67220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(5) No vessel shall anchor, stop, 

remain or drift without power at any 

time in the RNA; 

(6) All vessels shall continually 

monitor VHF–FM channel 13 on their 

radio-telephone while operating in, 

near, or approaching the RNA; 

(7) Before entering the RNA, 

downbound vessels shall make a 

broadcast in the blind on VHF–FM 

channel 13 announcing their estimated 

time of arrival at the upriver start of the 

RNA at mile 535 to ensure that there are 

no upbound vessels within the RNA and 

in sufficient time that: 

(i) If there are vessels in the RNA the 

downbound vessel shall adjust its speed 

so as to avoid a meeting situation in the 

RNA. 

(ii) If the RNA is temporarily closed 

to vessel traffic the downbound vessel 

can take all way off and hold station or 

push in upriver of mile 535. 

(iii) The site representative can pass 

any pertinent information that would 

aid the vessel in the safe transit of the 

demolition site. If the Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District determines 

that hazardous conditions exist, a 

towboat (tug) shall be provided by the 

contractor or bridge owner to assist 

vessels through the bridge on demand; 

and 

(8) Before entering the RNA, upbound 

vessels shall make a broadcast in the 

blind on VHF–FM channel 13 

announcing their estimated time of 

arrival at the downriver start of the RNA 

at mile 528 to ensure that there are no 

downbound vessels within the RNA and 

in sufficient time that: 

(i) If there are vessels in the RNA the 

upbound vessel shall adjust its speed so 

as to avoid a meeting situation in the 

RNA. 

(ii) If the RNA is temporarily closed 

to vessel traffic the upbound vessel can 

take all way off and hold station or push 

in downriver of mile 528. 

(iii) The site representative can pass 

any pertinent information that would 

aid the vessel in the safe transit of the 

demolition site. If the Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District determines 

that hazardous conditions exist, a 

towboat (tug) shall be provided by the 

contractor or bridge owner to assist 

vessels through the bridge on demand. 

(f) Informational Broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi 

River will inform the public as soon as 

practical when closures are expected via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Notice for 

any closure that will last longer than 4 

hours will be given a minimum of 7 

days before the scheduled closure, 

unless an emergent situation exists. 

Notice for any closure that will last 

longer than 2 hours but less than 4 

hours will be given at least 72 hours 

before the closure. Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners will be broadcast every two 

hours while the RNA is closed to traffic. 

Additionally, a schedule of known 

closures will be published in the Eighth 

District Local Notice to Mariners and at 

http://homeport.uscg.mil. Select 

‘‘LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

(MEMPHIS)’’ under the Port Directory 

tab. The schedule will appear under the 

Notice to Mariners subcategory. 

Dated: October 22, 2010. 

Peter Troedsson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27587 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0718; FRL–9219–7] 

Determinations of Attainment by the 

Applicable Attainment Date for the 

Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas, Arizona 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the 

Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/ 

Douglas nonattainment areas in Arizona 

attained the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to a 

nominal ten micrometers (PM10) by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 1994. On the basis of this 

determination, EPA concludes that 

these three ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment 

areas are not subject to reclassification 

by operation of law to ‘‘serious.’’ Lastly, 

on the basis of a review of more recent 

ambient monitoring data, EPA has 

determined that the Hayden, Nogales, 

and Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment 

areas are not currently attaining the 

PM10 standard. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

January 3, 2011 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by December 2, 2010. If EPA receives 

adverse comment, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0718, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Air 

Planning Office, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax at telephone number: (415) 

947–4192; e-mail address: 

tax.wienke@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region IX address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67221 

1An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 μg/ 

m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up). 

Thus, a recorded value of 154 μg/m3 would not be 

an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 μg/ 

m3 whereas a recorded value of 155 μg/m3 would 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 

μg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0. 

2On March 28, 2007, EPA approved a request by 

the State of Arizona to split the Hayden/Miami 

PM10 nonattainment area into two separate PM10

nonattainment areas. See 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 

2007). In our March 28, 2007 direct final rule, we 

also determined that the Miami PM10

nonattainment area had attained the PM10 NAAQS. 

In today’s action, we have determined that the 

Hayden PM10 nonattainment area attained the PM10

NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The 

Hayden planning area straddles Gila and Pinal 

counties at the confluence of the Gila and San 

Pedro rivers in east central Arizona. The 

nonattainment area covers roughly 700 miles of 

mountainous terrain. Cities and towns within this 

area include Kearney (population roughly 2,800), 

Hayden (population roughly 800), and Winkelman 

(population roughly 400). 

