[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32024-32033]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13185]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0491; FRL-9679-7]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Arizona; Pinal County; PM10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is
redesignating from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' an area in
western Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987 national ambient air
quality standard for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10), and therefore
also revising the boundaries of the existing ``rest of state''
unclassifiable area. The EPA's establishment of this new
PM10 nonattainment area, referred to as ``West Pinal,'' is
based on numerous recorded violations of the PM10 standard
at various monitoring sites within the county. With the exception of
Indian country and certain Federal lands, the EPA's nonattainment area
boundaries generally encompass the land geographically located within
Pinal County north of the east-west line defined by the southern line
of Township 9 South, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, and
west of the north-south line defined by the eastern line of Range 8
East, except where the boundary extends farther east in the

Florence and Picacho Peak areas. The effect of this action is to
establish and delineate a new PM10 nonattainment area within
Pinal County and thereby to impose certain planning requirements on the
State of Arizona to reduce PM10 concentrations within this
area, including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit, within
18 months of redesignation, a revision to the Arizona state
implementation plan that provides for attainment of the PM10
standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of
the sixth calendar year after redesignation.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0491 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (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: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3964<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Action
III. Public Comment and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for particulate matter (52 FR
24634), replacing total suspended particulates as the indicator for
particulate matter with a new indicator called PM10 that
includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers.\1\ In order to attain the NAAQS for
24-hour PM10, an air quality monitor cannot measure levels
of PM10 greater than 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) more than once per year on average over a consecutive three-year
period. The rate of expected exceedances indicates whether a monitor
attains the air quality standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1987 p.m.10 standard included a 24-hour (150
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) and an annual standard (50
[mu]g/m\3\). In 2006, EPA revoked the annual standard. See 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of Pinal County, Arizona, including the area that is the
subject of today's action, was included in the ``rest of state'' area,
which was designated ``unclassifiable'' for PM10 by
operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``Act'').\2\ See section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii). The
PM10 designations established by operation of law under the
CAA, as amended in 1990, are known as ``initial'' designations. The CAA
grants the EPA the authority to change the designation of, or
``redesignate,'' such areas in light of changes in circumstances. More
specifically, CAA section 107(d)(3) authorizes the EPA to revise the
designation of areas (or portions thereof) on the basis of air quality
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air-quality-
related considerations that the EPA deems appropriate. Pursuant to CAA
section 107(d)(3), the EPA in the past has redesignated certain areas
in Arizona to nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS, including
the Payson and Bullhead City areas. See 56 FR 16274 (April 22, 1991);
and 58 FR 67334 (December 21, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While most of Pinal County was designated
``unclassifiable,'' two PM10 planning areas that extend
into Pinal County were designated under the CAA, as amended in 1990,
as ``nonattainment:'' the Phoenix planning area, which includes the
Apache Junction area within Pinal County; and the Hayden/Miami
planning area, which includes the northeastern portion of the
county. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991); and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992). In 2007, we approved a
redesignation 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). Today's proposed action would not affect these pre-existing
PM10 nonattainment areas. EPA codifies area designations
in 40 CFR part 81. The area designations for the State of Arizona
are codified at 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 14, 2009, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), the EPA
notified the Governor of Arizona and tribal leaders of the four Indian
Tribes (whose Indian country is located entirely, or in part, within
Pinal County) that the designation for Pinal County, and any nearby
areas that may be contributing to the monitored violations in Pinal
County, should be revised (``EPA's notification''). Our decision to
initiate the redesignation process stemmed from review of 2006-2008
ambient PM10 monitoring data from PM10 monitoring
stations within the county that showed widespread, frequent, and in
some instances, severe, violations of the PM10 standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a letter dated October 14, 2009, EPA notified the State
of Arizona that the PM10 designation in Pinal County
should be revised. EPA notified the tribal leaders of the Ak-Chin
Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, San Carlos Apache
Tribe, and Tohono O'odham Nation by letters dated December 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the Act, in a letter dated
March 23, 2010, the Governor of Arizona responded to the EPA's
notification with a recommendation for a partial-county nonattainment
area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated March 23,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The boundaries of the prospective PM10 nonattainment
area recommended by the Governor of Arizona encompass a portion of
central and western Pinal County, and form an area that resembles a
backwards ``L.'' \5\ See figure 2 of the EPA's Technical Support
Document \6\ (TSD) for a map of both the State's recommended boundaries
as well as the EPA's proposed boundaries. The state-recommended area
includes all or most of the cities of Maricopa, Coolidge, Casa Grande,
and the Pinal County portion of the town of Queen Creek, as well as the
western-most portion of the town of Florence and the northern-most
portion of the city of Eloy. The State recommends including an area
that at its western-most boundary includes nearly all of the City of
Maricopa. The State-recommended southern boundary is defined by a line
that coincides approximately with Interstate 8. The area recommended by
the State continues to the east for approximately 35 miles where it
extends to the north, including portions of Florence and Coolidge, and
the Pinal County portion of Queen Creek, and terminates just south of
Apache Junction. The State-recommended eastern boundary is defined by
the north-south line between Range 8 East and Range 9 East. The
northern boundary follows the county line south from the Apache
Junction area and then follows the boundary of the Gila River Indian
Reservation to close back around to the recommended western boundary.
See the Governor's

March 23, 2010 letter for the legal description of the State's
recommended boundaries by township and range and for an enclosed map
illustrating this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Governor expressly recommended excluding Indian country
from the nonattainment area. EPA finds this appropriate, given that
the State of Arizona is not authorized to administer programs under
the CAA in the affected Indian country. The ``backwards L'' shape of
the recommended area is partly explained by this exclusion because
the recommended area partially surrounds Indian country.
    \6\ EPA Region 9, ``Pinal County, Arizona, Area Designation for
the 1987 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard,'' Technical Support Document, September 21, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated February 11, 2010, the Tohono O'odham Nation
(TON) responded to the EPA's December 30, 2009 letter concerning the
PM10 designation in Pinal County with a recommendation that
the TON land within Pinal County be designated attainment/
unclassifiable for PM10. In a letter dated September 2, 2010
the Ak-Chin Indian Community responded to the EPA's December 30, 2009
letter concerning the PM10 designation of Pinal County with
a recommendation that the Ak-Chin lands be designated attainment/
unclassifiable. The Gila River Indian Community and the San Carlos
Apache Tribe did not submit recommendations.

