is comprised of four
quarters of data meeting the completeness criterion, and during which
the maximum 24-hour concentration was, at 108 [mu]g/m\3\, well below
the standard, providing further evidence that the area attained by the
applicable attainment date.
Based on our rationale presented above, we find the available data
sufficient to determine whether the Hayden nonattainment area met the
PM10 standard by December 31, 1994 (i.e., the applicable
attainment date), and based on our review of the air quality data
during the three-year period ending with the December 31, 1994
attainment date (and summarized above in table 1), we find that the
expected number of exceedances per year for the Hayden PM10
nonattainment area for 1992 to 1994 was 0 days per year. With less than
an annual expected exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS of 1.0, these data represent attainment of the standard.
Therefore, EPA has determined that the Hayden PM10
nonattainment area attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area
ADEQ has operated a PM10 monitor at the Nogales Post
Office site (300 North Morley Avenue) for many years, including the
period 1992 through 1994. The Nogales Post Office monitoring site is
part of the ADEQ's SLAMS network
[[Page 67224]]
and is located roughly 0.4 mile north of the border with Mexico. During
year 1994, ADEQ also collected a total of 120 samples of 24-hour-
average ambient PM10 concentrations at three additional
locations in Nogales, all of which were located north of the Post
Office Site.
During the 1992-1994 period, ADEQ used a filter-based method (low-
volume dichotomous monitor) to monitor ambient PM10
concentrations in the Nogales area. At the Nogales Post Office site,
the sampling schedule was every sixth day. The Nogales Post Office
monitor was sited to provide PM10 concentration data at a
neighborhood scale for the purpose of determining population exposure.
Table 2 below summarizes the PM10 concentration data
collected in the Nogales area over the 1992-1994 period.
Table 2--Summary of PM10 Monitoring Data, Nogales Nonattainment Area, 1992-1994a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest 24- Expected exceedances per year
hour PM10 -----------------------------------------
Monitoring site concentration
([mu]g/m\3\) 1992 1993 1992-1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nogales Post Office.................................... 153 119 116 0.0
885 North Carrillo Place............................... ............. ......... 52 ..................
156 West Mariposa Road................................. ............. ......... 59 ..................
1852 North Mastick Way................................. ............. ......... 83 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 NAAQS = 150 [mu]g/m\3\. The 153 [mu]g/m\3\ concentration measured in 1992 does not represent an exceedance
due to rounding conventions. See footnote 1 of this document for a description of the rounding conventions.
Measurements at the North Carrillo, West Mariposa, and North Mastick sites were not collected in 1992 or 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: AQS QuickLook report dated June 23, 2010.
As noted above, to be considered ``complete,'' valid measurements
must be made for 75% of all the scheduled sampling dates in each
quarter of the year, and generally, three years of representative
monitoring data that meet the 75 percent criterion should be utilized,
where available.
During the 1992-1994 period, 150 samples were collected at the
Nogales Post Office site out of a total of 183 scheduled sample days.
However, on a quarter-by-quarter basis, a number of quarters (one in
1992, three in 1993, and 1 in 1994) failed to meet the 75% completeness
criterion. For three of the quarters that failed to meet the 75%
criterion, the criterion was missed by a single sample day, and for the
two other quarters that failed to meet the 75% criterion, the criterion
was missed by two sample days. In summary, a substantial amount of data
was collected during the quarters that failed to meet the 75%
criterion, but not enough to meet the test. As noted above for the
Hayden area, EPA may find that data not meeting the completeness
criterion suffice to show attainment. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K,
section 2.3(b).
Like Hayden, again, we find that data is available and sufficient
to determine whether the Nogales area attained the standard by the
applicable attainment date. First, despite a number of quarters that
did not meet the 75% criterion, we note that a substantial amount of
data was collected; and, other than two samples taken in year 1992 (1st
high of 153 [mu]g/m\3\ and 2nd high of 147 [mu]g/m\3\), the ambient
concentrations that were collected were consistently well below the 150
[mu]g/m\3\ standard. Second, we take note of the supplemental ambient
PM10 monitoring data collected by ADEQ during 1994 showing
ambient concentrations at sites north of the Post Office site well
below the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ standard (the maximum was 83 [mu]g/m\3\--see
table 2, above). Lastly, we have reviewed the monitoring data for year
1995, which is comprised of 53 samples out of a total number of
scheduled sample days of 61, and during which the maximum 24-hour
concentration was, at 123 [mu]g/m\3\, well below the standard,
providing further evidence that the area attained by the applicable
attainment date.