3The Paul Spur/Douglas planning area covers 

approximately 220 square miles along the border 

with Mexico within Cochise County. Cities and 

towns within this area include Douglas (population 

roughly 20,000) and Pirtleville (population roughly 

1,500). The population of Agua Prieta, Mexico, 

which lies just across the border from Douglas is 

roughly 70,000. 

4The Nogales planning area covers approximately 

70 square miles along the border with Mexico 

within Santa Cruz County. The only significant 

population center in this area is the city of Nogales 

with a population of roughly 21,000. The 

population of Nogales, Mexico, which lies just 

across the border from Nogales, Arizona is roughly 

160,000. 

5EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient 

air monitoring regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and 

58 on October 17, 2006. See 71 FR 61236. The 

requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were 

revised and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR 

58.20. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

B. Designation and Classification of PM10

Nonattainment Areas 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

D. What PM10 planning has occurred for the 

Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas? 

1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area 

2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment 

Area 

II. EPA’s Analysis 

A. What does the air quality data show as of 

the December 31, 1994 attainment date? 

1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area 

2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment 

Area 

B. Does more recent air quality data also 

show attainment? 

1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area 

2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment 

Area 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

The NAAQS are levels for certain 

ambient air pollutants set by EPA to 

protect public health and welfare. PM10, 

or particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers, is among 

the ambient air pollutants for which 

EPA has established health-based 

standards. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 

24634), EPA promulgated two primary 

standards for PM10: A 24-hour standard 

of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/ 

m3) and an annual PM10 standard of 50 

μg/m3. EPA also promulgated secondary 

PM10 standards that were identical to 

the primary standards. 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA 

revoked the annual PM10 standard but 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard. 71 

FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24- 

hour PM10 standard is attained when the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with a 24-hour concentration in 

excess of the standard (referred to 

herein as ‘‘exceedance’’), as determined 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, is equal to or less than 

one.1 See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 

50, appendix K. 

B. Designation and Classification of 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas 

Areas meeting the requirements of 

section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) were designated 

nonattainment for PM10 by operation of 

law and classified ‘‘moderate’’ upon 

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments. These areas included all 

former Group I PM10 planning areas 

identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 

1987), as further clarified in 55 FR 

45799 (October 31, 1990), and any other 

areas violating the NAAQS for PM10

prior to January 1, 1989. A Federal 

Register notice announcing the areas 

designated nonattainment for PM10

upon enactment of the 1990 

Amendments, known as ‘‘initial’’ PM10

nonattainment areas, was published on 

March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101) and a 

subsequent Federal Register document 

correcting the description of some of 

these areas was published on August 8, 

1991 (56 FR 37654). 

As former ‘‘group I’’ areas, the 

Hayden/Miami 2 and Paul Spur/ 

Douglas 3 areas were included in the list 

of initial moderate PM10 nonattainment 

areas. Nogales, a former ‘‘Group II’’ area, 

was included in the initial list of 

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 

based on monitored violations of the 

PM10 NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989.4

Later in 1991, we codified the PM10

nonattainment designations and 

moderate area classifications in 40 CFR 

part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 

1991). For ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment 

areas such as the three Arizona areas 

that are the subject of this document, 

CAA section 188(c) of the 1990 

Amended Act establishes an attainment 

date of December 31, 1994. The 

designations, classifications, and 

boundaries of these three Arizona 

nonattainment areas are codified at 40 

CFR 81.303. 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

Section 188(b)(2) of the Act requires 

EPA to determine within six months of 

the applicable attainment date whether, 

based on air quality data, PM10

nonattainment areas attained the PM10

NAAQS by that date. Generally, EPA 

determines whether an area’s air quality 

is meeting the PM10 NAAQS based upon 

complete (minimum of 75 percent of 

scheduled PM10 samples recorded), 

quality-assured data gathered at 

established state and local air 

monitoring stations (SLAMS) and 

national air monitoring stations (NAMS) 

in the nonattainment area and entered 

into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. Data from air monitors 

operated by State/local/tribal agencies 

in compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to 

AQS. EPA relies primarily on data in 

AQS when determining the attainment 

status of an area. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 

CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 

40 CFR part 58, appendix A. EPA will 

also consider air quality data from other 

air monitoring stations in the 

nonattainment area provided that the 

stations meet the Federal monitoring 

requirements for SLAMS, including the 

quality assurance and quality control 

criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. 

40 CFR 58.14 (2006) and 58.20 (2007); 5

71 FR 61236, 61242 (October 17, 2006). 

All valid data are reviewed to determine 

the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

Attainment of the 24-hour PM10

standard is determined by calculating 

the expected number of exceedances of 

the standard in a year. The 24-hour 

PM10 standard is attained when the 

expected number of exceedances 

averaged over a three-year period is less 

than or equal to one at each monitoring 

site within the nonattainment area. 