II. Proposed Action

    On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60680), pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of
the CAA, the EPA proposed to redesignate from ``unclassifiable'' to
``nonattainment'' an area generally covering the western half of Pinal
County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, and to make a
corresponding revision to the boundaries of the existing ``rest of
state'' unclassifiable area. The EPA's proposed boundaries for the
nonattainment area encompassed all of the area recommended by the State
of Arizona, but extended farther to the east and south, and to a lesser
degree, to the north and west. The EPA's proposed boundaries
encompassed all land geographically located within Pinal County west of
the north-south line defined by the boundary between Range 10 East and
Range 11 East, but excluded TON's main reservation and the Apache
Junction portion of the existing Phoenix PM10 nonattainment
area. See figure 2 of the EPA's TSD for a map showing our proposed
boundaries.
    As explained in our October 1, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR at 60686),
and more fully in the TSD for the proposal, we believe that the State's
recommended boundaries would not encompass the full geographic area
from which emissions-generating activities contribute to the monitored
PM10 violations. More specifically, EPA's proposal stated
that the Governor's recommended boundaries, which cut through
municipalities and contiguous expanses of agricultural fields, excluded
sources that have been identified as dominant sources of
PM10 and that are contributing to elevated levels of
PM10 at violating monitors. In our October 1, 2010 proposal,
EPA stated that its proposed boundaries, described above, would
encompass the areas in which PM10 violations are being
monitored, as well as the areas that contribute to the monitored
violations, and that they were thus consistent with the definition of
nonattainment areas in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). Our proposal was based
on the EPA's analysis of the factors as set forth in the proposed rule
(75 FR at 60682-60686) and in further detail in the TSD for the
proposed rule.
    With respect to the affected Indian Tribes, for the reasons given
in the proposed rule, we proposed to exclude the main TON reservation
and the San Carlos Apache Reservation from the PM10
nonattainment area boundaries, but we indicated that we were deferring
action on the status of certain other tribal lands located within the
area, including the tribal lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community and
the Gila River Indian Community, as well as TON's Florence Village and
San Lucy Farms, pending consultation with the affected tribes.
    Please see our October 1, 2010 proposed rule and our related TSD
for more information about our proposed action and the rationale for
our proposed boundaries.

III. Public Comment and EPA Responses

    Our October 1, 2010 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment
period, and the EPA received 11 comment letters in response to the
proposal, including letters from the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the
Pinal County Air Quality Department, the City of Casa Grande, the
Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District, the Arizona Public
Service Company, several agricultural groups, the Sierra Club, and a
member of the general public.
    None of the commenters disagreed with the need to redesignate a
portion of Pinal County nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS, and none disagreed with EPA's conclusion that
sources outside of Pinal County and in the eastern half of Pinal
County, including San Carlos Apache lands, do not contribute to
violations in the western portion of the county. In addition, none of
the commenters disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the activities
occurring on the main Tohono O'odham Nation (TON) reservation do not
contribute to these violations. Most commenters, however, suggested
that the nonattainment area should be smaller than that proposed by the
EPA. Nine commenters supported the Governor's recommended boundary, one
commenter supported the EPA's proposed boundary, and one commenter
suggested that the boundary should include only developed areas that
have a relatively high density of human population.
    As discussed in more detail below and in our Response to Comments
(RTC) document,\7\ the EPA is taking final action today to redesignate
from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' an area generally covering
the western half of Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10
NAAQS, and correspondingly, to revise the boundaries of the existing
``rest of state'' unclassifiable area. In our final action, however,
based on our consideration of the comments, including the building
permit data provided by Pinal County that documents the extent to which
the national recession has slowed growth in Pinal County, and after
further review of other relevant factors, such as the geographic
distribution of sources of PM10, the EPA is modifying the
boundaries it had proposed for the nonattainment area. EPA's final
action modifies its previously proposed boundaries in such a way as to
reduce the size of the nonattainment area (relative to the area the EPA
had proposed) by approximately 36 percent (about 735 square miles).
This reduction is principally accounted for by establishing the final
boundaries for the nonattainment area so as to exclude the Tonto
National Forest (including the Superstition Wilderness Area), portions
of the Sonoran Desert National Monument (including the Table Top
Wilderness Area), the Ironwood Forest National Monument, and certain
less-developed areas. EPA's proposal had included these areas within
the nonattainment area boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA Region 9, ``Response to Comments on the Proposed Action
to Redesignate West Pinal County to Nonattainment for the 1987 24-
hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' May
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the following paragraphs of this section, we summarize our
responses to significant comments that we received on our October 1,
2010 proposed rule. Our full responses to all the comments received can
be found in the previously-cited RTC document, which is included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Air Quality Data
    Comment: Disagreement over the size of the nonattainment area was
primarily based on commenters' views that certain areas should be
excluded from the nonattainment area because they are not themselves
violating the standard, or because they are not ``significantly''