Based on our rationale presented above, we find the available data
sufficient to determine whether the Nogales nonattainment area met the
PM10 standard by December 31, 1994 (i.e., the applicable
attainment date), and based on our review of the air quality data
during the three-year period ending with the December 31, 1994
attainment date (and summarized above in table 2), we find that the
expected number of exceedances per year for the Nogales PM10
nonattainment area for 1992 to 1994 was 0 days per year. With less than
an annual expected exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS of 1.0, these data represent attainment of the standard.
Therefore, EPA has determined that the Nogales PM10
nonattainment area attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Area
ADEQ has operated PM10 monitors near the lime plant at
Paul Spur (``Paul Spur monitor'') and within the City of Douglas
(``Douglas monitor'') for many years, including the period 1992 through
1994. Both sites are part of the ADEQ's SLAMS network. The Paul Spur
monitor is located near the intersection of Paul Spur Road and State
Route 80. During the 1992-1994 period, the Douglas monitor was located
at 15th Street Park, approximately one mile north of the border with
Mexico. In 1998, ADEQ re-located the Douglas monitor to its current
location, the Red Cross building just across from the park on 15th
Street.
During the 1992-1994 period, ADEQ used a filter-based method (low-
volume dichotomous monitor) to monitor ambient PM10
concentrations at both the Paul Spur and Douglas sites, sampling
PM10 concentrations every sixth day. The Paul Spur monitor
was sited to provide PM10 concentration data at a middle
scale \8\ for the purpose of determining source impacts from the
chemical lime plant. The Douglas monitor was sited to provide
PM10 concentration data at a neighborhood scale for the
purpose of determining population exposure. Table 3 below summarizes
the PM10 concentration data collected at the Paul Spur and
Douglas monitors over the 1992-1994 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In this context, ``middle scale'' refers to conditions
characteristic of areas from 100 meters to several kilometers. See
40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.6.
[[Page 67225]]
Table 3--Summary of PM10 Monitoring Data, Paul Spur/Douglas Nonattainment Area, 1992-1994 a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest 24-hour PM10 concentration Expected
([mu]g/m3) exceedances
Monitoring site --------------------------------------- per year
---------------
1992 1993 1994 1992-1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant............................ 132 69 77 0.0
Douglas (15th Street Park)............................... 138 66 96 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 NAAQS = 150 [mu]g/m\3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source: AQS QuickLook report dated June 23, 2010.
As noted above, to be considered ``complete,'' valid measurements
must be made for 75% of all the scheduled sampling dates in each
quarter of the year, and generally, three years of representative
monitoring data that meet the 75 percent criterion should be utilized,
where available.
During the 1992-1994 period, the data collected by ADEQ meets the
completeness criterion for all quarters at both the Paul Spur and
Douglas monitors except for the second quarter of year 1992 at the Paul
Spur monitor and the fourth quarter of year 1992 at both monitors.
During the second quarter of 1992, the Paul Spur monitor was two
samples short of the 75% criterion, and in the fourth quarter of 1992,
both monitors were one sample short of the criterion. As noted for
Hayden and Nogales, EPA may find that data not meeting the completeness
criterion suffice to show attainment. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K,
section 2.3(b).
In this instance, we find that the available data is sufficient to
determine whether the area attained the standard by the applicable
attainment date. First, we note the large extent to which the maximum
monitored levels during the 1992-1994 period (132 [mu]g/m\3\ at the
Paul Spur monitor and 138 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Douglas monitor--see table
3 above) fall below the applicable standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\). We also
note that 10 of the 12 quarters in question were complete (based on the
75% criterion) at the Paul Spur monitor and 11 of the 12 quarters in
question were complete at the Douglas monitor, and that the quarters
that did not meet the criterion were but one or two samples short.