Generally, three consecutive years of air 

quality data are required to show 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006), this document discusses only 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard. 

standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and 

appendix K.6

To demonstrate attainment of the 24- 

hour PM10 standard at a monitoring site, 

the monitor must provide sufficient data 

to perform the required calculations in 

40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The 

amount of data required varies with the 

sampling frequency, data capture rate 

and the number of years of record. In all 

cases, three years of representative 

monitoring data that meet the 75 

percent criterion of the previous 

paragraph should be utilized, if 

available, and would suffice. More than 

three years may be considered, if all 

additional representative years of data 

meeting the 75 percent criterion are 

utilized. Data not meeting these criteria 

may also suffice to show attainment; 

however, such exceptions must be 

approved by the appropriate Regional 

Administrator in accordance with EPA 

guidance. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K, section 2.3. 

D. What PM10 planning has occurred for 

the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/ 

Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Areas? 

Along with the new designations, 

classifications, and attainment dates, the 

CAA as amended in 1990 also 

established new planning requirements. 

All initial moderate PM10 nonattainment 

areas had the same applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 1994. 

States containing initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas were required to 

develop and submit to EPA by 

November 15, 1991, a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

providing for implementation of 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) for the control of PM10, and 

either a demonstration that the plan 

would provide for attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (December 

31, 1994) or a demonstration that 

attainment by such date was 

impracticable. See CAA section 189(a). 

1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area 

By November 15, 1991, States were 

required to submit SIP revisions 

addressing certain CAA requirements 

for initial PM10 nonattainment areas. 

The State of Arizona relied upon a SIP 

revision (‘‘Final PM10 State 

Implementation Plan for the Hayden 

Group I Area,’’ September 1989) (herein 

referred to as the ‘‘1989 Hayden PM10

Plan’’) that it had submitted on October 

16, 1989 to meet the requirements of the 

CAA as amended in 1990 for the 

Hayden/Miami moderate PM10

nonattainment area. See letter from 

Edward Z. Fox, Director, Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ), to Daniel W. McGovern, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 

dated February 3, 1992. The inventory 

in the 1989 Hayden PM10 Plan identifies 

the ASARCO copper smelter and related 

sources, such as the smelter stack, 

copper ore tailings, ore crushing, the 

slag dump, road dust, smelter building 

fugitives, and copper ore, as the 

principal sources of PM10 emissions in 

the Hayden portion of the Hayden/ 

Miami PM10 nonattainment area. 

In 1994, we proposed a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

1989 Hayden PM10 Plan. See 59 FR 

36116 (July 15, 1994). In our 1994 

proposed action, we identified 

deficiencies in the 1989 Hayden PM10

Plan including the failure of the plan to 

address the Miami portion of the 

Hayden/Miami PM10 nonattainment 

area and the failure to meet the general 

monitoring requirements for the entire 

nonattainment area. (As noted above in 

footnote 2, we have since approved 

ADEQ’s request to split the Hayden and 

Miami portions of the area into separate 

PM10 nonattainment areas.) We have not 

finalized our 1994 proposed limited 

approval/limited disapproval or 

otherwise taken action on the 1989 

Hayden PM10 Plan. 

2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Arizona did not submit the required 

moderate PM10 plan by the November 

15, 1991 deadline for the Nogales 

nonattainment area, and on December 

16, 1991, we made a finding of failure 

to submit the moderate PM10 plan for 

Nogales. See letter from Daniel W. 

McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX, to Fife Symington, Governor 

of Arizona, dated December 16, 1991. 

See 57 FR 19906 (May 8, 1992). In 

response, on June 14, 1993, ADEQ 

submitted the ‘‘Final State 

Implementation Plan for the Nogales 

PM10 Nonattainment Area,’’ June 1993 

(herein referred to as the ‘‘1993 Nogales 

PM10 Plan’’), to EPA as a SIP revision. 

We found the plan to be complete and 

notified the State of our finding by letter 

dated November 30, 1993. 

The 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan 

identifies emissions sources located in 

Mexico as the principal sources 

affecting ambient PM10 concentrations 

in the area, and includes an analysis 

which concludes that the plan would be 

adequate to attain the PM10 NAAQS but 

for emissions emanating from outside 

the United States. Section 179B 

(‘‘International Border Areas’’) of the 

CAA provides EPA with the authority to 

approve such a demonstration. We have 

not taken action to approve or 

disapprove the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan. 