contributing to violations in nearby areas.
    Response: CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) defines a nonattainment area
to include ``any area that does not meet (or that contributes to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)'' the NAAQS.
Thus, a location is designated nonattainment if its emissions
contribute to the air quality in a nearby area that violates the NAAQS,
even if that location is not the main cause of violations, and even if
it does not contribute to every measured violation. The absence of a
violation at a particular monitor does not preclude the possibility of
elevated levels of particulate in the vicinity of that monitor or the
transport of particulate to a nearby violating area, even if levels do
not cause a violation at the monitor itself. A contiguous area can be
nonattainment if it is within several miles of a violating monitor and
has emissions that travel to that monitor, even if its contribution is
not as large as those of locations nearer the monitor.
Exceptional Events
    Comment: Two commenters noted that some of the measured exceedances
have been flagged as exceptional events \8\ and suggested that the EPA
should not consider a monitor to be violating if all of the exceedances
have been flagged as exceptional events. ADEQ stated that its analysis
of the most recent monitoring data indicated that if flagged
exceptional events were excluded from the monitoring record, four
monitors (Casa Grande, Combs School, Coolidge, and Maricopa) would be
attaining the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, Treatment of
Data Influenced by Exceptional Events, (EER), to govern the review
and handling of certain air quality monitoring data for which the
normal planning and regulatory processes are not appropriate. Under
the rule, EPA may exclude data from use in determinations of NAAQS
exceedances and violations if a state demonstrates that an
``exceptional event'' caused the exceedances. See 72 FR 13560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Based on the most recent certified data (2009-2011),
seven monitors in Pinal County are violating the 24-hour
PM10 standard. EPA regulations do provide that a State may
request EPA to exclude data showing exceedances or violations of the
national ambient air quality standard that are directly due to an
exceptional event from use in determinations, by demonstrating to the
EPA's satisfaction that such event caused a specific air pollution
concentration at a particular air quality monitoring location. (40 CFR
58.14) However, as indicated in the proposed rule (75 FR at 60684-
60685), even if we were to concur and to exclude from use in
determining attainment all of the flagged exceedances, a number of
monitors would still violate the standard. Moreover, the emissions
sources in the vicinities of the non-violating monitors (i.e.,
presuming exclusion of the flagged exceedances as caused by exceptional
events) are those, such as traffic on paved and unpaved roads, cattle
operations, agricultural sources, and construction-generated emissions,
that we have determined contribute to violations of the standard
elsewhere in the County. Thus, EPA action on State flagged exceptional
event claims is not a prerequisite to finalizing this redesignation and
establishing appropriate boundaries for the new West Pinal
PM10 nonattainment area.
Geographic Distribution of Emissions Sources
    Comment: A number of commenters objected to EPA's proposed boundary
because, in their view, sources of PM10 emissions leading to
monitored violations are located in the western regions of Pinal
County, not the east or south [of the Governor's recommended
nonattainment area \9\]. They argued that the Governor's recommended
boundary included all of the emissions sources that contribute
significantly to the PM10 violations, plus an adequate
buffer to the south and east.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Commenters referring to the ``eastern'' and ``southern''
portions of Pinal County appear to be referring to the areas to the
east and south of the Governor's recommended nonattainment boundary.
In our TSD and in the RTC, EPA's references to the eastern and
western portions of Pinal County mean those portions of Pinal County
that lie to the east and west of the eastern boundary of EPA's
proposed nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters pointed to differences in activity levels and the degree
of urbanization in areas within and outside the Governor's recommended
boundary and argued that the State's preliminary emissions inventory
showed that sources in the eastern and/or southern regions of the
county do not significantly contribute to violations in other regions
of the county.
    Response: Arizona's preliminary PM10 inventory and the
2005 National Emissions Inventory, version 2, along with source
apportionment studies, identify the sources that contribute to elevated
concentrations of PM10. These sources include on-road
emissions, cattle operations, agriculture, and construction. According
to ADEQ's technical report, these sources of PM10 are
located throughout the western portion of Pinal County, including areas
to the east and south of the Governor's recommended boundary. See
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 of ADEQ's technical report.\10\ The EPA's review of
meteorological data indicates that emissions from these areas are
transported to the violating monitors 35 to 40% of the time. See the
wind rose data collected at the Pinal Air Park as illustrated in Figure
10 of the TSD for the proposal and note the absence of topographic
barriers as shown in Figure 11 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ADEQ, ``Arizona Air Quality Designations, Technical Support
Document, Boundary Recommendation for the Pinal County 24-hour
PM10 Nonattainment Area,'' March 15, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, CAA defines a nonattainment area to include a
nearby area that contributes to air quality in the area where
violations are measured. To identify nearby areas that contribute to
the measured violations of PM10 in Pinal County, we have
used a multi-factor analysis that accounts for, among other factors,
emissions data, meteorology, and topography, as described in detail in
EPA's TSD for the proposed rule and in the RTC document prepared for
this final rule. The use of a multi-factor test in determining which
areas contribute to violations in a nearby area was upheld in a case
involving designations and nonattainment area boundaries for the
PM2.5 standard, Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 38-40
(D.C. Cir. 2009), and we believe such a test is appropriate in
determining the boundaries of an area to be redesignated to
nonattainment for the PM10 standard. Moreover, the Catawba
County court rejected arguments that ``contributes,'' for the purposes
of interpreting the geographic extent of nonattainment areas under
section 107(d)(1)(A), necessarily connotes a significant causal
relationship and upheld EPA's interpretation of ``contribute'' to mean
``sufficiently contribute'' and then applying a presumption and multi-
factor test precisely to identify those areas that meet the definition.
Id. In the context of this action, we have not applied any presumption
but otherwise have identified the boundaries of the area to be
redesignated to nonattainment for the PM10 standard to
include areas determined to be sufficiently contributing through
application of a multi-factor test.
Off-Highway Vehicles
    Comment: The Arizona Game and Fish Department argued that because
ADEQ's technical report states that off-highway vehicle emissions are
relatively low and there were no grid cells over the 20 ton per year
threshold, the nonattainment area boundary should not include
undeveloped lands where off-highway vehicle recreation occurs.

    Response: Upon consideration of public comments, the EPA has
revised our proposed nonattainment area boundary to minimize the
inclusion of areas where available information indicates emissions are
relatively low. We have established a final nonattainment area that we
believe encompasses the areas in which PM10 violations are
being monitored, as well as the areas that contribute to the monitored
violations, consistent with the definition of nonattainment areas in
CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). While this might result in the inclusion of
some lands where off-highway vehicle recreation occurs, it does not
dictate the application of controls on or regulation of emissions
generated by such activities. Arizona will be required to develop a
plan that demonstrates attainment of the PM10 standard, and
the relative contribution of various sources and options for control
will be considered in that process. That plan will be subject to public
review and comment, both at the state level and again when the EPA
evaluates the plan for approval or disapproval as a revision to the
Arizona state implementation plan (SIP).
Wilderness Areas
    Comment: Four commenters objected to the inclusion of the Table Top
and Superstition Wilderness areas within the nonattainment area, noting
that such areas are generally closed to mechanized equipment and do not
include sources that could be contributing to exceedances at the
violating monitors. The Arizona Game and Fish Department and ADEQ also
argued that, EPA had not adequately justified including these
wilderness areas and the Tonto National Forest in the nonattainment
area. The Arizona Game and Fish Department requested that the EPA
remove these areas and other largely undeveloped, rural areas from the
nonattainment boundary.
    Response: The EPA agrees that, because the wilderness areas and the
Tonto National Forest are generally closed to mechanized equipment and
lacking in emissions sources, the areas do not contribute to violations
at the monitors elsewhere in Pinal County. As a result, we have
finalized boundaries that do not include either of the wilderness areas
or any portion of the Tonto National Forest, and we have sought to
minimize the inclusion of undeveloped land.
Traffic and Commuting Patterns
    Comment: Several commenters believe that EPA's inclusion in the
proposed nonattainment area of lands in the western half of Pinal
County that lie to the east and south of the Governor's recommended
boundary is not justified given the traffic patterns and concentration
of roads in this area. Commenters stated that the largest category of
PM10 emissions in Pinal County is on-road sources, and noted
that current traffic and commuter-related emissions are located
primarily in the western portions of the county in the more populated
regions of Casa Grande and Maricopa. Another commenter asserted that
the number of commuters traveling between Pima and Pinal Counties is
significantly less than the number traveling between Maricopa and Pinal
counties. One commenter contended that the area south of Interstate 8
does not have any roads that lead to major urban centers, except for
Interstate 10, and contended that proximity to Interstate 10 does not
cause the Pinal Air Park or Eloy monitors to violate.
    Response: Although the EPA and ADEQ inventories differed with
respect to the quantity of emissions generated by on-road sources
(traveling on paved and unpaved roads), EPA and ADEQ agree that this is
the largest category of PM10 emissions in Pinal County. EPA
TSD Figure 8 and ADEQ technical report Figure 3-5 illustrate the
distribution of commuter traffic and emissions generated by traffic on
paved roads. Taken together with the overall distribution of on-road
emissions shown in ADEQ's technical report (Figure 3-4), it is evident
that on-road traffic (including paved and unpaved roads) is a
significant source of emissions in the western half of Pinal County,
including areas to the south and east of the Governor's recommended
boundary.
    The EPA believes that the distribution of emissions from on-road
traffic requires extending Arizona's recommended boundary; however,
upon further review, we concluded that the comments submitted and
further review of available data provide a persuasive case for
modifying EPA's proposed boundary. For the final nonattainment area
boundaries, we reduced emphasis on the growth and commuting patterns
and increased the weight given to emissions- and land-use-related data
and thus are not including the southern-most portion of Pinal County,
the Table Top and Superstition Wilderness areas, and the largely
undisturbed desert areas east of Township 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther to the east to include the Florence area and
the Picacho Peak area.
Growth Rates and Patterns
    Comment: Several commenters argued that growth forecasts made prior
to the economic downturn are no longer reliable given current economic
conditions, and that future growth is uncertain. Others noted that
actual growth in the area south of the Governor's recommended boundary
has been modest, and that this area is unlikely to become a major
employment center. These commenters questioned the view EPA expressed
in its proposal that future employment and population growth in Pinal
County justify including the southern portion of the county in the
nonattainment area.
    Response: In our final action, after considering the comments
submitted on our proposal, EPA has reduced the size of the
nonattainment area, relative to what was proposed. As noted above in
our response to the previous comment, the final nonattainment
boundaries do not include the southern-most portion of Pinal County,
the Table Top and Superstition Wilderness areas, and the largely
undisturbed desert areas east of Township 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther to the east to include the Florence area and
the Picacho Peak area. We are persuaded to shrink the boundary in part
based on the building permit data provided by Pinal County that
documents the extent to which the national recession has slowed growth
generally in Pinal County, and particularly in the Interstate 8 and
Interstate 10 corridors. We agree that the recession and the number of
homes already in foreclosure will likely delay significant growth in
the corridors beyond the five-year horizon for reaching attainment of
the standard. The Pinal Air Park monitor, located southwest of
Interstate 10 near the southern border of Pinal County, is not included
within the final boundary. However, as EPA proposed, the Eloy monitor,
is part of the final nonattainment area, because EPA continues to
believe that the sources in the Eloy area contribute to violations of
the PM10 NAAQS farther north.
Meteorology and Transport
    Comment: ADEQ and Pinal County Air Quality (PCAQ) asserted that the
meteorological data do not support the EPA's inclusion of the
southeastern portion of the nonattainment area. In brief, the comments
are: (1) The southeast should not be included, since the Eloy monitor
there is not violating; (2) the meteorological data relied on by the
EPA do not substantiate transport from the southeast; (3)
meteorological data show the cause of PM10 violations

