Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 110(k)(6) Correction and Technical Correction Related to Prior Designation, and Decisions Related to the 1997 Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the Annual Fine Particles National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 6056-6066 [2011-2269]

Download as PDF jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES 6056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations We therefore finalize the proposed rule with minor changes as described above. Executive Order 12866. This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. This regulation has been determined to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132. This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulation pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau’s appropriated funds. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and export markets. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:38 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 552 Prisoners. 40 CFR Part 81 Harley G. Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons. [EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0562; EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0163; FRL–9261–3] Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 552 as follows. SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT PART 552—CUSTODY 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 552 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3050, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95–0.99. ■ 2. Revise § 552.25 to read as follows: § 552.25 Use of less-than-lethal weapons, including chemical agents. (a) The Warden may authorize the use of less-than-lethal weapons, including those containing chemical agents, only when the situation is such that the inmate: (1) Is armed and/or barricaded; or (2) Cannot be approached without danger to self or others; and (3) It is determined that a delay in bringing the situation under control would constitute a serious hazard to the inmate or others, or would result in a major disturbance or serious property damage. (b) The Warden may delegate the authority under this regulation to one or more supervisors on duty and physically present, but not below the position of Lieutenant. 3. In § 552.27, remove the term ‘‘nonlethal’’ and add the term ‘‘less-thanlethal’’ in its place. ■ [FR Doc. 2011–2364 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–05–P PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RIN 2060–AQ30 Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 110(k)(6) Correction and Technical Correction Related to Prior Designation, and Decisions Related to the 1997 Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the Annual Fine Particles National Ambient Air Quality Standards Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Supplemental amendments; Final rule. AGENCY: On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated air quality designations nationwide for all but three areas for the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This rule takes several additional actions related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. It establishes the initial PM2.5 air quality designations for three areas (Pinal County, Arizona; Plumas County, California; and Shasta County, California) and their respective surrounding counties that EPA deferred in the November 13, 2009 promulgated designations. Plumas and Shasta counties and their surrounding counties are being designated ‘‘unclassifiable/ attainment,’’ while a portion of Pinal County is being designated as ‘‘nonattainment.’’ This action also includes a 110(k)(6) error correction (affecting Ravalli, Montana) and a technical correction (affecting Knoxville, Tennessee) related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. Finally, in this action, EPA announces its decision to retain the current designation of unclassifiable/ attainment for Harris County, Texas and Pinal County, Arizona for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this rule is March 7, 2011. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established two dockets for the actions contained in this final rule. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2007–0562 contains documents related to the initial designations for the three areas (Pinal County, Arizona; Plumas County, California; and Shasta County, California and their respective surrounding counties) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Docket ID No. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0163 contains documents related to the potential redesignation process for two areas (Harris County, Texas and Pinal County, Arizona) for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All documents contained in both dockets are listed in the index at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in the docket or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566–1742. In addition, EPA has established a Web site for this rulemaking at: https:// www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/ 2006standards/index.htm. The Web site includes EPA’s final State and Tribal designations, as well as State initial recommendation letters, EPA modification letters, technical support documents, responses to comments, and other related technical information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth W. Palma, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539–04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number (919) 541– 5432 or by e-mail at: palma.elizabeth@epa.gov or Carla Oldham, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539–04, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, phone number (919) 541–3347 or by email at: oldham.carla@epa.gov. jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES Regional Office Contacts Region 4—Steve Scofield (404) 562– 9034. Region 6—Joe Kordzi (214) 665–7186. Region 8—Catherine Roberts (303) 312–6025. Region 9—Ginger Vagenas (415) 972– 3964. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public may inspect the rule and the technical support information by contacting staff listed below at the following locations: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 Affected states Regional offices Richard A. Schutt, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth, Street, SW., 12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562–9033. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665–7242. Monica Morales, Chief, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202– 1129, (303) 312–6936. Lisa Hanf, Chief, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972–3854. Tennessee. Texas. Montana. Arizona and California. Table of Contents The following is an outline of the Preamble. I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms II. What is the purpose of this action? III. What are the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations promulgated in this action? IV. 110(k)(6) Error Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Designations V. Technical Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Designations VI. What is the status of possible redesignations to nonattainment for Harris County, Texas, and Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS? VII. Significance of This Action VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule and exchanges between EPA, States, and Tribes related to this rule? IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act L. Judicial Review PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 6057 I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble. APA Administrative Procedure Act AQS Air Quality System CAA Clean Air Act CBSA Core Based Statistical Area CFR Code of Federal Regulations DC District of Columbia EER Exceptional Events Rule EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NTTAA National Technology Transfer Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act SIP State Implementation Plan μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 TAR Tribal Authority Rule U.S. United States VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards II. What is the purpose of this action? At the time that EPA finalized designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA deferred designations for three areas to evaluate further the reason for their high fine particle concentrations during 2006–2008, a period which indicated possible new violating monitors in Pinal County, Arizona; Plumas County, California; and Shasta County, California. To determine what areas might be contributing to these potential violations, EPA also deferred initial designations for the following nearby counties: (i) In Arizona, the counties of Cochise, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma; and (ii) in California, the counties of Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, and Yuba. EPA also deferred designations for Indian Country located within or near these counties. The purpose of this action is to promulgate designations for the areas described above, including Indian Country not specifically excluded, in accordance with the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d). The lists of areas in each State and in Indian Country, and the designation for each area, appear in the tables at the end of this final rule (amendments to 40 CFR 81.300–356). In particular, EPA is designating as ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m3 State lands in a portion of Pinal County, E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES 6058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Arizona.1 The basis for establishing this partial county as nonattainment is monitored air quality data for 2006– 2008 indicating a violation of the NAAQS.2 For the designated Pinal County nonattainment area, Arizona must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that provides for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and applicable EPA regulations. Pursuant to CAA section 172(b), EPA is announcing that this plan must be submitted no later three years from the effective date of these designations. Such plan must meet the requirements of section 172(c). EPA’s current implementation regulations for PM2.5 at 40 CFR section 51.1000–1012 apply only to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is considering amending those regulations to encompass the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to address any other revisions to the regulations that are necessary for these new standards. However, EPA anticipates that the SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS should be comparable to those for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, so that the regulations at sections 51.1000–1012 can be used as guidance for SIP planning for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to the extent appropriate, pending any revisions to the regulations. For those areas designated unclassifiable/ attainment, States are not required to develop a SIP to meet the requirements of section 172(c), but States must meet other statutory and regulatory requirements to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in those areas as well as applicable infrastructure requirements of section 110(a). EPA continues to defer the designations associated with Tribal lands in or near the designated nonattainment area in Pinal County, Arizona, to allow for completion of the Tribal consultation process. After further review of air quality monitoring data, including an evaluation of exceptional event claims, EPA is also designating as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ the remaining two areas (Plumas County, California; Shasta County, California; and eight nearby counties) for which we previously deferred the initial air quality designation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. When EPA promulgated the initial air quality designations in the November 1 By ‘‘State lands’’ we mean all land within the State boundary that is not within Indian County, including privately and Federally owned land. 2 2007–2009 data also show the area to be in violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:38 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 13, 2009 notice (74 FR 58688), we also announced that our review of 2006– 2008 monitoring data for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS indicated that two areas initially designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/ attainment’’ for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Harris County, Texas and Pinal County, Arizona) were violating those NAAQS based on these years of data. After further review of these data, EPA is announcing in this action that we are retaining the designation of ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for both areas for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for the reasons explained below. III. What are the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations promulgated in this action? Designations for the Pinal County, Arizona area based on 2006–2008 data. In this action, EPA is designating as ‘‘nonattainment’’ a portion of State lands in Pinal County, Arizona. The basis for establishing this partial county as nonattainment is monitored air quality data for 2006–2008 indicating a violation of the NAAQS (2006–2008 design value of 48 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)).3 EPA is designating the remainder of Pinal County, Cochise, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma counties, and, except as noted below, Indian Country located within those areas, as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ EPA is deferring designation of the Gila River Indian Community reservation, which is located in Pinal and Maricopa counties adjacent to the new nonattainment area, and the Ak-Chin Indian Community reservation, which is surrounded by the newly designated nonattainment portion of Pinal County, to allow for the completion of the Tribal consultation process. In October of 2009, EPA notified the Governor of Arizona and Tribal leaders of Tribes with lands located in Pinal and Maricopa counties that a monitor in Pinal County was violating the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standards based on the most recent (2006–2008) air quality monitoring data. Due to this new violation, and due to the need for additional time to collect data and evaluate the area to determine an appropriate nonattainment area boundary, EPA decided to defer the area designation of Pinal County, Maricopa County (the other county comprising the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale core-based statistical area (CBSA)), and the seven nearby counties (Cochise, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma 3 2007–2009 data also show this area to be in violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, with a 2007–2009 design value of 40 μg/m3. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Counties) surrounding the PhoenixMesa-Scottsdale CBSA,4 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. EPA then followed the designations process set forth in section 107(d) of the CAA which included sending letters in April and May of 2010 to affected States and Tribes notifying them of EPA’s intentions with respect to potential modification of the initial designation recommendations of the State or Tribe. EPA also followed the guidance issued in June of 2007 related to boundary determinations for nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.5 In keeping with this guidance, EPA completed a 9-factor analysis 6 documented in the final Pinal County, Arizona Area Designation for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard Technical Support Document dated May 5, 2010, and supplemented by the Addendum to EPA’s May 5, 2010 Technical Support Document: Pinal County, Arizona Area Designation for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard. In a letter dated July 19, 2010, the Governor of Arizona responded to EPA’s May 10, 2010 notification of the need for a modification to the State’s initial designation in order to designate a portion of Pinal County ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Governor disagreed with EPA’s modification, but also provided a revised recommendation with a suggested boundary for the nonattainment area in Pinal County. This revised recommendation from the State was smaller than the boundary EPA originally proposed in its May 5, 2010 Technical Support Document. In support of the Governor’s alternative boundary, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 4 As described in EPA’s rule promulgating initial PM2.5 designations for the 2006 24-hour standards, in evaluating areas potentially contributing to a monitored violation, EPA examined those counties located in the surrounding metropolitan statistical area (in this case, Pinal and Maricopa counties), and those nearby counties one or two adjacent rings beyond. See ‘‘Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009, page 58694. 5 ‘‘Area Designations for the Revised 24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ memorandum to Regional Administrators, Regions 1–10, from Robert J. Meyers, Acting Assistant Administrator, OAR, dated June 8, 2007. 