3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10

Nonattainment Area 

Similar to the situation in Hayden, the 

State of Arizona relied upon a SIP 

revision (‘‘Final PM10 State 

Implementation Plan for the Paul Spur 

Group I Area,’’ July 1990) (herein 

referred to as the ‘‘1990 Paul Spur PM10

Plan’’) that it had submitted prior to the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 (in this 

instance, June 25, 1990) to meet the 

requirements of the CAA as amended in 

1990 for the Paul Spur portion of the 

Paul Spur/Douglas moderate PM10

nonattainment area. See letter from 

Edward Z. Fox, Director, ADEQ, to 

Daniel W. McGovern, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated 

February 3, 1992. The 1990 Paul Spur 

PM10 Plan identifies the lime plant 

located at Paul Spur as the only 

significant source of emissions in the 

immediate vicinity and includes control 

measures for this source of emissions. 

ADEQ did not submit the required 

plan for the Douglas portion of the Paul 

Spur/Douglas nonattainment area by the 

November 15, 1991 deadline, and thus, 

on December 16, 1991, we made a 

finding of failure to submit a moderate 

PM10 plan for Douglas portion of Paul 

Spur/Douglas PM10 nonattainment area. 

See letter from Daniel W. McGovern, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 

to Fife Symington, Governor of Arizona, 

dated December 16, 1991. See 57 FR 

19906 (May 8, 1992). In response, on 

June 17, 1993, ADEQ submitted the 

‘‘Final State Implementation Plan for the 

Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Area,’’ 

April 1993 (herein referred to as the 

‘‘1993 Douglas PM10 Plan’’), to EPA as a 

SIP revision. We found the plan to be 

complete by letter dated November 30, 

1993. Similar to the Nogales plan, the 

1993 Douglas PM10 plan identifies 

emissions sources located in Mexico as 

the principal sources of emissions 

affecting ambient PM10 concentrations 

in the area, and includes an analysis 

which concludes that the plan would be 

adequate to attain the PM10 NAAQS but 

for emissions emanating from outside 

the United States. 

A decade later, and based on a 

number of years of ambient data 

showing that the standard had been 

attained, ADEQ withdrew the 1993 

Douglas PM10 Plan. See letter from 

Stephen A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region IX, dated December 22, 

2004. Recently, ADEQ revoked the 2004 

withdrawal of the 1993 Douglas PM10

Plan; thus, once again, the plan is 

subject to EPA approval or disapproval 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67223 

7 In this context, ‘‘neighborhood scale’’ refers to 

conditions throughout some reasonably 

homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions of a few kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 

section 4.6. 

action as a revision to the Arizona SIP. 

See letter from Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Director, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 

dated September 13, 2010. We have not 

taken action to approve or disapprove 

either the 1990 Paul Spur PM10 Plan or 

the 1993 Douglas PM10 Plan. 

II. EPA’s Analysis 

A. What does the air quality data show 

as of the December 31, 1994 attainment 

date? 

ADEQ is responsible for monitoring 

ambient air quality outside the 

metropolitan areas in Arizona. ADEQ 

submits monitoring network plan 

reports to EPA on an annual basis. 

These reports discuss the status of the 

air monitoring network, as required 

under 40 CFR part 58. Beginning in 

2007, EPA reviews these annual plans 

for compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. 

With respect to PM10, we have found 

that ADEQ’s annual network plans meet 

the applicable requirements under 40 

CFR part 58. See EPA letters to ADEQ 

concerning ADEQ’s annual network 

plan reports for years 2007, 2008, and 

2009 that have been placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, we concluded in our 

Technical System Audit Report 

(September 2010) for ADEQ’s ambient 

air quality monitoring program (a copy 

of which has been placed in the docket) 

that ADEQ’s ambient air monitoring 

network currently meets or exceeds the 

requirements for the minimum number 

of monitoring sites designated as 

SLAMS for all of the criteria pollutants, 

and that all of the monitoring sites are 

properly located with respect to 

monitoring objectives, spatial scales and 

other siting criteria. 