is local, not transport from the southeast; and (4) the limited data
showing instances where measured exceedances have coincided with
southeast winds does not justify including the southeast portion.
    Response: EPA has included areas to the southeast of the State's
recommended boundary, including those near the Eloy monitor, because of
the contribution of southeast emissions to violations recorded at the
Casa Grande and Pinal County Housing monitors. The EPA does not agree
with the commenters' implicit assumption that the southeast portion
must be the sole or main cause of violations in order for it to be
included in the nonattainment area. While emissions from the southeast
may not cause a violation at Eloy, they still contribute to violations
farther northwest.
    Our conclusion that the area southeast of the State's boundary in
and around Eloy contributes to the violations farther northwest is
based on (1) emissions inventory data (see table 3 of the TSD for the
proposed rule) that shows that PM10 emissions from traffic
on paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural and agricultural
activities account for most of the overall inventory in Pinal County;
(2) maps illustrating the locations of agricultural uses and paved and
unpaved roads (see figure 4 and figure 9 of the TSD, respectively) and
showing a concentration of such uses and roads in and around Eloy; (3)
a map illustrating the distribution of overall PM10
emissions in the county (see figure 5 of the TSD) and showing similar
rates of emissions generated in and around Eloy as the area where
violations of the standard occur; meteorological data showing a strong
component of winds from the southeast (see figure 10 of the TSD); and
the absence of significant topographical barriers to transport from the
area in and around Eloy to the area where violations occur (see figure
11 of the TSD). This contribution to violations warrants inclusion of
this portion of the county in the nonattainment area.
    As discussed in EPA's proposal and in the Meteorology section of
the TSD, we agree that it would be desirable to have additional
meteorological data available. Nonetheless, EPA believes that there are
sufficient meteorological data from the AZMET (Arizona Meteorological
Network) stations within and around the proposed area to show that flow
from the southeast toward the violating monitors occurs often. The EPA
believes that this pattern exists even during the exceedance days
discounted by ADEQ and PCAQ.\11\ The available meteorological data,
along with the topography and the geographic distribution of sources of
PM10 emissions, provide evidence that emissions sources in
the southeast contribute to NAAQS violations. EPA has concluded that
the nonattainment area boundary should lie further to the southeast
than the Governor's recommended boundary, though we have reduced the
extent relative to the area we had proposed to include.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In their transport analyses, PCAQ and ADEQ focused on days
with the wind trajectory's ending hour oriented from the southeast,
but this does not consider other hours during the day that may have
had flow from the southeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Both ADEQ and PCAQ examined HYSPLIT \12\ back-trajectories
for several high-wind exceedance days, along with hourly concentrations
and wind data. From the abrupt changes in wind direction and increases
in wind speed that often coincided with large increases in
PM10 concentrations, they concluded that the PM10
is due to near-field impacts rather than to long-range transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
Trajectory) model is used to compute simple air parcel trajectories,
dispersion characteristics, and deposition simulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: While the analyses performed by ADEQ and Pinal County
provide useful information for evaluating the PM10
exceedances, as discussed above, establishing nonattainment area
boundaries requires us to take into account more than the sole or main
cause of an exceedance. Even if the commenters are correct that on
certain occasions ``wind-transport from the southeast is not a dominant
contributing factor'' (ADEQ comments, p.4) and that the data ``suggest
a typical monsoon storm where local weather contributed to local
impacts'' (Pinal County comments, p.3), EPA remains convinced by the
available evidence that transported emissions from the southeast
nonattainment area nevertheless do contribute to exceedances. As
discussed in more detail in the TSD for the EPA's proposal and in the
RTC document, the EPA believes that the meteorological data provide
evidence for such a contribution. Other factors, including the
geographic distribution of sources of emissions and the topography of
Pinal County also reinforce EPA's determination to include this portion
in the nonattainment area.

IV. Final Action

    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and TSD, insofar as
not modified here, the Response to Comments document, and this final
rule, the EPA is taking final action pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of
the Clean Air Act to redesignate an area in western Pinal County,
Arizona from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' for the 1987 24-
hour PM10 standard and is therefore also revising the
boundaries of the existing ``rest of state'' unclassifiable area. EPA's
establishment of this new PM10 nonattainment area, referred
to as ``West Pinal,'' is based on numerous recorded violations of the
PM10 standard at various monitoring sites within the western
portion of the county. With the exception of Indian country and certain
Federal lands, the EPA's nonattainment area boundaries generally
encompass the land geographically located within Pinal County north of
the east-west line defined by the southern line of Township 9 South,
Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian, and west of the north-south
line defined by the eastern line of Range 8 East, except where the
boundary extends farther east in the Florence and Picacho Peak
areas.\13\ In taking this action, the EPA concludes that the State's
recommended boundaries do not encompass the full geographic area from
which emissions-generating activities contribute to the monitored
PM10 violations. See figure 1 in the RTC document for a map
that compares the State's recommended boundaries to the EPA's final
boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Townships to the east of the north-south line defined by
the eastern line of Range 8 East that are included in the West Pinal
PM10 nonattainment area are: T3S, R9E; T4S, R9E; T4S,
R10E; T5S, R9E; and T5S, R10E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final action, we reduced the size of the nonattainment
area relative to the area for which we proposed redesignation and
believe that the final boundaries more closely align the nonattainment
area boundaries with the areas in which PM10 violations are
being monitored, as well as the areas that contribute to the monitored
violations. Our conclusion is based on our analysis of the factors as
set forth in the proposed rule and related TSD, and RTC document, with
particular weight being given to the locations of those sources,
including vehicle travel over paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural
and construction activities, that comprise most of the overall
PM10 inventory, the frequent occurrence of southeast winds,
and the absence of topographical barriers.
    We are continuing to defer our decision regarding redesignation of
the Ak-Chin and Gila River Indian Community lands, as well as TON's
Florence Village and San Lucy Farms, pending consideration of issues
unique