6 The 9-factor analysis includes assessment of emission data, air quality data, population density and degree of urbanization, traffic and commuting patterns, growth rates and patterns, meteorology (weather/transport patterns), geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries), jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, Reservations, metropolitan planning organizations), and level of control of emission sources. E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations submitted a technical report entitled Arizona Air Quality Designations, Technical Support Document, Boundary Recommendation for the Pinal County 24-hour Standard PM2.5 Nonattainment Area dated July 13, 2010 (ADEQ’s technical report). EPA has reviewed the Governor’s July 19, 2010 letter and ADEQ’s technical report and with this action is finalizing a revised boundary determination that includes the sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions that contribute to air quality violations at the violating monitor. The final partial Pinal County, Arizona nonattainment area remains larger than the area recommended in the July 19, 2010 letter from the Governor but now excludes the Table Top Wilderness Area. Upon further analysis, and consistent with the State’s recommendation, we have determined that this wilderness area does not contain sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions contributing to the exceedances of the NAAQS measured at the violating monitor. All correspondence and supporting documentation related to deferred final designations can be found in docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0562. Designations for the Plumas County, California, and Shasta County, California, areas based on 2006–2008 data. After further review of air quality monitoring data, including an evaluation of submitted exceptional event claims, EPA is designating as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ the remaining two areas for which the initial air quality designation was deferred for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As described in the November 13, 2009 notice, the monitors located in two areas, Plumas County, California (2006– 2008 24-hour design value of 49 μg/m3) and Shasta County, California (2006– 2008 24-hour design value of 48 μg/m3) appeared to be in violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with the inclusion of 2008 monitoring data. In light of this new data indicating a violation, EPA decided to take additional time to evaluate the areas to determine whether there was a violation and, if so, what the nonattainment area boundaries should be for such areas. EPA determined that this additional time would also permit the Agency and California to confer on appropriate area boundaries in accordance with the process contemplated in section 107(d). In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had submitted exceptional event claims that, if concurred upon by EPA, had the potential to impact the designations for the two identified areas. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:38 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 Further evaluation of the monitoring data from Plumas County and Shasta County indicate that these areas were not violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006–2008 data, due to exceptional events that affected the monitors. On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events (72 FR 13560), also known as the Exceptional Events Rule (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 EER, EPA may exclude data from use in determinations of NAAQS exceedances and violations if a State demonstrates that an ‘‘exceptional event’’ caused the exceedances. Before EPA can exclude data from these regulatory determinations, the State must flag the data in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database and, after notice and opportunity for public comment, submit a demonstration to justify the exclusion. After considering the weight of evidence provided in the demonstration, EPA decides whether or not to concur with each flagged value. On June 17, 2009, CARB submitted a preliminary demonstration for a high PM2.5 event that occurred at the Plumas County Portola monitor on July 8, 2007. Additional clarification concerning this event was submitted to EPA via e-mail on December 22, 2009. On August 28, 2009, CARB submitted additional eventrelated preliminary demonstration documentation for high PM2.5 events that occurred at various monitoring locations throughout California on 27 separate days during the summer of 2008. Additional clarification concerning these events was submitted to EPA via e-mail on January 19, 2010 and January 26, 2010. EPA reviewed these demonstration submittals, and subsequently concurred, that specific wildfire-related events caused exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard on July 8, 2007 at the Portola monitor in Plumas County; at the Redding, Shasta County monitor on June 23, June 29, July 5, July 17, and July 23, 2008; at the Portola, Plumas County monitor on June 23, June 26, July 11, and July 23, 2008; and at the Quincy, Plumas County monitor on June 23, June 26, July 8, July 11, and July 19, 2008.7 8 EPA’s evaluation of these events is documented in the Review of 7 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Mary D. Nichols, California Air Resources Board, dated March 11, 2010. 8 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Mary D. Nichols, California Air Resources Board, dated April 2, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 6059 Evidence Regarding Claimed Exceptional Events Leading to 24-hour PM2.5 Exceedances: Plumas County, CA (July 8, 2007) technical support document dated March 11, 2010, the Review of Evidence Regarding Claimed Exceptional Events Leading to 24-hour PM2.5 Exceedances: Shasta County, CA (June 23, 2008 and July 23, 2008) and Plumas County, CA (June 23, 2008; June 26, 2008; July 11, 2008; July 19, 2008; and July 23, 2008) technical support document dated March 11, 2010, and the Review of Evidence Regarding Claimed Exceptional Events Leading to 24-hour PM2.5 Exceedances: Shasta County, CA (June 29, 2008; July 5, 2008; and July 17, 2008) and Plumas County, CA (June 26, 2008; July 8, 2008; and July 11, 2008) technical support document dated March 30, 2010. Concurrence on these events resulted in revised 2006–2008 design values for Plumas County, California (2006–2008 24-hour design value of 34 μg/m3) and for Shasta County, California (2006– 2008 24-hour design value of 24 μg/m3). Because the monitoring data for Plumas County and Shasta County are below the level of the NAAQS, EPA has determined that the initial designation for these counties should be ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ As a result of these two counties being in attainment of these NAAQS, other nearby counties for which we had deferred designations are not contributing to any violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. Accordingly, EPA has determined that an initial designation of ‘‘unclassifiable/ attainment’’ is appropriate for the counties of Butte, Lassen, Shasta, Sierra, Tehama and Yuba (nearby to Plumas) and for Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity (nearby to Shasta) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.9 IV. 110(k)(6) Error Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Designations This action includes a 110(k)(6) error correction related to the designation classification for Ravalli, Montana. In the November 13, 2009 action, Ravalli, Montana was designated as ‘‘unclassifiable’’ rather than ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ This error was the result of incorrectly processing and calculating the ambient air monitoring data for Ravalli, Montana. The errant calculations resulted in the inaccurate designation of 9 2007–2009 data also show Shasta and Plumas Counties in attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 2007–2009 design values of 21 μg/m3 (Shasta County) and 34 μg/m3 (Plumas County). E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 6060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations ‘‘unclassifiable.’’ Once the appropriate data substitutions were made and the data were recalculated, we determined that the designation should have been ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ The correction made by EPA in this action is identified in the table at the end of this notice and the change will be reflected in a revision of 40 CFR part 81. jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES V. Technical Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Designations In this rule, EPA is also making a minor technical correction to the name of the Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area included in the November 13, 2009 action (74 FR 58688). The name of the Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area is being changed in 40 CFR part 81 to be the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, Tennessee nonattainment area to correspond with the name of the CBSA and to provide an accurate area name in the Code of Federal Regulations. The correction made by EPA in this action is identified in the table at the end of this notice and the change will be reflected in a revision of 40 CFR part 81. VI. What is the status of possible redesignations to nonattainment for Harris County, Texas, and Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS? When EPA promulgated the initial air quality designations in the November 13, 2009 notice (74 FR 58688), we announced that our review of quality assured, certified air quality monitoring data for 2006–2008 indicated that two counties designated ‘‘unclassifiable/ attainment’’ for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3 had monitors that were now potentially violating that NAAQS. The potentially violating counties were identified as Pinal County, Arizona (2006–2008 annual average design value of 21.6 μg/m3) and Harris County, Texas (2006–2008 annual average design value of 15.2 μg/ m3). Upon further review, EPA is announcing in this action that we are retaining the designation of ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for both areas. The rationale for these decisions is provided below. In Pinal County, Arizona, EPA identified the ‘‘Cowtown’’ monitor (AQS ID: 04–021–3013) as the monitor potentially violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, EPA has subsequently concluded that the monitor in question is not suitable for determining compliance with these NAAQS. As documented in EPA’s Technical Support Document for Determination that the Cowtown VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:38 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 Monitor is Ineligible for Comparison with the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS dated April 26, 2010, EPA evaluated the comparability of data from the Cowtown site to the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard on four criteria: the monitoring objective, the spatial scale of representativeness, localized hot spot conditions, and the uniqueness of the site. EPA determined that data from the Cowtown monitor are ineligible for comparison to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS because the monitor functions as a population-oriented microscale (i.e., localized hot spot) monitor. EPA regulations provide that monitors at ‘‘relatively unique population-oriented microscale, or localized hot spot, or unique population-oriented middlescale impact sites’’ are only eligible for comparison to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not the annual PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 58.30). No other monitoring site in Pinal County has shown a violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in either the 2006–2008 or 2007–2009 timeframes. In the absence of monitoring data suitable for comparison to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS showing a violation of that standard, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to retain the current designation of ‘‘unclassifiable/ attainment’’ for Pinal County, Arizona for these NAAQS.10 In Harris County, Texas, EPA identified the ‘‘Clinton Drive’’ monitor (AQS ID: 48–201–1035) as potentially violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, EPA has determined that monitor is no longer violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on a review of complete, quality-assured, certified 2007–2009 data resulting in an annual average design value of 14.1 μg/ m3. On October 8, 2009, EPA Region 6 notified the Governor of Texas of EPA’s intention to designate Harris County, Texas as ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006– 2008 monitoring data and requested that the State provide recommendations for the intended redesignation. As part of the review and recommendation process, Texas completed an expedited review and submittal of 2009 air quality monitoring data into AQS. The result of this additional data was the recalculation of Harris County, Texas design values based on 2007–2009 complete, quality-assured, certified data for 2007–2009. In a letter dated February 4, 2010, to the Region 6 EPA Regional Administrator, the Governor of Texas subsequently recommended that all areas in Texas that have monitors with data eligible for comparison to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS be classified as unclassifiable/attainment. Because EPA believes that inclusion of the most recent air quality monitoring data available is appropriate for redesignation decisions, EPA agreed with the State’s unclassifiable/ attainment recommendation for Harris County, Texas and, with this action, announces its decision to retain the current unclassifiable/attainment status for Harris County, Texas for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.11 All correspondence and supporting documentation related to the potential redesignations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS can be found in docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0163. 10 2007–2009 data show that all other Pinal County monitors are in attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 11 Letter from Al Armendariz, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, to Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, dated April 28, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 VII. Significance of This Action In accordance with the foregoing discussion, EPA is promulgating the initial designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for certain areas in Arizona and California. EPA is also making two corrections related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. The first correction is a 110(k)(6) error correction related to the designation classification for Ravalli, Montana. The second correction involves a technical correction to the name of the Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area included in the November 13, 2009 action. Finally, EPA is determining that it is not necessary to redesignate areas in Texas and Arizona to nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The designations and corrections made by EPA in this action with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS relate to the other designations that EPA promulgated in the November 13, 2009 action (74 FR 58688). The designations and corrections made by EPA in this rule, related to the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, are set forth in the tables at the end of this notice and will change the designation status or area description for the affected areas in 40 CFR part 81 initially announced in the November 13, 2009, action. States with areas designated as ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are required to submit SIPs addressing nonattainment area requirements within three years of designation, pursuant to section 172 of the CAA. Therefore, within three years following the March 7, 2011 effective date for the designations identified in this rulemaking, Arizona will be required to E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations submit a SIP for the Pinal County nonattainment area. VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule and exchanges between EPA, States, and Tribes related to this rule? Information providing the basis for the actions and decisions in this notice, including Technical Support Documents, applicable EPA guidance memoranda, and copies of correspondence regarding this process between EPA and the States and Tribes are available in the identified dockets. All docket information is available for review at the EPA Docket Center listed above in the ADDRESSES section of this document and on our designation Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ pmdesignations/2006standards/ index.htm. Other related State-specific information is available at the EPA Regional Offices. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate areas as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The CAA then specifies requirements for areas based on whether such areas are attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In this final rule, EPA assigns designations to areas as required. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES 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). This rule responds to the requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed in the CAA section 107 of title 1. The present final rule does not establish any new information collection apart from that required by law. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:38 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because the rule is not subject to the APA and is subject to CAA section 107(d)(2)(B), which does not require that the Agency issue a notice of proposed rulemaking before issuing this rule. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action contains no Federal mandate under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It does not create any additional requirements beyond those of the PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13), therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. This rule establishes the application of the PM2.5 standard and the designation for each area of the country for the PM2.5 NAAQS. The CAA requires States to develop plans, including control measures, based on their designations and classifications. One mandate that may apply as a consequence of this action to the portion of Pinal County, Arizona being designated as ‘‘nonattainment’’ is the requirement under CAA section 176(c) and associated regulations to demonstrate conformity of Federal actions to SIPs. These rules apply to Federal agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations making conformity determinations. The EPA concludes that such conformity determinations will not cost $100 million or more in the aggregate. The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result of this action will not cost in the aggregate $100 million or more annually. Thus, this Federal action will not impose mandates that will require expenditures of $100 million or more in the aggregate in any one year. Nonetheless, EPA carried out consultation with government entities affected by this rule, including States, Tribal governments, and local air pollution control agencies. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 6061 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 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. ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, or the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. The CAA establishes the process whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This rule will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 2, 2000), requires 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.’’ This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule concerns the designation and classification of areas as ‘‘attainment’’ and ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The CAA provides for States and eligible Tribes to develop plans to regulate emissions of air pollutants within their areas based on their designations. The Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) provides Tribes the opportunity to apply for eligibility to develop and implement CAA programs such as programs to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS, but it leaves to the discretion of the Tribe the decision of whether to apply to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a program, the Tribe will seek to adopt. This rule does E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 6062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. It does not create any additional requirements beyond those of the PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR section 50.13). This rule establishes the application of the PM2.5 standard and the designation and classification for certain areas of the country for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, no Tribe has implemented a CAA program to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. Furthermore, this rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Because this rule does not have Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA communicated with Tribal leaders and environmental staff regarding the designations process. EPA also sent individualized letters to all Federally recognized Tribes to explain the designation process for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, to provide the EPA designations guidance, and to offer consultation with EPA. EPA provided further information to Tribes through presentations at the National Tribal Forum and through participation in National Tribal Air Association conference calls. EPA also sent individualized letters to all Federally recognized Tribes about EPA’s intended areas area designations for the 24-hour PM2.5 standards and offered Tribal leaders the opportunity for consultation. These communications provided opportunities for Tribes to voice concerns to EPA about the general designations process for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as concerns specific to a Tribe, and informed EPA about key Tribal concerns regarding designations as the rule was under development. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not have reason to believe that the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk or safety risk to children. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the PM2.5 NAAQS on children. The results of this risk VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:38 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 assessment are contained in the NAAQS for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5, Final Rule (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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 (NTTAA) Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because this rule does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. 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 U.S. prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective March 7, 2011. L. Judicial Review Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction for petitions for review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of ‘‘nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.’’ EPA is determining that this action is of nationwide scope and effect. This rule designating areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is ‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). This rule establishes or corrects designations for several areas across the U.S. for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, this action relates to the prior nationwide rulemaking in which EPA promulgated designations for numerous other areas nationwide. At the core of this rulemaking is EPA’s interpretation of the definition of ‘‘nonattainment’’ under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In determining which areas should be designated ‘‘nonattainment’’ (or conversely, should be designated attainment or unclassifiable), EPA used an analytical approach that it applied consistently across the U.S. in this rulemaking, and in the prior related rulemaking. For the same reasons, the Administrator also is determining that the final designations are of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because, in the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator’s determination that an action is of ‘‘nationwide scope or E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 6063 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations effect’’ would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. Here, the scope and effect of this rulemaking extends to multiple judicial circuits because the designations apply to various areas of the country. Proceeding with litigation in multiple circuits would waste judicial, agency, and litigant resources, and could lead to inconsistent results. In these circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to find the rule to be of ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ and for venue to be in the DC Circuit. Thus, any petitions for review of final designations must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: January 26, 2011. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator. c. By revising the entry for ‘‘Gila County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ d. By revising the entry for ‘‘Graham County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ e. By revising the entry for ‘‘La Paz County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ f. By revising the entry for ‘‘Maricopa County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ g. By revising the entry for ‘‘Pima County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ h. By revising the entry for ‘‘Pinal County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ i. By revising the entry for ‘‘Yavapai County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ j. By revising the entry for ‘‘Yuma County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ k. By adding entries for ‘‘Lands of the Gila River Indian Community in Pinal County’’ and ‘‘Lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community’’ after ‘‘Yuma County’’ as set forth below. ■ For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows: PART 81—DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 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 2. In § 81.303, the ‘‘Arizona—PM2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)’’ table is amended as follows: ■ a. By adding a new entry for ‘‘West Central Pinal’’ after ‘‘Santa Cruz County’’ under ‘‘Nogales’’ to read as set forth below. ■ b. By revising the entry for ‘‘Cochise County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ § 81.303 * Arizona. * * * * ARIZONA—PM2.5 [24-hour NAAQS] Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a Designated area jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES Date 1 * * * West Central Pinal: Pinal County (part) ................................................. 1. Commencing at a point which is the intersection of the eastern line of Range 1 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 eastern line of Range 4 East; 3. Thence, southerly along the eastern line of Range 4 East to a point where the eastern line of Range 4 East intersects the northern line of Township 6 South; 4. Thence, easterly along the northern line of Township 6 South to a point where the northern line of Township 6 South intersects the eastern line of Range 4 East; 5. Thence, southerly along the eastern line of Range 4 East to a point where the eastern line of Range 4 East intersects the southern line of Township 7 South; 6. 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; VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:45 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 * ................ Frm 00015 Date 2 Type * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM Type * 3/7/11 03FER1 Nonattainment. * 6064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations ARIZONA—PM2.5—Continued [24-hour NAAQS] Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a Designated area Date 1 Date 2 Type Type 7. Thence, northerly 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; 8. 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 eastern line of Range 1 East, which is the common boundary between Maricopa and Pinal Counties, as described in Arizona Revised Statutes sections 11–109 and 11– 113; 9. Thence, northerly along the eastern line of Range 1 East to the point of beginning which is the point where the eastern line of Range 1 East intersects the northern line of Township 4 South; 10. Except that portion of the area defined by paragraphs 1 through 9 above that lies in Indian country. * Rest of State: * * * * * * ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Gila County ............................................................ ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Graham County ...................................................... ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * La Paz County ....................................................... ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Maricopa County .................................................... ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Pima County ........................................................... jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES * * * Cochise County ...................................................... ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Pinal County (remainder, excluding lands of the Gila River Indian Community and Ak-Chin Indian Community. ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Yavapai County ...................................................... Yuma County ......................................................... Lands of the Gila River Indian Community in Pinal County. ................ ................ ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 3/7/11 ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. Unclassifiable/Attainment. Unclassifiable/Attainment. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:45 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1 6065 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations ARIZONA—PM2.5—Continued [24-hour NAAQS] Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a Designated area Date 1 Lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community in Pinal County. ■ 3. In § 81.305, the ‘‘California—PM2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)’’ table is amended as follows: ■ a. By revising the entry for ‘‘Trinity County’’ under the heading of ‘‘North Coast Air Basin’’ to read as set forth below. ■ b. By revising the entries for ‘‘Lassen County,’’ ‘‘Modoc County,’’ and Type Date 2 ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... ................ ‘‘Siskiyou County’’ under the heading of ‘‘Northeast Plateau Air Basin’’ to read as set forth below. ■ c. By revising the entries for ‘‘Butte County (remainder)’’, ‘‘Shasta County’’, ‘‘Tehama County’’, and ‘‘Yuba County (remainder)’’ under the heading ‘‘Upper Sacramento Valley Region’’ to read as set forth below. Type Unclassifiable/Attainment. d. By revising the entries for ‘‘Plumas County,’’ and ‘‘Sierra County’’ under the heading ‘‘Northern Mountain Counties’’ to read as set forth below. ■ § 81.305 * California. * * * * CALIFORNIA—PM2.5 [24-hour NAAQS] Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a Designated area Date 1 * Rest of State: North Coast Air Basin: * * * * * * Trinity County ......................................................... Northeast Plateau Air Basin: Lassen County ....................................................... Modoc County ........................................................ Siskiyou County ..................................................... Date 2 Type Type * * * ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. ................ ................ ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 3/7/11 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment. Unclassifiable/ Attainment. Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Upper Sacramento Valley Region: Butte County (remainder) ....................................... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * * Shasta County ........................................................ Tehama County ...................................................... Yuba County (remainder) ....................................... ................ ................ ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 3/7/11 3/7/11 * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. Unclassifiable/Attainment. Unclassifiable/Attainment. * * Northern Mountain Counties: * * jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES ................ ................ * * * 3/7/11 3/7/11 * a. By removing the entry for ‘‘Ravalli County’’. ■ Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * Unclassifiable/ Attainment. Unclassifiable/ Attainment. * b. By removing the heading ‘‘Rest of State:’’ and adding in its place ‘‘Statewide’’ as set forth below. ■ c. By adding a section for ‘‘Ravalli County’’ after ‘‘Prairie County’’ to read as set forth below. ■ * 19:46 Feb 02, 2011 * * § 81.327 VerDate Mar<15>2010 * * * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... * ■ 4. In § 81.327, the ‘‘Montana—PM2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)’’ table is amended as follows: * * * * * Plumas County ....................................................... Sierra County ......................................................... * * E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM * Montana. * 03FER1 * * 6066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations MONTANA—PM2.5 [24-hour NAAQS] Designation for the 1997 NAAQX a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a Designated area Date 1 Type Date 2 Type ................ * * Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... ................ Statewide: * * * Ravalli County ........................................................ * * * ■ 5. In § 81.343, the ‘‘Tennessee—PM2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)’’ table is amended by removing the designated area * * ‘‘Knoxville,TN’’ and adding in its place ‘‘Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN’’ to read as follows: * * Unclassifiable/Attainment. * § 81.343 * * Tennessee. * * * * TENNESSEE—PM2.5 [24-hour NAAQS] Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a Designated area Date 1 Type Date 2 Type Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN. * * * [FR Doc. 2011–2269 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0057; 92220–1113–0000–C3] RIN 1018–AX23 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Endangered Whooping Cranes in Southwestern Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), will reintroduce whooping cranes (Grus americana) into historic habitat in southwestern Louisiana with the intent to establish a nonmigratory flock. We are designating this reintroduced population as a nonessential experimental population (NEP) under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. The geographic boundary of the NEP includes the entire State of Louisiana. The objectives of the reintroduction are: to advance recovery of the endangered jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:38 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 * * whooping crane; to implement a primary recovery action; to further assess the suitability of Louisiana as whooping crane habitat; and to evaluate the merit of releasing captive-reared whooping cranes, conditioned for wild release, as a technique for establishing a self-sustaining, nonmigratory population. The only natural wild population of whooping cranes remains vulnerable to extirpation through a natural catastrophe or contaminant spill, due primarily to its limited wintering distribution along the Texas gulf coast. If successful, this action will result in the establishment of an additional self-sustaining population, and contribute toward the recovery of the species. No conflicts are envisioned between the whooping crane’s reintroduction and any existing or anticipated Federal, State, Tribal, local government, or private actions such as agriculture-aquaculture-livestock practices, oil/gas exploration and extraction, pesticide application, water management, construction, recreation, trapping, or hunting. DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2011. ADDRESSES: The complete administrative file for this rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256–7517. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * Bill Brooks, Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (904–731– 3136, facsimile 904–731–3045), or Deborah Fuller, Lafayette Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (337– 291–3100; facsimile 337–291–3139). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Background Previous Federal Actions The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). We have previously designated NEPs for whooping cranes in Florida (58 FR 5647, January 22, 1993); the Rocky Mountains (62 FR 38932, July 21, 1997); and the Eastern United States (66 FR 33903, June 26, 2001). On August 19, 2010, we proposed designating Louisiana as a NEP to reintroduce a nonmigratory population in southwestern Louisiana (75 FR 51223). See also ‘‘Recovery Efforts’’ below. Legislative Congress made significant changes to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), with the addition in 1982 of section 10(j), which provides for the designation of specific reintroduced populations of listed species as ‘‘experimental populations.’’ Under the ESA, species listed as endangered or threatened are afforded protection largely through the prohibitions of section 9 and the E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM 03FER1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6056-6066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2269]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0163; FRL-9261-3]
RIN 2060-AQ30

Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 110(k)(6) Correction
and Technical Correction Related to Prior Designation, and Decisions
Related to the 1997 Air Quality Designations and Classifications for
the Annual Fine Particles National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental amendments; Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated air quality designations
nationwide for all but three areas for the 2006 24-hour fine particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This
rule takes several additional actions related to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS designations. It establishes the initial
PM2.5 air quality designations for three areas (Pinal
County, Arizona; Plumas County, California; and Shasta County,
California) and their respective surrounding counties that EPA deferred
in the November 13, 2009 promulgated designations. Plumas and Shasta
counties and their surrounding counties are being designated
``unclassifiable/attainment,'' while a portion of Pinal County is being
designated as ``nonattainment.'' This action also includes a 110(k)(6)
error correction (affecting Ravalli, Montana) and a technical
correction (affecting Knoxville, Tennessee) related to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS designations. Finally, in this action, EPA
announces its decision to retain the current designation of
unclassifiable/attainment for Harris County, Texas and Pinal County,
Arizona for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this rule is March 7,
2011.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established two dockets for the actions
contained in this final rule. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562
contains documents related to the initial designations for the three
areas (Pinal County, Arizona; Plumas County, California; and Shasta
County, California and their respective surrounding counties) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Docket ID No.

[[Page 6057]]