1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area 

ADEQ has operated a PM10 monitor at 

the Old Town Jail site, which is near the 

center of the Town of Hayden, for many 

years, including the period 1992 

through 1994. The Old Town Jail 

monitoring site is part of the ADEQ’s 

SLAMS network and is located roughly 

one-half mile west of the ASARCO 

smelter. During the 1992–1994 period, 

ADEQ used a filter-based method (lowvolume dichotomous monitor) to 

monitor ambient PM10 concentrations, 

sampling PM10 concentrations every 

sixth day. The Old Town Jail monitor 

was sited to provide PM10 concentration 

data at a neighborhood scale 7 for the 

purpose of determining source impacts 

from ASARCO operations. Table 1 

below summarizes the PM10

concentration data collected at the Old 

Town Jail site over the 1992–1994 

period. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PM10 MONITORING DATA, HAYDEN NONATTAINMENT AREA, 1992–1994 a

Monitoring site 

Highest 24-hour PM10

concentration (μg/m3) 

Expected 

exceedances 

per year 

1992 1993 1994 1992–1994 

Hayden Old Jail ........................................................................................................... 85 68 67 0.0 

PM10 NAAQS = 150 μg/m3. 

aSource: AQS QuickLook report dated June 23, 2010. 

As noted above, to be considered 

‘‘complete,’’ valid measurements must 

be made for 75% of all the scheduled 

sampling dates in each quarter of the 

year, and generally, three years of 

representative monitoring data that meet 

the 75 percent criterion should be 

utilized, where available. 

During the 1992–1994 period, the data 

collected by ADEQ meets the 

completeness criterion for all quarters 

except for the fourth quarter of year 

1994, when the number of valid samples 

was one short of constituting a complete 

quarter. EPA may find that data not 

meeting the completeness criterion 

suffice to show attainment. See 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(b). 

Relevant considerations that we take 

into account when evaluating whether 

data not meeting the completeness 

criterion would suffice include, but are 

not limited to, monitoring site closures/ 

moves, monitoring diligence, 

consistency and levels of the valid 

concentration measurements that are 

available, and nearby concentrations. 

See, e.g., considerations taken into 

account for analogous circumstances 

involving evaluating of ambient lead 

(Pb) concentrations at 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix F, section 4(d). 

In this instance, we find that data that 

is available is sufficient to determine 

whether the area attained the standard 

by the applicable attainment date. First, 

we note the large extent to which the 

maximum monitored levels during the 

1992–1994 period (67 to 85 μg/m3—see 

table 1 above) fall below the applicable 

standard (150 μg/m3). We also note that 

11 of the 12 quarters in question were 

complete (based on the 75% criterion), 

and that the one quarter that did not 

meet the criterion was but one sample 

short. Further, we have reviewed the 

monitoring data for year 1995, which is 

comprised of four quarters of data 

meeting the completeness criterion, and 

during which the maximum 24-hour 

concentration was, at 108 μg/m3, well 

below the standard, providing further 

evidence that the area attained by the 

applicable attainment date. 

Based on our rationale presented 

above, we find the available data 

sufficient to determine whether the 

Hayden nonattainment area met the 

PM10 standard by December 31, 1994 

(i.e., the applicable attainment date), 

and based on our review of the air 

quality data during the three-year period 

ending with the December 31, 1994 

attainment date (and summarized above 

in table 1), we find that the expected 

number of exceedances per year for the 

Hayden PM10 nonattainment area for 

1992 to 1994 was 0 days per year. With 

less than an annual expected 

exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS of 1.0, these data represent 

attainment of the standard. Therefore, 

EPA has determined that the Hayden 

PM10 nonattainment area attained the 

PM10 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

ADEQ has operated a PM10 monitor at 

the Nogales Post Office site (300 North 

Morley Avenue) for many years, 

including the period 1992 through 1994. 

The Nogales Post Office monitoring site 

is part of the ADEQ’s SLAMS network 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8 In this context, ‘‘middle scale’’ refers to 

conditions characteristic of areas from 100 meters 

to several kilometers. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

D, section 4.6. 

and is located roughly 0.4 mile north of 

the border with Mexico. During year 

1994, ADEQ also collected a total of 120 

samples of 24-hour-average ambient 

PM10 concentrations at three additional 

locations in Nogales, all of which were 

located north of the Post Office Site. 

During the 1992–1994 period, ADEQ 

used a filter-based method (low-volume 

dichotomous monitor) to monitor 

ambient PM10 concentrations in the 

Nogales area. At the Nogales Post Office 

site, the sampling schedule was every 

sixth day. The Nogales Post Office 

monitor was sited to provide PM10

concentration data at a neighborhood 

scale for the purpose of determining 

population exposure. Table 2 below 

summarizes the PM10 concentration data 

collected in the Nogales area over the 

1992–1994 period. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PM10 MONITORING DATA, NOGALES NONATTAINMENT AREA, 1992–1994a

Monitoring site 

Highest 

24-hour 

PM10

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Expected exceedances 

per year 

1992 1993 1992–1994 

Nogales Post Office ......................................................................................................... 153 119 116 0.0 

885 North Carrillo Place .................................................................................................. ................ ................ 52 ................................

156 West Mariposa Road ................................................................................................ ................ ................ 59 ................................