to tribal lands, completion of formal consultation with the tribal
governments, and (in the case of the Gila River Indian Community)
further review of air quality monitoring data including an evaluation
of exceptional event claims. The existing Phoenix PM10
nonattainment area (including the Apache Junction portion of western
Pinal County) is unaffected by this action.
    Areas redesignated as nonattainment are subject to the applicable
requirements of part D, title I of the Act and will be classified as
moderate by operation of law (see section 188(a) of the Act). Within 18
months of the effective date of this redesignation action, the State of
Arizona must submit to the EPA an implementation plan for the area
containing, among other things, the following requirements: (1)
Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(including reasonably available control technology) are implemented
within 4 years of the redesignation; (2) a permit program meeting the
requirements of section 173 governing the construction and operation of
new and modified major stationary sources of PM10; (3)
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrates reasonable
further progress, as defined in section 171(1), toward timely
attainment; and (4) either a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as
nonattainment, or a demonstration that attainment by such date is
impracticable (see, e.g., section 188(c), 189(a), 189(c), and 172(c) of
the Act). We have issued detailed guidance on the statutory
requirements applicable to moderate PM10 nonattainment areas
[see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)].
    The State will also be required to submit contingency measures (for
the new PM10 nonattainment area), pursuant to section
172(c)(9) of the Act, which are to take effect without further action
by the State or the EPA, upon a determination by the EPA that an area
has failed to make reasonable further progress or attain the
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (see 57 FR
13510-13512, 13543-13544). Pursuant to section 172(b) of the Act, the
EPA is establishing a deadline for submission of contingency measures
to coincide with the submittal date requirement for the other SIP
elements discussed above, i.e., 18 months after the effective date of
redesignation. Lastly, the new PM10 nonattainment area will
be subject to the EPA's general and transportation conformity
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subparts A and B) one year from the
effective date of redesignation. See section 176(c)(6) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The proposed rule mistakenly stated that any new
PM10 nonattainment area would be subject to the EPA's
general and transportation conformity regulations upon the effective
date of redesignation. See 75 FR at 60688. However, CAA section
176(c)(6) provides a one-year grace period for newly designated (in
this case, newly redesignated) nonattainment areas, i.e., for the
pollutant for which the area is newly designated (or redesignated)
nonattainment. See also, 40 CFR 93.102(d) in EPA's transportation
conformity regulation and 40 CFR 93.153(k) in the EPA's general
conformity regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, this section of the CAA provides areas, that for the
first time are designated nonattainment for a given air quality
standard, with a one-year grace period before conformity applies with
respect to that standard. Because this is the first time that this
portion of Pinal County is being designated nonattainment for the
PM10 NAAQS, it will have a one-year grace period before
conformity applies for the PM10 NAAQS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For more information on how the one-year grace period
applies for transportation conformity purposes, please see the
proposed and final rulemaking entitled, ``Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments: Minor Revision of 18-Month Requirement for Initial
SIP Submissions and Addition of Grace Period for Newly Designated
Nonattainment Areas,'' published October 5, 2001 (66 FR 50954); and
August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808), respectively. (The proposed and final
rule can be found on EPA's transportation conformity Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/conf-regs-c.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area would be
considered to be a ``donut area'' because portions of the area in Queen
Creek and Apache Junction are within the area covered by a metropolitan
planning organization (MPO), the Maricopa Association Governments (MAG)
and a portion lies outside of MAG's boundaries. For the purposes of
transportation conformity, a donut area is the geographic area outside
a metropolitan planning area boundary, but inside the boundary of a
designated nonattainment/maintenance area. The transportation
conformity requirements for donut areas are generally the same as those
for metropolitan areas. However, the MPO would include any projects
occurring in the donut area in its regional emissions analysis of the
metropolitan transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). Therefore, the one-year grace period applies to donut areas in
much the same way that it applies to metropolitan areas. That is,
within one year of the effective date of an area's designation, a donut
area's projects must be included in the MPO's conformity determination
for the metropolitan plan and TIP for those projects to be funded or
approved. If, at the conclusion of the one-year grace period, the donut
area's projects have not been included in an MPO's conformity
determination, the entire nonattainment area's conformity would
lapse.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For more information on transportation conformity
requirements in donut areas refer to Conformity Implementation in
Multi-jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for
Existing and New Air Quality Standards. In particular refer to
question 4 in Part 1 and Part 2 of the guidance. The document is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b04012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
has determined that redesignation to nonattainment, as well as the
establishment of SIP submittal schedules, would result in none of the
effects identified in Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Under
section 107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to nonattainment are based
upon air quality considerations. The redesignation, based upon air
quality data showing that West Pinal is not attaining the
PM10 standard and upon other air-quality-related
considerations, does not, in and of itself, impose any new requirements
on any sectors of the economy. Similarly, the establishment of new SIP
submittal schedules would merely establish the dates by which SIPs must
be submitted, and would not adversely affect entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.,
a redesignation to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3), and the
establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for a redesignated area, do
not, in and of themselves, directly impose any new requirements on
small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider
the rule's impact on entities subject to the