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0163 contains documents related to the potential
redesignation process for two areas (Harris County, Texas and Pinal
County, Arizona) for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All
documents contained in both dockets are listed in the index at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in the docket or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.
In addition, EPA has established a Web site for this rulemaking at:
https://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/index.htm. The Web site
includes EPA's final State and Tribal designations, as well as State
initial recommendation letters, EPA modification letters, technical
support documents, responses to comments, and other related technical
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth W. Palma, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number (919) 541-5432
or by e-mail at: palma.elizabeth@epa.gov or Carla Oldham, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, phone number
(919) 541-3347 or by e-mail at: oldham.carla@epa.gov.

Regional Office Contacts

Region 4--Steve Scofield (404) 562-9034.
Region 6--Joe Kordzi (214) 665-7186.
Region 8--Catherine Roberts (303) 312-6025.
Region 9--Ginger Vagenas (415) 972-3964.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The public may inspect the rule and the technical support
information by contacting staff listed below at the following
locations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional offices Affected states
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Schutt, Chief, Air Planning Tennessee.
Branch, EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth, Street, SW.,
12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-
9033.
Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Texas.
Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665-7242.
Monica Morales, Chief, Air Quality Montana.
Planning Unit, EPA Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129,
(303) 312-6936.
Lisa Hanf, Chief, Air Planning Office, Arizona and California.
EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3854.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

The following is an outline of the Preamble.

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What are the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations
promulgated in this action?
IV. 110(k)(6) Error Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Designations
V. Technical Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
NAAQS Designations
VI. What is the status of possible redesignations to nonattainment
for Harris County, Texas, and Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS?
VII. Significance of This Action
VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule
and exchanges between EPA, States, and Tribes related to this rule?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
L. Judicial Review

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.

APA Administrative Procedure Act
AQS Air Quality System
CAA Clean Air Act
CBSA Core Based Statistical Area
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DC District of Columbia
EER Exceptional Events Rule
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
[micro]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995
TAR Tribal Authority Rule
U.S. United States
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards

II. What is the purpose of this action?

At the time that EPA finalized designations for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA deferred
designations for three areas to evaluate further the reason for their
high fine particle concentrations during 2006-2008, a period which
indicated possible new violating monitors in Pinal County, Arizona;
Plumas County, California; and Shasta County, California. To determine
what areas might be contributing to these potential violations, EPA
also deferred initial designations for the following nearby counties:
(i) In Arizona, the counties of Cochise, Gila, Graham, La Paz,
Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma; and (ii) in California, the counties
of Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, and Yuba.
EPA also deferred designations for Indian Country located within or
near these counties.
The purpose of this action is to promulgate designations for the
areas described above, including Indian Country not specifically
excluded, in accordance with the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 107(d). The lists of areas in each State and in Indian Country,
and the designation for each area, appear in the tables at the end of
this final rule (amendments to 40 CFR 81.300-356). In particular, EPA
is designating as ``nonattainment'' for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ State lands in a portion of
Pinal County,

[[Page 6058]]

Arizona.\1\ The basis for establishing this partial county as
nonattainment is monitored air quality data for 2006-2008 indicating a
violation of the NAAQS.\2\ For the designated Pinal County
nonattainment area, Arizona must develop a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) that provides for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and
applicable EPA regulations. Pursuant to CAA section 172(b), EPA is
announcing that this plan must be submitted no later three years from
the effective date of these designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ By ``State lands'' we mean all land within the State
boundary that is not within Indian County, including privately and
Federally owned land.
\2\ 2007-2009 data also show the area to be in violation of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such plan must meet the requirements of section 172(c). EPA's
current implementation regulations for PM2.5 at 40 CFR
section 51.1000-1012 apply only to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
is considering amending those regulations to encompass the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and to address any other revisions to the
regulations that are necessary for these new standards. However, EPA
anticipates that the SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS should be comparable to those for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, so that the regulations at sections 51.1000-1012 can be used as
guidance for SIP planning for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to the
extent appropriate, pending any revisions to the regulations. For those
areas designated unclassifiable/attainment, States are not required to
develop a SIP to meet the requirements of section 172(c), but States
must meet other statutory and regulatory requirements to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in those areas as well as
applicable infrastructure requirements of section 110(a). EPA continues
to defer the designations associated with Tribal lands in or near the
designated nonattainment area in Pinal County, Arizona, to allow for
completion of the Tribal consultation process.
After further review of air quality monitoring data, including an
evaluation of exceptional event claims, EPA is also designating as
``unclassifiable/attainment'' the remaining two areas (Plumas County,
California; Shasta County, California; and eight nearby counties) for
which we previously deferred the initial air quality designation for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
When EPA promulgated the initial air quality designations in the
November 13, 2009 notice (74 FR 58688), we also announced that our
review of 2006-2008 monitoring data for the annual PM2.5
NAAQS indicated that two areas initially designated as
``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS (Harris County, Texas and Pinal County, Arizona) were violating
those NAAQS based on these years of data. After further review of these
data, EPA is announcing in this action that we are retaining the
designation of ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for both areas for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for the reasons explained below.