Further, we have reviewed the monitoring data for year 1995, which is
comprised of three quarters of data meeting the completeness criterion
at the Paul Spur monitor and four quarters of data meeting the
completeness criterion at the Douglas site, and during which the
maximum 24-hour concentration was, at 77 [mu]g/m\3\, (Paul Spur) and 63
[mu]g/m\3\ (Douglas), well below the standard, providing further
evidence that the area attained by the applicable attainment date.
Based on our rationale presented above, we find the available data
sufficient to determine whether the Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment
area met the PM10 standard by December 31, 1994 (i.e., the
applicable attainment date), and based on our review of the air quality
data during the three-year period ending with the December 31, 1994
attainment date (and summarized above in table 3), we find that the
expected number of exceedances per year for the Paul Spur/Douglas
PM10 nonattainment area for 1992 to 1994 was 0 days per
year. With less than an annual expected exceedance rate for the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS of 1.0, these data represent attainment of the
standard. Therefore, EPA has determined that the Paul Spur/Douglas
PM10 nonattainment area attained the PM10 NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date.
B. Does more recent air quality data also show attainment?
1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area
Since 1994, ADEQ has continued to operate a PM10 monitor
at the Old Town Jail in Hayden. ADEQ has, however, changed monitoring
methods, and, for a while, operated a second monitor for precision
measurement (audit) purposes. Since the second quarter of 2009, ADEQ
has operated a single TEOM (i.e., tapered element oscillating
microbalance) monitor on a continuous-running basis at the Old Town
Jail site in Hayden. In addition, since 2003, the Pinal County Air
Quality Control District (AQCD) has operated a PM10 hi-
volume sampler on an every sixth day schedule along the Florence-Kelvin
Highway near Riverside, Arizona, in the western portion of the Hayden
PM10 nonattainment area (``Riverside monitor'').
While not all years since 1994 have complete data (based on the 75%
criterion), only one exceedance (158 [mu]g/m\3\ in 1997) at the Hayden
site was monitored until year 2006, when ADEQ added the TEOM working in
parallel with the one-day-in-six partisol sampler at the Old Town Jail
site. In 2006 and 2007, four and five exceedances were measured by the
TEOM, respectively. ADEQ did not operate the TEOM in 2008, and in 2009,
ADEQ resumed operation of the TEOM beginning in the second quarter.
Only one exceedance (225 [mu]g/m\3\) was measured by the TEOM over the
final three quarters of 2009. Meanwhile, ADEQ continued operating the
partisol sampler over the 2006-2008 period but discontinued the sampler
after the end of the first quarter of 2009. At the Riverside monitor,
Pinal County AQCD has measured no exceedances of the PM10
standard, and maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations measured
there are well below the standard.
During the most recent three-year calendar period (2007-2009), at
the Hayden monitoring site, neither the partisol sampler nor the TEOM
provide a complete data set for the purpose of determining whether the
area is currently attaining the standard. The partisol sampler provides
data for 9 of the 12 quarters, while the TEOM provides data for 7 of
the 12 quarters. Based on the partisol sampler, this incomplete data
set suggests that the area is currently attaining the standard because
no exceedances were measured. The samples collected using the TEOM,
however, suggest otherwise, with a total of six exceedances over the
discontinuous course of its operation. Based on the TEOM, six
exceedances over the course of this period of time is sufficient for us
to conclude that the Hayden PM10 nonattainment area is not
currently attaining the standard. In 2010, through the first two
quarters, the TEOM has not recorded any exceedances; if this trend
continues, then, next year, based on 2008-2010 data, the current
attainment status of the Hayden area may change once again.
2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area
Since 1994, ADEQ has continued to operate a PM10
monitoring site at the Post Office in Nogales, but has replaced the
dichot sampler with a partisol sampler, and has added a continuous-
[[Page 67226]]
running beta attenuation monitor (BAM).
The data from AQS indicates that, while the area attained the
standard by the applicable attainment date, ambient PM10
concentrations worsened in the late 1990's to the point where
exceedances under current conditions have been measured nearly every
year. Based on the past three calendar years (2007-2009) of complete
quality-assured data, we find that the annual expected exceedance rate
for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for the Nogales area is 9.7
(based on the BAM). Based on the partisol sampler, the annual expected
exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 4.2, but the
higher of the two samplers is used to determine whether the area is
attaining the standard. Because the annual expected exceedance rate for
the area (9.7) is greater than 1.0, we conclude that the area is not
currently attaining the PM10 standard.