requirements of the rule). Instead, this rulemaking simply makes a
factual determination and establishes a schedule to require the State
to submit SIP revisions, and does not directly regulate any entities.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA certifies that today's
action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities within the meaning of those terms for RFA purposes.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, the EPA has concluded that this rule is not likely to
result in the promulgation of any Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any one
year. It is questionable whether a redesignation would constitute a
federal mandate in any case. The obligation for the state to revise its
State Implementation Plan that arises out of a redesignation is not
legally enforceable and at most is a condition for continued receipt of
federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such an
action creates any enforceable duty within the meaning of section
421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and if it does the duty
would appear to fall within the exception for a condition of Federal
assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)(a)(i)(I).
    Even if a redesignation were considered a Federal mandate, the
anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not exceed $100
million to either the private sector or state, local and tribal
governments. Redesignation of an area to nonattainment does not, in
itself, impose any mandates or costs on the private sector, and thus,
there is no private sector mandate within the meaning of section 421(7)
of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting from the
redesignation itself is the cost to the State of Arizona of developing,
adopting, and submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost
will not exceed $100 million, this action (if it is a federal mandate
at all) is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). The EPA has also determined that this
action would not result in regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because only the
State would take any action as result of today's rule, and thus the
requirements of section 203 (2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' This rule will 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, because it merely redesignates an area for
Clean Air Act planning purposes and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' The area
redesignated in today's action does not include Indian country, and the
EPA is deferring action on the Indian country that lies within or
adjacent to the newly redesignated area, including the Ak-Chin Indian
Reservation, the Pinal County portion of the Gila River Indian
Reservation, and TON's Florence Village and San Lucy Farms. In
formulating its further action on these areas, the EPA has been
communicating with and plans to continue to consult with
representatives of the Tribes, as provided in Executive Order 13175.
Accordingly, the EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent
that it applies to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks'') (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. The EPA believes
that the requirements of NTTAA are inapplicable to this action because
they would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Today's action redesignates an area to nonattainment for an ambient
air quality standard. It will not have disproportionately high and
adverse effects on any communities in the area, including minority and
low-income communities.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. The 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).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 July 30, 2012. 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 in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Particulate Matter, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: May 22, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
2. In Sec.  81.303, the ``Arizona-PM-10'' table is amended by adding a
new entry for ``Pinal County'' after the entry for ``Mohave County
(part)'' and before the entry for ``Rest of State'' to read as set
forth below.

Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                                  Arizona-PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                            Classification
        Designated Area        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date                   Type                   Date              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Pinal County (part)
    West Pinal                          7/2/12  Nonattainment...............          7/2/12  Moderate.
        1. Commencing at a
         point which is the
         intersection of the
         western line of Range
         2 East, Gila and Salt
         River Baseline and
         Meridian, and the
         northern line of
         Township 4 South,
         which is the point of
         beginning:
        2. Thence, proceed
         easterly along the
         northern line of
         Township 4 South to a
         point where the
         northern line of
         Township 4 South
         intersects the
         western line of Range
         7 East;
        3. Thence, northerly
         along the western
         line of Range 7 East
         to a point where the
         western line of Range
         7 East intersects the
         northern line of
         Township 3 South;
        4. Thence, easterly
         along the northern
         line of Township 3
         South to a point
         where the northern
         line of Township 3
         South intersects the
         western line of Range
         8 East;
        5. Thence, northerly
         along the western
         line of Range 8 East
         to a point where the
         western line of Range
         8 East intersects the
         northern line of
         Township 1 South;
        6. Thence, easterly
         along the northern
         line of Township 1
         South to a point
         where the northern
         line of Township 1
         South intersects the
         eastern line of Range
         8 East;
        7. Thence southerly
         along the eastern
         line of Range 8 East
         to a point where the
         eastern line of Range
         8 East intersects the
         Northern line of
         Township 3 South;
        8. Thence easterly
         along the northern
         line of Township 3
         South to a point
         where the northern
         line of Township 3
         South intersects the
         eastern line of Range
         9 East;
        9. Thence southerly
         along the eastern
         line of Range 9 east
         to a point where the
         eastern line of Range
         9 East intersects the
         northern line of
         Township 4 South;
        10. Thence easterly
         along the northern
         line of Township 4
         South to a point
         where the northern
         line of Township 4
         South intersects the
         eastern line of Range
         10 East;
        11. Thence southerly
         along the eastern
         line of Range 10 East
         to a point where the
         eastern line of Range
         10 East intersects
         the southern line of
         Township 5 South;
        12. Thence westerly
         along the southern
         line of Township 5
         South to a point
         where the southern
         line of Township 5
         South intersects the
         eastern line of Range
         8 East;
        13. Thence southerly
         along the eastern
         line of Range 8 East
         to a point where the
         eastern line of Range
         8 East intersects the
         northern line of
         Township 8 South;
        14. Thence easterly
         along the northern
         line of Township 8
         South to a point
         where the northern
         line of Township 8
         South intersects the
         eastern line of Range
         9 East;
        15. Thence southerly
         along the eastern
         line of Range 9 east
         to a point where the
         eastern line of Range
         9 East intersects the
         northern line of
         Township 9 South;
        16. Thence easterly
         along the northern
         line of Township 9
         South to a point
         where the northern
         line of Township 9
         South intersects the
         eastern line of Range
         10 East;
        17. Thence southerly
         along the eastern
         line of Range 10 East
         to a point where the
         eastern line of Range
         10 East intersects
         the southern line of
         Township 9 South;

        18. Thence westerly
         along the southern
         line of Township 9
         South to a point
         where the southern
         line of Township 9
         South intersects the
         western line of Range
         7 East;
        19. Thence northerly
         along the western
         line of Range 7 East
         to a point where the
         western line of Range
         7 East intersects the
         southern line of
         Township 8 South;
        20. Thence westerly
         along the southern
         line of Township 8
         South to a point
         where the southern
         line of Township 8
         South intersects the
         western line of Range
         6 East;
        21. Thence northerly
         along the western
         line of Range 6 East
         to a point where the
         western line of Range
         6 East intersects the
         southern line of
         Township 7 South;
        22. Thence, westerly
         along the southern
         line of Township 7
         South to a point
         where the southern
         line of Township 7
         South intersects the
         quarter section line
         common to the
         southwestern
         southwest quarter
         section and the
         southeastern
         southwest quarter
         section of section
         34, Range 3 East and
         Township 7 South;
        23. Thence, northerly
         along the along the
         quarter section line
         common to the
         southwestern
         southwest quarter
         section and the
         southeastern
         southwest quarter
         section of sections
         34, 27, 22, and 15,
         Range 3 East and
         Township 7 South, to
         a point where the
         quarter section line
         common to the
         southwestern
         southwest quarter
         section and the
         southeastern
         southwest quarter
         section of sections
         34, 27, 22, and 15,
         Range 3 East and
         Township 7 South,
         intersects the
         northern line of
         section 15, Range 3
         East and Township 7
         South;
        24. Thence, westerly
         along the northern
         line of sections 15,
         16, 17, and 18, Range
         3 East and Township 7
         South, and the
         northern line of
         sections 13, 14, 15,
         16, 17, and 18, Range
         2 East and Township 7
         South, to a point
         where the northern
         line of sections 15,
         16, 17, and 18, Range
         3 East and Township 7
         South, and the
         northern line of
         sections 13, 14, 15,
         16, 17, and 18, Range
         2 East and Township 7
         South, intersect the
         western line of Range
         2 East, which is the
         common boundary
         between Maricopa and
         Pinal Counties, as
         described in Arizona
         Revised Statutes
         sections 11-109 and
         11-113;
        25. Thence, northerly
         along the western
         line of Range 2 East
         to the point of
         beginning which is
         the point where the
         western line of Range
         2 East intersects the
         northern line of
         Township 4 South;
        26. Except that
         portion of the area
         defined by paragraphs
         1 through 25 above
         that lies within the
         Ak-Chin Indian
         Reservation, Gila
         River Indian
         Reservation, and the
         Tohono O'odham
         Nation's Florence
         Village and San Lucy
         Farms.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-13185 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 35868]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 739-034]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Revised Shoreline Management Plan (SMP).
    b. Project No: 739-034.
    c. Date Filed: November 15, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Claytor Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Claytor Lake on the New River in Pulaski County,
Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Elizabeth Parcell, Appalachian Power Company,
(540) 985-2441.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: June 26, 2023.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-739-034. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    k. Description of Request: As a result of a required five-year
review process, Appalachian Power Company filed a revised SMP for
Claytor Lake. The revised SMP, developed in consultation with the
various shoreline management stakeholders, proposes various editorial
changes to the approved SMP as well as other minor changes to the
shoreline classifications, including an appeals process, including a
new Floating Enclosed Structure program, modifying certain requirements
for shoreline uses (e.g., distance between structures, roof coverage,
and increasing allowable dock size), etc.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.
    p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: May 25, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11642 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1050-1051]
[FR Doc No: X10-220108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF10-2-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