III. What are the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations
promulgated in this action?

Designations for the Pinal County, Arizona area based on 2006-2008
data. In this action, EPA is designating as ``nonattainment'' a portion
of State lands in Pinal County, Arizona. The basis for establishing
this partial county as nonattainment is monitored air quality data for
2006-2008 indicating a violation of the NAAQS (2006-2008 design value
of 48 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)).\3\ EPA is
designating the remainder of Pinal County, Cochise, Gila, Graham, La
Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma counties, and, except as noted
below, Indian Country located within those areas, as ``unclassifiable/
attainment.'' EPA is deferring designation of the Gila River Indian
Community reservation, which is located in Pinal and Maricopa counties
adjacent to the new nonattainment area, and the Ak-Chin Indian
Community reservation, which is surrounded by the newly designated
nonattainment portion of Pinal County, to allow for the completion of
the Tribal consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 2007-2009 data also show this area to be in violation of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, with a 2007-2009 design value
of 40 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In October of 2009, EPA notified the Governor of Arizona and Tribal
leaders of Tribes with lands located in Pinal and Maricopa counties
that a monitor in Pinal County was violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards based on the most recent (2006-2008) air
quality monitoring data. Due to this new violation, and due to the need
for additional time to collect data and evaluate the area to determine
an appropriate nonattainment area boundary, EPA decided to defer the
area designation of Pinal County, Maricopa County (the other county
comprising the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale core-based statistical area
(CBSA)), and the seven nearby counties (Cochise, Gila, Graham, La Paz,
Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties) surrounding the Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale CBSA,\4\ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ As described in EPA's rule promulgating initial
PM2.5 designations for the 2006 24-hour standards, in
evaluating areas potentially contributing to a monitored violation,
EPA examined those counties located in the surrounding metropolitan
statistical area (in this case, Pinal and Maricopa counties), and
those nearby counties one or two adjacent rings beyond. See ``Air
Quality Designations for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' 74 FR
58688, November 13, 2009, page 58694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA then followed the designations process set forth in section
107(d) of the CAA which included sending letters in April and May of
2010 to affected States and Tribes notifying them of EPA's intentions
with respect to potential modification of the initial designation
recommendations of the State or Tribe. EPA also followed the guidance
issued in June of 2007 related to boundary determinations for
nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ In
keeping with this guidance, EPA completed a 9-factor analysis \6\
documented in the final Pinal County, Arizona Area Designation for the
2006 24-hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Technical Support Document dated May 5, 2010, and supplemented by the
Addendum to EPA's May 5, 2010 Technical Support Document: Pinal County,
Arizona Area Designation for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ ``Area Designations for the Revised 24-Hour Fine Particle
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' memorandum to Regional
Administrators, Regions 1-10, from Robert J. Meyers, Acting
Assistant Administrator, OAR, dated June 8, 2007.
\6\ The 9-factor analysis includes assessment of emission data,
air quality data, population density and degree of urbanization,
traffic and commuting patterns, growth rates and patterns,
meteorology (weather/transport patterns), geography/topography
(mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries), jurisdictional
boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, Reservations,
metropolitan planning organizations), and level of control of
emission sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a letter dated July 19, 2010, the Governor of Arizona responded
to EPA's May 10, 2010 notification of the need for a modification to
the State's initial designation in order to designate a portion of
Pinal County ``nonattainment'' for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The Governor disagreed with EPA's modification, but also
provided a revised recommendation with a suggested boundary for the
nonattainment area in Pinal County. This revised recommendation from
the State was smaller than the boundary EPA originally proposed in its
May 5, 2010 Technical Support Document. In support of the Governor's
alternative boundary, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ)

[[Page 6059]]

submitted a technical report entitled Arizona Air Quality Designations,
Technical Support Document, Boundary Recommendation for the Pinal
County 24-hour Standard PM2.5 Nonattainment Area dated July
13, 2010 (ADEQ's technical report).
EPA has reviewed the Governor's July 19, 2010 letter and ADEQ's
technical report and with this action is finalizing a revised boundary
determination that includes the sources of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions that contribute to air quality
violations at the violating monitor. The final partial Pinal County,
Arizona nonattainment area remains larger than the area recommended in
the July 19, 2010 letter from the Governor but now excludes the Table
Top Wilderness Area. Upon further analysis, and consistent with the
State's recommendation, we have determined that this wilderness area
does not contain sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emissions contributing to the exceedances of the NAAQS
measured at the violating monitor.
All correspondence and supporting documentation related to deferred
final designations can be found in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562.
Designations for the Plumas County, California, and Shasta County,
California, areas based on 2006-2008 data. After further review of air
quality monitoring data, including an evaluation of submitted
exceptional event claims, EPA is designating as ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' the remaining two areas for which the initial air quality
designation was deferred for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
As described in the November 13, 2009 notice, the monitors located
in two areas, Plumas County, California (2006-2008 24-hour design value
of 49 [micro]g/m\3\) and Shasta County, California (2006-2008 24-hour
design value of 48 [micro]g/m\3\) appeared to be in violation of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with the inclusion of 2008
monitoring data. In light of this new data indicating a violation, EPA
decided to take additional time to evaluate the areas to determine
whether there was a violation and, if so, what the nonattainment area
boundaries should be for such areas. EPA determined that this
additional time would also permit the Agency and California to confer
on appropriate area boundaries in accordance with the process
contemplated in section 107(d). In addition, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) had submitted exceptional event claims that, if
concurred upon by EPA, had the potential to impact the designations for
the two identified areas.
Further evaluation of the monitoring data from Plumas County and
Shasta County indicate that these areas were not violating the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006-2008 data, due to exceptional
events that affected the monitors. On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a
final rule, Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events (72 FR
13560), also known as the Exceptional Events Rule (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 EER, EPA may exclude data from use in determinations of NAAQS
exceedances and violations if a State demonstrates that an
``exceptional event'' caused the exceedances. Before EPA can exclude
data from these regulatory determinations, the State must flag the data
in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database and, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, submit a demonstration to justify the
exclusion. After considering the weight of evidence provided in the
demonstration, EPA decides whether or not to concur with each flagged
value.
On June 17, 2009, CARB submitted a preliminary demonstration for a
high PM2.5 event that occurred at the Plumas County Portola
monitor on July 8, 2007. Additional clarification concerning this event
was submitted to EPA via e-mail on December 22, 2009. On August 28,
2009, CARB submitted additional event-related preliminary demonstration
documentation for high PM2.5 events that occurred at various
monitoring locations throughout California on 27 separate days during
the summer of 2008. Additional clarification concerning these events
was submitted to EPA via e-mail on January 19, 2010 and January 26,
2010.
EPA reviewed these demonstration submittals, and subsequently
concurred, that specific wildfire-related events caused exceedances of
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard on July 8, 2007 at the Portola
monitor in Plumas County; at the Redding, Shasta County monitor on June
23, June 29, July 5, July 17, and July 23, 2008; at the Portola, Plumas
County monitor on June 23, June 26, July 11, and July 23, 2008; and at
the Quincy, Plumas County monitor on June 23, June 26, July 8, July 11,
and July 19, 2008.^{7 8} EPA's evaluation of these events is
documented in the Review of Evidence Regarding Claimed Exceptional
Events Leading to 24-hour PM2.5 Exceedances: Plumas County, CA (July 8,
2007) technical support document dated March 11, 2010, the Review of
Evidence Regarding Claimed Exceptional Events Leading to 24-hour PM2.5
Exceedances: Shasta County, CA (June 23, 2008 and July 23, 2008) and
Plumas County, CA (June 23, 2008; June 26, 2008; July 11, 2008; July
19, 2008; and July 23, 2008) technical support document dated March 11,
2010, and the Review of Evidence Regarding Claimed Exceptional Events
Leading to 24-hour PM2.5 Exceedances: Shasta County, CA
(June 29, 2008; July 5, 2008; and July 17, 2008) and Plumas County, CA
(June 26, 2008; July 8, 2008; and July 11, 2008) technical support
document dated March 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, to Mary D. Nichols, California Air Resources Board, dated
March 11, 2010.
\8\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, to Mary D. Nichols, California Air Resources Board, dated
April 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concurrence on these events resulted in revised 2006-2008 design
values for Plumas County, California (2006-2008 24-hour design value of
34 [micro]g/m\3\) and for Shasta County, California (2006-2008 24-hour
design value of 24 [micro]g/m\3\). Because the monitoring data for
Plumas County and Shasta County are below the level of the NAAQS, EPA
has determined that the initial designation for these counties should
be ``unclassifiable/attainment.'' As a result of these two counties
being in attainment of these NAAQS, other nearby counties for which we
had deferred designations are not contributing to any violation of the
NAAQS in a nearby area. Accordingly, EPA has determined that an initial
designation of ``unclassifiable/attainment'' is appropriate for the
counties of Butte, Lassen, Shasta, Sierra, Tehama and Yuba (nearby to
Plumas) and for Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity
(nearby to Shasta) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 2007-2009 data also show Shasta and Plumas Counties in
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 2007-2009
design values of 21 [micro]g/m\3\ (Shasta County) and 34 [micro]g/
m\3\ (Plumas County).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 110(k)(6) Error Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Designations