1852 North Mastick Way ................................................................................................. ................ ................ 83 ................................

PM10 NAAQS = 150 μg/m3. The 153 μg/m3 concentration measured in 1992 does not represent an exceedance due to rounding conventions. 

See footnote 1 of this document for a description of the rounding conventions. Measurements at the North Carrillo, West Mariposa, and North 

Mastick sites were not collected in 1992 or 1993. 

a Source: AQS QuickLook report dated June 23, 2010. 

As noted above, to be considered 

‘‘complete,’’ valid measurements must 

be made for 75% of all the scheduled 

sampling dates in each quarter of the 

year, and generally, three years of 

representative monitoring data that meet 

the 75 percent criterion should be 

utilized, where available. 

During the 1992–1994 period, 150 

samples were collected at the Nogales 

Post Office site out of a total of 183 

scheduled sample days. However, on a 

quarter-by-quarter basis, a number of 

quarters (one in 1992, three in 1993, and 

1 in 1994) failed to meet the 75% 

completeness criterion. For three of the 

quarters that failed to meet the 75% 

criterion, the criterion was missed by a 

single sample day, and for the two other 

quarters that failed to meet the 75% 

criterion, the criterion was missed by 

two sample days. In summary, a 

substantial amount of data was collected 

during the quarters that failed to meet 

the 75% criterion, but not enough to 

meet the test. As noted above for the 

Hayden area, EPA may find that data 

not meeting the completeness criterion 

suffice to show attainment. See 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(b). 

Like Hayden, again, we find that data 

is available and sufficient to determine 

whether the Nogales area attained the 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date. First, despite a number of quarters 

that did not meet the 75% criterion, we 

note that a substantial amount of data 

was collected; and, other than two 

samples taken in year 1992 (1st high of 

153 μg/m3 and 2nd high of 147 μg/m3), 

the ambient concentrations that were 

collected were consistently well below 

the 150 μg/m3 standard. Second, we 

take note of the supplemental ambient 

PM10 monitoring data collected by 

ADEQ during 1994 showing ambient 

concentrations at sites north of the Post 

Office site well below the 150 μg/m3

standard (the maximum was 83 μg/m3— 

see table 2, above). Lastly, we have 

reviewed the monitoring data for year 

1995, which is comprised of 53 samples 

out of a total number of scheduled 

sample days of 61, and during which 

the maximum 24-hour concentration 

was, at 123 μg/m3, well below the 

standard, providing further evidence 

that the area attained by the applicable 

attainment date. 

Based on our rationale presented 

above, we find the available data 

sufficient to determine whether the 

Nogales nonattainment area met the 

PM10 standard by December 31, 1994 

(i.e., the applicable attainment date), 

and based on our review of the air 

quality data during the three-year period 

ending with the December 31, 1994 

attainment date (and summarized above 

in table 2), we find that the expected 

number of exceedances per year for the 

Nogales PM10 nonattainment area for 

1992 to 1994 was 0 days per year. With 

less than an annual expected 

exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS of 1.0, these data represent 

attainment of the standard. Therefore, 

EPA has determined that the Nogales 

PM10 nonattainment area attained the 

PM10 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10

Nonattainment Area 

ADEQ has operated PM10 monitors 

near the lime plant at Paul Spur (‘‘Paul 

Spur monitor’’) and within the City of 

Douglas (‘‘Douglas monitor’’) for many 

years, including the period 1992 

through 1994. Both sites are part of the 

ADEQ’s SLAMS network. The Paul Spur 

monitor is located near the intersection 

of Paul Spur Road and State Route 80. 

During the 1992–1994 period, the 

Douglas monitor was located at 15th 

Street Park, approximately one mile 

north of the border with Mexico. In 

1998, ADEQ re-located the Douglas 

monitor to its current location, the Red 

Cross building just across from the park 

on 15th Street. 

During the 1992–1994 period, ADEQ 

used a filter-based method (low-volume 

dichotomous monitor) to monitor 

ambient PM10 concentrations at both the 

Paul Spur and Douglas sites, sampling 

PM10 concentrations every sixth day. 

The Paul Spur monitor was sited to 

provide PM10 concentration data at a 

middle scale 8 for the purpose of 

determining source impacts from the 

chemical lime plant. The Douglas 

monitor was sited to provide PM10

concentration data at a neighborhood 

scale for the purpose of determining 

population exposure. Table 3 below 

summarizes the PM10 concentration data 

collected at the Paul Spur and Douglas 

monitors over the 1992–1994 period. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67225 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF PM10 MONITORING DATA, PAUL SPUR/DOUGLAS NONATTAINMENT AREA, 1992–1994 a

Monitoring site 

Highest 24-hour PM10 concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Expected 

exceedances 

per year 

1992 1993 1994 1992–1994 

Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant .................................................................................. 132 69 77 0.0 

Douglas (15th Street Park) .......................................................................................... 138 66 96 0.0 

PM10 NAAQS = 150 μg/m3. 

aSource: AQS QuickLook report dated June 23, 2010. 