December 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 16, 2009, the Deputy Secretary of the

Department of Energy submitted Rate Order No. WAPA-147, confirmed and
approved on an interim basis, effective on January 1, 2010, Rate
Schedule P-SED-F11 for firm power service from the Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin Program--Eastern Division (PSMBP--ED) and Rate Schedule P-SED-FP-
11 for firm peaking power from the P-SMBP--ED, and under the authority
vested in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Delegation Order
No. 00-037.00, submitted Rate Schedules P-SED-F11 and P-SED-FP11 for
confirmation and approval on a final basis effective January 1, 2010,
and ending December 31, 2014.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 15, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-59 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25079-25080]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0280]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Montlake Bridge across the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. This deviation is
necessary to accommodate the Beat the Bridge charity foot race
scheduled for Sunday, May 20, 2012. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed position to allow safe movement of event
participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. on May 20, 2012
through 9 a.m. May 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0280 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0280 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington State Department of
Transportation has requested that the Montlake Bridge remain closed to
vessel traffic to facilitate safe passage of participants of the Beat
the Bridge charity event. Beat the Bridge is an annual foot race held
in Seattle, WA to benefit diabetes research. The race course passes
over the Montlake Bridge. The Montlake Bridge crosses the Lake
Washington Ship Canal at mile 5.2 and while in the closed position
provides 30

feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel and 46
feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60-feet of the bridge;
vertical clearance referenced to the Mean Water Level of Lake
Washington. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue
to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period. Under normal
conditions this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1051(e)
which requires the bridge to open on signal, except that the bridge
need not open for vessels less than 1,000 gross tons between 7 a.m. and
9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. This
deviation period is from 7:30 a.m. on May 20, 2012 through 9 a.m. on
Sunday, May 20, 2012. The deviation allows the bascule span of the
Montlake Bridge to remain in the closed position and need not open for
maritime traffic from 7:30 a.m. through 9 a.m. on May 20, 2012. The
bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1051(e) at all other
times. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from
commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be
notified and kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the
Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners as appropriate. The draw span will be required to open, if
needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during
this closure period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 30, 2012.
Randall D. Overton,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-10186 Filed 4-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 26787-26790]
[DOCID:fr08my06-70]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-27308]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

April 28, 2006.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
April, 2006. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at
the SEC's Public Reference Branch (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>). An order
granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by
writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on May 23,
2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

J.P. Morgan Funds [File No. 811-7340]; J.P. Morgan Institutional Funds
[File No. 811-7342]; J.P. Morgan Mutual Fund Select Trust [File No.
811-7841]; J.P. Morgan Mutual Fund Select Group [File No. 811-7843];
Growth & Income Portfolio [File No. 811-8084]; J.P. Morgan Mutual Fund
Trust [File No. 811-8358]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On February 18, 2005, each applicant
transferred its assets to JP Morgan Trust I, based on net

asset value. Expenses of $850,000, $810,000, $850,000, $850,000,
$850,000 and $2,550,000, respectively, incurred in connection with the
reorganizations were paid by J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.,
applicants' investment adviser, or its affiliates.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on April 3, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 522 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10036.

21st Century Trust [File No. 811-6451]

    Summary: Applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On February
28, 2005, applicant made a final liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. No expenses were incurred in
connection with the liquidation.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 28, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Van Kampen Funds Inc., Administrator, Unit
Investment Trust Division, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

GAM Avalon Galahad, LLC [File No. 811-10247]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On February
17, 2006, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $8,002 incurred in
connection with the liquidation were paid by GAM USA Inc., applicant's
investment adviser. Applicant has retained $116,916 in cash reserves to
cover outstanding accrued expenses.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 115 East 57th St., New York, NY 10022.

AHA Investment Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-5534]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On September 30, 2005, applicant transferred
its assets to CNI Charter Funds, based on net asset value. Expenses of
$355,606 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 17, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 190 South La Salle St., Suite 2800, Chicago,
IL 60603.

Central Equity Trust [File No. 811-5965]

    Summary: Applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December
1, 2003, applicant made a final liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. No expenses were incurred in
connection with the liquidation.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 28, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Van Kampen Funds Inc., Administrator, Unit
Investment Trust Division, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust [File No. 811-6736]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On January
27, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen Municipal
Opportunity Trust, based on net asset value. The preferred shares of
applicant were converted into preferred shares of the acquiring fund on
a one-for-one basis. Expenses of $444,000 incurred in connection with
the reorganization were paid by applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Value Municipal Income Trust [File No. 811-7400]; Van Kampen
Municipal Opportunity Trust II [File No. 811-7676]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On
January 27, 2006, each applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen
Advantage Municipal Income Trust II, based on net asset value. Each
applicant's preferred shares were converted into preferred shares of
the acquiring fund on a one-for-one basis. Total expenses of $502,000
incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by applicants
and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen High Income Trust [File No. 811-5707]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 29,
2005, applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen High Income Trust
II, based on net asset value. Applicant's preferred shares had a
liquidation preference of $100,000 per share and the preferred shares
of the acquiring fund have a liquidation preference of $25,000, so the
preferred shares of applicant were converted into preferred shares of
the acquiring fund on a one-for-four basis. Expenses of $381,000
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant
and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Pennsylvania Quality Municipal Trust [File No. 811-6370];
Van Kampen Trust for Investment Grade Pennsylvania Municipals [File No.
811-6539]; Van Kampen Advantage Pennsylvania Municipal Income Trust
[File No. 811-6732]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On
December 2, 2005, each applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen
Pennsylvania Value Municipal Income Trust, based on net asset value.
Each applicant's preferred shares were converted into preferred shares
of the acquiring fund on a one-for-one basis. Total expenses of
$587,000 incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by
applicants and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Investment Grade Municipal Trust [File No. 811-5786]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On August 26,
2005, applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen Municipal Trust,
based on net asset value. Applicant's preferred shares had a
liquidation preference of $100,000 per share and the preferred shares
of the acquiring fund have a liquidation preference of $25,000 per
share, so the preferred shares of applicant were converted into
preferred shares of the acquiring fund on a one-for-four basis.
Expenses of $248,000 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Ohio Value Municipal Income Trust [File No. 811-6738]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 7,