This action includes a 110(k)(6) error correction related to the
designation classification for Ravalli, Montana. In the November 13,
2009 action, Ravalli, Montana was designated as ``unclassifiable''
rather than ``unclassifiable/attainment.'' This error was the result of
incorrectly processing and calculating the ambient air monitoring data
for Ravalli, Montana. The errant calculations resulted in the
inaccurate designation of

[[Page 6060]]

``unclassifiable.'' Once the appropriate data substitutions were made
and the data were recalculated, we determined that the designation
should have been ``unclassifiable/attainment.'' The correction made by
EPA in this action is identified in the table at the end of this notice
and the change will be reflected in a revision of 40 CFR part 81.

V. Technical Correction Related to the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
NAAQS Designations

In this rule, EPA is also making a minor technical correction to
the name of the Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area included in the
November 13, 2009 action (74 FR 58688). The name of the Knoxville,
Tennessee nonattainment area is being changed in 40 CFR part 81 to be
the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, Tennessee nonattainment area to
correspond with the name of the CBSA and to provide an accurate area
name in the Code of Federal Regulations. The correction made by EPA in
this action is identified in the table at the end of this notice and
the change will be reflected in a revision of 40 CFR part 81.

VI. What is the status of possible redesignations to nonattainment for
Harris County, Texas, and Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS?

When EPA promulgated the initial air quality designations in the
November 13, 2009 notice (74 FR 58688), we announced that our review of
quality assured, certified air quality monitoring data for 2006-2008
indicated that two counties designated ``unclassifiable/attainment''
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/m\3\ had
monitors that were now potentially violating that NAAQS. The
potentially violating counties were identified as Pinal County, Arizona
(2006-2008 annual average design value of 21.6 [micro]g/m\3\) and
Harris County, Texas (2006-2008 annual average design value of 15.2
[micro]g/m\3\). Upon further review, EPA is announcing in this action
that we are retaining the designation of ``unclassifiable/attainment''
for both areas. The rationale for these decisions is provided below.
In Pinal County, Arizona, EPA identified the ``Cowtown'' monitor
(AQS ID: 04-021-3013) as the monitor potentially violating the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, EPA has subsequently concluded
that the monitor in question is not suitable for determining compliance
with these NAAQS. As documented in EPA's Technical Support Document for
Determination that the Cowtown Monitor is Ineligible for Comparison
with the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS dated April 26, 2010, EPA evaluated the
comparability of data from the Cowtown site to the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard on four criteria: the monitoring objective,
the spatial scale of representativeness, localized hot spot conditions,
and the uniqueness of the site. EPA determined that data from the
Cowtown monitor are ineligible for comparison to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS because the monitor functions as a population-
oriented microscale (i.e., localized hot spot) monitor. EPA regulations
provide that monitors at ``relatively unique population-oriented
microscale, or localized hot spot, or unique population-oriented
middle-scale impact sites'' are only eligible for comparison to the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not the annual PM2.5 NAAQS (40
CFR 58.30). No other monitoring site in Pinal County has shown a
violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in either the 2006-
2008 or 2007-2009 timeframes. In the absence of monitoring data
suitable for comparison to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
showing a violation of that standard, EPA has determined that it is
appropriate to retain the current designation of ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for Pinal County, Arizona for these NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 2007-2009 data show that all other Pinal County monitors
are in attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Harris County, Texas, EPA identified the ``Clinton Drive''
monitor (AQS ID: 48-201-1035) as potentially violating the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, EPA has determined that monitor is no
longer violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on a
review of complete, quality-assured, certified 2007-2009 data resulting
in an annual average design value of 14.1 [micro]g/m\3\. On October 8,
2009, EPA Region 6 notified the Governor of Texas of EPA's intention to
designate Harris County, Texas as ``nonattainment'' for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006-2008 monitoring data and requested
that the State provide recommendations for the intended redesignation.
As part of the review and recommendation process, Texas completed an
expedited review and submittal of 2009 air quality monitoring data into
AQS. The result of this additional data was the recalculation of Harris
County, Texas design values based on 2007-2009 complete, quality-
assured, certified data for 2007-2009. In a letter dated February 4,
2010, to the Region 6 EPA Regional Administrator, the Governor of Texas
subsequently recommended that all areas in Texas that have monitors
with data eligible for comparison to the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS be classified as unclassifiable/attainment. Because EPA believes
that inclusion of the most recent air quality monitoring data available
is appropriate for redesignation decisions, EPA agreed with the State's
unclassifiable/attainment recommendation for Harris County, Texas and,
with this action, announces its decision to retain the current
unclassifiable/attainment status for Harris County, Texas for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Letter from Al Armendariz, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6, to Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, dated April 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All correspondence and supporting documentation related to the
potential redesignations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS can
be found in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0163.

VII. Significance of This Action

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, EPA is promulgating
the initial designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
for certain areas in Arizona and California. EPA is also making two
corrections related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
designations. The first correction is a 110(k)(6) error correction
related to the designation classification for Ravalli, Montana. The
second correction involves a technical correction to the name of the
Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area included in the November 13,
2009 action. Finally, EPA is determining that it is not necessary to
redesignate areas in Texas and Arizona to nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The designations and corrections made by EPA in this action with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS relate to the other
designations that EPA promulgated in the November 13, 2009 action (74
FR 58688). The designations and corrections made by EPA in this rule,
related to the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, are set forth in the
tables at the end of this notice and will change the designation status
or area description for the affected areas in 40 CFR part 81 initially
announced in the November 13, 2009, action. States with areas
designated as ``nonattainment'' for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
are required to submit SIPs addressing nonattainment area requirements
within three years of designation, pursuant to section 172 of the CAA.
Therefore, within three years following the March 7, 2011 effective
date for the designations identified in this rulemaking, Arizona will
be required to

[[Page 6061]]

submit a SIP for the Pinal County nonattainment area.

VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for this rule and
exchanges between EPA, States, and Tribes related to this rule?

Information providing the basis for the actions and decisions in
this notice, including Technical Support Documents, applicable EPA
guidance memoranda, and copies of correspondence regarding this process
between EPA and the States and Tribes are available in the identified
dockets. All docket information is available for review at the EPA
Docket Center listed above in the ADDRESSES section of this document
and on our designation Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/index.htm. Other related State-specific information is
available at the EPA Regional Offices.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate areas as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The CAA
then specifies requirements for areas based on whether such areas are
attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In this final rule, EPA assigns
designations to areas as required.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

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). This rule responds to the
requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation
of a NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed in the CAA section 107 of
title 1. The present final rule does not establish any new information
collection apart from that required by law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only
to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule
is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any
other statute because the rule is not subject to the APA and is subject
to CAA section 107(d)(2)(B), which does not require that the Agency
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking before issuing this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It does not create
any additional requirements beyond those of the PM2.5 NAAQS
(40 CFR 50.13), therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. This rule
establishes the application of the PM2.5 standard and the
designation for each area of the country for the PM2.5
NAAQS. The CAA requires States to develop plans, including control
measures, based on their designations and classifications.
One mandate that may apply as a consequence of this action to the
portion of Pinal County, Arizona being designated as ``nonattainment''
is the requirement under CAA section 176(c) and associated regulations
to demonstrate conformity of Federal actions to SIPs. These rules apply
to Federal agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations making
conformity determinations. The EPA concludes that such conformity
determinations will not cost $100 million or more in the aggregate.
The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result of this
action will not cost in the aggregate $100 million or more annually.
Thus, this Federal action will not impose mandates that will require
expenditures of $100 million or more in the aggregate in any one year.
Nonetheless, EPA carried out consultation with government entities
affected by this rule, including States, Tribal governments, and local
air pollution control agencies.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires 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.
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, or the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. The CAA establishes the process
whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS.
This rule will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for
purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 2, 2000),
requires 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.'' This action does not have
Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This rule concerns the designation and
classification of areas as ``attainment'' and ``nonattainment'' for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The CAA provides for States and
eligible Tribes to develop plans to regulate emissions of air
pollutants within their areas based on their designations. The Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) provides Tribes the opportunity to apply for
eligibility to develop and implement CAA programs such as programs to
attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS, but it leaves to the
discretion of the Tribe the decision of whether to apply to develop
these programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a
program, the Tribe will seek to adopt. This rule does