EPA's determination that the Nogales area is not currently
attaining the PM10 standard does not result in
reclassification of this ``moderate'' area to ``serious'' by operation
of law because such reclassification is tied to air quality conditions
``as of the attainment date,'' (see CAA sections 179(c)(1) and
188(b)(2)), and, as discussed in section II.A.2 of this document, we
have concluded that the Nogales area attained the standard by the
attainment date. We do, however, plan to address the PM10
planning needs for the Nogales area over the next few years. We also
note that the Nogales planning area has been designated as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles (generally
referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in
diameter, PM2.5) (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009), which has
triggered a separate air quality planning process.
3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Area
Since 1994, ADEQ has continued to operate PM10
monitoring sites near the Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (``Paul Spur
monitor'') and in the City of Douglas (``Douglas monitor''). At the
Paul Spur monitoring site, ADEQ replaced the dichot sampler with a
partisol sampler, and added a second partisol sampler for precision
measurement purposes. Both monitors continue to run on a one-day-in-six
monitoring schedule. At the Douglas monitoring site, ADEQ replaced the
dichot sampler with a partisol sampler and, in 1998, re-located the
monitor to a nearby location, the Red Cross building just across from
the park on 15th Street, where it continues to operate today.
The data from AQS indicates that only two exceedances of the
PM10 standard have been measured in the Paul Spur/Douglas
nonattainment area over the past 15 years. Both were measured at the
Paul Spur monitoring site. One exceedance, 206 [mu]g/m\3\, was measured
in 2003 and the other (159 [mu]g/m\3\) was measured in 2008.\9\ Based
on the past three calendar years (2007-2009) of complete quality-
assured data, we find that the annual expected exceedance rate for the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS for the Paul Spur/Douglas area is 2.0
(which is calculated by taking into account the one-day-in-six
monitoring schedule).\10\ Because the annual expected exceedance rate
for the area (2.0) is greater than 1.0, we conclude that the area is
not currently attaining the PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Both of these exceedances were flagged by ADEQ as
exceptional events, but EPA has not concurred on the flags.
\10\ The collocated (audit) monitor measured two exceedances
during 2008, but on both sample-days, the primary monitor also took
valid samples, and thus, the measurements from the co-located
samplers are not used to report air quality from the site. See 40
CFR part 58, appendix A, section 3.2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's determination that the Paul Spur/Douglas area is not
currently attaining the PM10 standard does not result in
reclassification of this ``moderate'' area to ``serious'' by operation
of law because such reclassification is tied to air quality conditions
``as of the attainment date,'' (see CAA sections 179(c)(1) and
188(b)(2)), and, as discussed in section II.A.3 of this document, we
have concluded that the Paul Spur/Douglas area attained the standard by
the attainment date. We do, however, plan to address the
PM10 planning needs for the Paul Spur/Douglas area over the
next few years.
III. EPA's Final Action
Under section 188(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, and based on
sufficient, quality-assured data, we find that the Hayden, Nogales, and
Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 nonattainment areas attained the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, December
31, 1994. On the basis of this determination, EPA concludes that these
three ``moderate'' nonattainment areas are not subject to
reclassification to ``serious'' by operation of law. This action is not
a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we
have not yet approved maintenance plans for these areas as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA or determined that the areas
have met the other CAA requirements for redesignation.
On the basis of a review of more recent ambient monitoring data,
EPA has determined that the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas
nonattainment areas are not currently attaining the PM10
standard. EPA's determination that the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/
Douglas areas are not currently attaining the PM10 standard
does not result in reclassification of these ``moderate'' areas to
``serious'' by operation of law because such reclassification is tied
to air quality conditions ``as of the attainment date,'' (see CAA
sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2)), and EPA has determined that both
areas attained the standard by the applicable attainment date.
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 January 3, 2011, without further notice unless
the EPA receives relevant adverse comments by December 2, 2010.
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 so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this rule will be effective on January 3, 2011 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action merely makes a determination based on air quality data
and does not impose any additional Federal requirements. For that
reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
[[Page 67227]]
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject
to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
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 action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 January 3, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Particulate matter, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 25, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-27634 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P