As noted above, to be considered 

‘‘complete,’’ valid measurements must 

be made for 75% of all the scheduled 

sampling dates in each quarter of the 

year, and generally, three years of 

representative monitoring data that meet 

the 75 percent criterion should be 

utilized, where available. 

During the 1992–1994 period, the data 

collected by ADEQ meets the 

completeness criterion for all quarters at 

both the Paul Spur and Douglas 

monitors except for the second quarter 

of year 1992 at the Paul Spur monitor 

and the fourth quarter of year 1992 at 

both monitors. During the second 

quarter of 1992, the Paul Spur monitor 

was two samples short of the 75% 

criterion, and in the fourth quarter of 

1992, both monitors were one sample 

short of the criterion. As noted for 

Hayden and Nogales, EPA may find that 

data not meeting the completeness 

criterion suffice to show attainment. See 

40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 

2.3(b). 

In this instance, we find that the 

available data is sufficient to determine 

whether the area attained the standard 

by the applicable attainment date. First, 

we note the large extent to which the 

maximum monitored levels during the 

1992–1994 period (132 μg/m3 at the 

Paul Spur monitor and 138 μg/m3 at the 

Douglas monitor—see table 3 above) fall 

below the applicable standard (150 μg/ 

m3). We also note that 10 of the 12 

quarters in question were complete 

(based on the 75% criterion) at the Paul 

Spur monitor and 11 of the 12 quarters 

in question were complete at the 

Douglas monitor, and that the quarters 

that did not meet the criterion were but 

one or two samples short. Further, we 

have reviewed the monitoring data for 

year 1995, which is comprised of three 

quarters of data meeting the 

completeness criterion at the Paul Spur 

monitor and four quarters of data 

meeting the completeness criterion at 

the Douglas site, and during which the 

maximum 24-hour concentration was, at 

77 μg/m3, (Paul Spur) and 63 μg/m3

(Douglas), well below the standard, 

providing further evidence that the area 

attained by the applicable attainment 

date. 

Based on our rationale presented 

above, we find the available data 

sufficient to determine whether the Paul 

Spur/Douglas nonattainment area met 

the PM10 standard by December 31, 

1994 (i.e., the applicable attainment 

date), and based on our review of the air 

quality data during the three-year period 

ending with the December 31, 1994 

attainment date (and summarized above 

in table 3), we find that the expected 

number of exceedances per year for the 

Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 nonattainment 

area for 1992 to 1994 was 0 days per 

year. With less than an annual expected 

exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS of 1.0, these data represent 

attainment of the standard. Therefore, 

EPA has determined that the Paul Spur/ 

Douglas PM10 nonattainment area 

attained the PM10 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. 

B. Does more recent air quality data also 

show attainment? 

1. Hayden PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Since 1994, ADEQ has continued to 

operate a PM10 monitor at the Old Town 

Jail in Hayden. ADEQ has, however, 

changed monitoring methods, and, for a 

while, operated a second monitor for 

precision measurement (audit) 

purposes. Since the second quarter of 

2009, ADEQ has operated a single 

TEOM (i.e., tapered element oscillating 

microbalance) monitor on a continuousrunning basis at the Old Town Jail site 

in Hayden. In addition, since 2003, the 

Pinal County Air Quality Control 

District (AQCD) has operated a PM10 hivolume sampler on an every sixth day 

schedule along the Florence-Kelvin 

Highway near Riverside, Arizona, in the 

western portion of the Hayden PM10

nonattainment area (‘‘Riverside 

monitor’’). 

While not all years since 1994 have 

complete data (based on the 75% 

criterion), only one exceedance (158 μg/ 

m3 in 1997) at the Hayden site was 

monitored until year 2006, when ADEQ 

added the TEOM working in parallel 

with the one-day-in-six partisol sampler 

at the Old Town Jail site. In 2006 and 

2007, four and five exceedances were 

measured by the TEOM, respectively. 

ADEQ did not operate the TEOM in 

2008, and in 2009, ADEQ resumed 

operation of the TEOM beginning in the 

second quarter. Only one exceedance 

(225 μg/m3) was measured by the TEOM 

over the final three quarters of 2009. 