[[Page 6062]]

not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. It
does not create any additional requirements beyond those of the
PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR section 50.13). This rule establishes
the application of the PM2.5 standard and the designation
and classification for certain areas of the country for the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, no Tribe has implemented a CAA
program to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. Furthermore,
this rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The
CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government
and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does
nothing to modify that relationship. Because this rule does not have
Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA
communicated with Tribal leaders and environmental staff regarding the
designations process. EPA also sent individualized letters to all
Federally recognized Tribes to explain the designation process for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, to provide the EPA designations
guidance, and to offer consultation with EPA. EPA provided further
information to Tribes through presentations at the National Tribal
Forum and through participation in National Tribal Air Association
conference calls. EPA also sent individualized letters to all Federally
recognized Tribes about EPA's intended areas area designations for the
24-hour PM2.5 standards and offered Tribal leaders the
opportunity for consultation. These communications provided
opportunities for Tribes to voice concerns to EPA about the general
designations process for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as
concerns specific to a Tribe, and informed EPA about key Tribal
concerns regarding designations as the rule was under development.

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

The action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not have reason to
believe that the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed
by this rule present a disproportionate risk or safety risk to
children. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the environmental health or
safety effects of the PM2.5 NAAQS on children. The results
of this risk assessment are contained in the NAAQS for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5, Final Rule (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144).

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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 (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any VCS.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because this rule does
not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
U.S. 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 U.S. prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective March 7, 2011.

L. Judicial Review

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have jurisdiction for petitions for review of final actions by
EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be
filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i)
When the agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in
taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such
action is based on such a determination.'' EPA is determining that this
action is of nationwide scope and effect.
This rule designating areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of section
307(b)(1). This rule establishes or corrects designations for several
areas across the U.S. for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition, this action relates to the prior nationwide rulemaking in
which EPA promulgated designations for numerous other areas nationwide.
At the core of this rulemaking is EPA's interpretation of the
definition of ``nonattainment'' under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In
determining which areas should be designated ``nonattainment'' (or
conversely, should be designated attainment or unclassifiable), EPA
used an analytical approach that it applied consistently across the
U.S. in this rulemaking, and in the prior related rulemaking.
For the same reasons, the Administrator also is determining that
the final designations are of nationwide scope and effect for the
purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate
because, in the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope or

[[Page 6063]]

effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect
beyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324,
reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of
this rulemaking extends to multiple judicial circuits because the
designations apply to various areas of the country. Proceeding with
litigation in multiple circuits would waste judicial, agency, and
litigant resources, and could lead to inconsistent results. In these
circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls for
the Administrator to find the rule to be of ``nationwide scope or
effect'' and for venue to be in the DC Circuit.
Thus, any petitions for review of final designations must be filed
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60
days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

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

Dated: January 26, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is
amended as follows:

PART 81--DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

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--PM2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)''
table is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding a new entry for ``West Central Pinal'' after ``Santa Cruz
County'' under ``Nogales'' to read as set forth below.
0
b. By revising the entry for ``Cochise County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
c. By revising the entry for ``Gila County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
d. By revising the entry for ``Graham County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
e. By revising the entry for ``La Paz County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
f. By revising the entry for ``Maricopa County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
g. By revising the entry for ``Pima County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
h. By revising the entry for ``Pinal County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
i. By revising the entry for ``Yavapai County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
j. By revising the entry for ``Yuma County'' to read as set forth
below.
0
k. By adding entries for ``Lands of the Gila River Indian Community in
Pinal County'' and ``Lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community'' after
``Yuma County'' as set forth below.

Sec. 81.303 Arizona.

* * * * *

Arizona--PM2.5
[24-hour NAAQS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation for the 1997 NAAQS \a\ Designation for the 2006 NAAQS \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \2\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
West Central Pinal:
Pinal County (part).............. ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Nonattainment.
1. Commencing at a point
which is the intersection of
the eastern line of Range 1
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 eastern line of Range 4
East;
3. Thence, southerly along
the eastern line of Range 4
East to a point where the
eastern line of Range 4 East
intersects the northern line
of Township 6 South;
4. Thence, easterly along the
northern line of Township 6
South to a point where the
northern line of Township 6
South intersects the eastern
line of Range 4 East;
5. Thence, southerly along
the eastern line of Range 4
East to a point where the
eastern line of Range 4 East
intersects the southern line
of Township 7 South;
6. 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;

[[Page 6064]]

7. Thence, northerly 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;
8. 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 eastern line of Range 1
East, which is the common
boundary between Maricopa
and Pinal Counties, as
described in Arizona Revised
Statutes sections 11-109 and
11-113;
9. Thence, northerly along
the eastern line of Range 1
East to the point of
beginning which is the point
where the eastern line of
Range 1 East intersects the
northern line of Township 4
South;
10. Except that portion of
the area defined by
paragraphs 1 through 9 above
that lies in Indian country.

* * * * * * *
Rest of State:

* * * * * * *
Cochise County................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Gila County...................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Graham County.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
La Paz County.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Maricopa County.................. ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Pima County...................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Pinal County (remainder, ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.
excluding lands of the Gila
River Indian Community and Ak-
Chin Indian Community.

* * * * * * *
Yavapai County................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Yuma County...................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Lands of the Gila River Indian ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Community in Pinal County.

[[Page 6065]]

Lands of the Ak-Chin Indian ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Community in Pinal County.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec. 81.305, the ``California--PM2.5 (24-hour
NAAQS)'' table is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the entry for ``Trinity County'' under the heading of
``North Coast Air Basin'' to read as set forth below.
0
b. By revising the entries for ``Lassen County,'' ``Modoc County,'' and
``Siskiyou County'' under the heading of ``Northeast Plateau Air
Basin'' to read as set forth below.
0
c. By revising the entries for ``Butte County (remainder)'', ``Shasta
County'', ``Tehama County'', and ``Yuba County (remainder)'' under the
heading ``Upper Sacramento Valley Region'' to read as set forth below.
0
d. By revising the entries for ``Plumas County,'' and ``Sierra County''
under the heading ``Northern Mountain Counties'' to read as set forth
below.

Sec. 81.305 California.

* * * * *

California--PM2.5
[24-hour NAAQS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation for the 1997 NAAQS \a\ Designation for the 2006 NAAQS \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \2\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Rest of State:
North Coast Air Basin:

* * * * * * *
Trinity County................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Northeast Plateau Air Basin:
Lassen County.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Modoc County..................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/ Attainment.
Siskiyou County.................. ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Upper Sacramento Valley Region:
Butte County (remainder)......... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Shasta County.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Tehama County.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Yuba County (remainder).......... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *
Northern Mountain Counties:

* * * * * * *
Plumas County.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/ Attainment.
Sierra County.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/ Attainment.

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

0
4. In Sec. 81.327, the ``Montana--PM2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)''
table is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the entry for ``Ravalli County''.
0
b. By removing the heading ``Rest of State:'' and adding in its place
``Statewide'' as set forth below.
0
c. By adding a section for ``Ravalli County'' after ``Prairie County''
to read as set forth below.

Sec. 81.327 Montana.

* * * * *

[[Page 6066]]

Montana--PM2.5
[24-hour NAAQS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation for the 1997 NAAQX \a\ Designation for the 2006 NAAQS \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date 1 Type Date 2 Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide:

* * * * * * *
Ravalli County................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.................... ......... Unclassifiable/Attainment.

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

0
5. In Sec. 81.343, the ``Tennessee--PM2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)''
table is amended by removing the designated area ``Knoxville,TN'' and
adding in its place ``Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN'' to read
as follows:

Sec. 81.343 Tennessee.

* * * * *

Tennessee

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.