2005, applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen Ohio Quality
Municipal Trust, based on net asset value. The preferred shares of
applicant were converted into preferred shares of the acquiring fund on
a one-for-one basis. Expenses of $256,000 incurred in connection with
the reorganization were paid by applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Strategic Sector Municipal Trust [File No. 811-7356]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 7,
2005, applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen Select Sector
Municipal Trust, based on net asset value. The preferred shares of
applicant were converted into preferred shares of the acquiring fund on
a one-for-one basis. Expenses of $290,000 incurred in connection with
the reorganization were paid by applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Municipal Income Trust [File No. 811-5230]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 7,
2005, applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen Trust for
Investment Grade Municipals, based on net asset value. Applicant's
preferred shares had a liquidation preference of $500,000 per share and
the preferred shares of the acquiring fund have a litigation preference
of $25,000 per share, so the preferred shares of applicant were
converted into preferred shares of the acquiring fund on a one-for-
twenty basis. Expenses of $491,000 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by applicant, the acquiring fund and Van
Kampen Asset Management, applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen Florida Quality Municipal Trust [File No. 811-6369]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October
28, 2005, applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen Trust for
Investment Grade Florida Municipals, based on net asset value. The
preferred shares of applicant were converted into preferred shares of
the acquiring fund on a one-for-one basis. Expenses of $291,000
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant
and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 20, 2005.
    Applicant's Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

Van Kampen New York Quality Municipal Trust [File No. 811-6360]; Van
Kampen New York Value Municipal Income Trust [File No. 811-7402]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On
October 28, 2005, each applicant transferred its assets to Van Kampen
Trust for Investment Grade New York Municipals, based on net asset
value. Each applicant's preferred shares were converted into preferred
shares of the acquiring fund on a one-for-one basis. Total expenses of
$405,000 incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by
applicants and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on March 20, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020.

AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8776];
AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-6028]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On June 24, 2005 and July 8, 2005,
respectively, each applicant transferred its assets to Alliance
Bernstein International Research Growth Fund, Inc., based on net asset
value. Expenses of $178,459 and $289,651, respectively, incurred in
connection with the reorganizations were paid by Alliance Capital
Management L.P., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on February 3, 2006 and
amended on April 7, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10105.

Principal Growth Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-1873]; Principal Capital
Value Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-1874]; Principal International Fund,
Inc. [File No. 811-3183]; Principal Cash Management Fund, Inc. [File
No. 811-3585]; Principal Government Securities Income Fund, Inc. [File
No. 811-4226]; Principal Tax-Exempt Bond Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
4449]; Principal Balanced Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-5072]; Principal
MidCap Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-5171]; Principal Bond Fund, Inc. [File
No. 811-5172]; Principal Partners Blue Chip Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
6263]; Principal Equity Income Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-7266];
Principal Limited Term Bond Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-7453]; Principal
International Emerging Markets Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8249];
Principal International SmallCap Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8251];
Principal Real Estate Securities Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8379];
Principal SmallCap Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8381]; Principal LargeCap
Stock Index Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-9755]; Principal Partners MidCap
Growth Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-9759]; Principal Partners Equity Growth
Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-9567]; Principal Partners LargeCap Blend Fund,
Inc. [File No. 811-10187]; Principal Partners LargeCap Value Fund, Inc.
[File No. 811-10189]; Principal Partners SmallCap Growth Fund, Inc.
[File No. 811-10193]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On June 30, 2005, each applicant
transferred its assets to a corresponding series of Principal Investors
Fund, Inc., based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$288,209, $185,322, $523,819, $139,339, $135,354, $18,805, $241,947,
$339,434, $115,254, $159,813, $85,440, $37,030, $62,963, $68,211,
$62,139, $118,287, $56,886, $41,376, $80,570, $52,074, $52,442 and
$25,530, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations
were paid by the acquired funds and Principal Management Corporation,
investment adviser to each applicant.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on January 3, 2006, and
amended on March 28, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 711 High St., Des Moines, IA 50392-2080.

Integrated Arros Fund I [File No. 811-4392]; Integrated Arros Fund II
[File No. 811-4393]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On
October 7,

2005, each applicant made a liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $13,000 incurred in
connection with each liquidation will be paid by each applicant out of
cash assets retained for that purpose.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on November 18, 2005.
    Applicants' Address: IR Pass-Through Corp., c/o Winthrop Management
LLC, 7 Bullfinch Pl., Suite 500, PO Box 9507, Boston, MA 02114.

BidFund 2 Percent [File No. 811-21204]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 4, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Financial Foundry, LLC, 301 North Harrison
St., Suite 185, Princeton, NJ 08540.

NorCap Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-21345]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 3, 2006, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Applicant's investment adviser, Northern Capital Management, LLC, paid
all expenses incurred in connection with the liquidation.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 3, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 8010 Excelsior Dr., Suite 300, Madison, WI
53717.

Access Variable Insurance Trust [File No. 811-21312]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On July 29, 2005, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 15, 2005 and
amended and restated on March 1, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 28050 U.S. Hwy. 19 N, Suite 301, Clearwater,
FL 33761.

Mercury V.I. Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-9159]

    Summary: Mercury V.I. Funds, Inc. (``Applicant'') seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The Applicant
was merged into the Merrill Lynch Large Cap Growth V.I. Fund, a series
of Merrill Lynch Variable Series Funds, Inc., pursuant to an agreement
and plan of reorganization filed with the Commission on October 15,
2003. The Applicant incurred expenses of $68,674.96 (approximately) in
connection with the merger.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 30, 2005, and
amended on January 25, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: Mercury V.I. Funds, Inc. c/o Merrill Lynch
Investment Managers, 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, NJ 08536.

Allmerica Investment Trust [File No. 811-4138]

    Summary: Allmerica Investment Trust (``Applicant'') seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The Applicant
was merged into the Goldman Sachs Variable Insurance Trust, pursuant to
an agreement and plan of reorganization filed with the Commission on
October 31, 2005. Expenses in connection with the merger were shared
equally between the merged fund and the surviving fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 14, 2006, and
amended on April 7, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: Allmerica Investment Trust, 440 Lincoln
Street, Worcester, MA 01653.

Mercury Variable Trust [File No. 811-8163]

    Summary: Mercury Variable Trust. (``Applicant'') seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The Applicant
was merged into the Merrill Lynch International Value V.I. Fund, a
series of Merrill Lynch Variable Series Funds, Inc., pursuant to an
agreement and plan of reorganization filed with the Commission on
October 15, 2003. The Applicant incurred expenses of $195,735.59
(approximately) in connection with the merger.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 30, 2005, and
amended on January 25, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: Mercury Variable Trust c/o Merrill Lynch
Investment Managers, 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, NJ 08536.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6912 Filed 5-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P