Meanwhile, ADEQ continued operating 

the partisol sampler over the 2006–2008 

period but discontinued the sampler 

after the end of the first quarter of 2009. 

At the Riverside monitor, Pinal County 

AQCD has measured no exceedances of 

the PM10 standard, and maximum 24- 

hour PM10 concentrations measured 

there are well below the standard. 

During the most recent three-year 

calendar period (2007–2009), at the 

Hayden monitoring site, neither the 

partisol sampler nor the TEOM provide 

a complete data set for the purpose of 

determining whether the area is 

currently attaining the standard. The 

partisol sampler provides data for 9 of 

the 12 quarters, while the TEOM 

provides data for 7 of the 12 quarters. 

Based on the partisol sampler, this 

incomplete data set suggests that the 

area is currently attaining the standard 

because no exceedances were measured. 

The samples collected using the TEOM, 

however, suggest otherwise, with a total 

of six exceedances over the 

discontinuous course of its operation. 

Based on the TEOM, six exceedances 

over the course of this period of time is 

sufficient for us to conclude that the 

Hayden PM10 nonattainment area is not 

currently attaining the standard. In 

2010, through the first two quarters, the 

TEOM has not recorded any 

exceedances; if this trend continues, 

then, next year, based on 2008–2010 

data, the current attainment status of the 

Hayden area may change once again. 

2. Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Since 1994, ADEQ has continued to 

operate a PM10 monitoring site at the 

Post Office in Nogales, but has replaced 

the dichot sampler with a partisol 

sampler, and has added a continuousVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 01, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
67226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9Both of these exceedances were flagged by 

ADEQ as exceptional events, but EPA has not 

concurred on the flags. 

10The collocated (audit) monitor measured two 

exceedances during 2008, but on both sample-days, 

the primary monitor also took valid samples, and 

thus, the measurements from the co-located 

samplers are not used to report air quality from the 

site. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section 3.2.5. 

running beta attenuation monitor 

(BAM). 

The data from AQS indicates that, 

while the area attained the standard by 

the applicable attainment date, ambient 

PM10 concentrations worsened in the 

late 1990’s to the point where 

exceedances under current conditions 

have been measured nearly every year. 

Based on the past three calendar years 

(2007–2009) of complete quality-assured 

data, we find that the annual expected 

exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS for the Nogales area is 9.7 

(based on the BAM). Based on the 

partisol sampler, the annual expected 

exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS of 4.2, but the higher of the two 

samplers is used to determine whether 

the area is attaining the standard. 

Because the annual expected 

exceedance rate for the area (9.7) is 

greater than 1.0, we conclude that the 

area is not currently attaining the PM10

standard. 

EPA’s determination that the Nogales 

area is not currently attaining the PM10

standard does not result in 

reclassification of this ‘‘moderate’’ area 

to ‘‘serious’’ by operation of law because 

such reclassification is tied to air quality 

conditions ‘‘as of the attainment date,’’ 

(see CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 

188(b)(2)), and, as discussed in section 

II.A.2 of this document, we have 

concluded that the Nogales area attained 

the standard by the attainment date. We 

do, however, plan to address the PM10

planning needs for the Nogales area over 

the next few years. We also note that the 

Nogales planning area has been 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles 

(generally referring to particles less than 

or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, 

PM2.5) (74 FR 58688, November 13, 

2009), which has triggered a separate air 

quality planning process. 

3. Paul Spur/Douglas PM10

Nonattainment Area 

Since 1994, ADEQ has continued to 

operate PM10 monitoring sites near the 

Paul Spur Chemical Lime Plant (‘‘Paul 

Spur monitor’’) and in the City of 

Douglas (‘‘Douglas monitor’’). At the 

Paul Spur monitoring site, ADEQ 

replaced the dichot sampler with a 

partisol sampler, and added a second 

partisol sampler for precision 

measurement purposes. Both monitors 

continue to run on a one-day-in-six 

monitoring schedule. At the Douglas 

monitoring site, ADEQ replaced the 

dichot sampler with a partisol sampler 

and, in 1998, re-located the monitor to 

a nearby location, the Red Cross 

building just across from the park on 

15th Street, where it continues to 

operate today. 

The data from AQS indicates that 

only two exceedances of the PM10

standard have been measured in the 

Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment area 

over the past 15 years. Both were 

measured at the Paul Spur monitoring 

site. One exceedance, 206 μg/m3, was 

measured in 2003 and the other (159 μg/ 

m3) was measured in 2008.9 Based on 

the past three calendar years (2007– 

2009) of complete quality-assured data, 

we find that the annual expected 

exceedance rate for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS for the Paul Spur/Douglas area 

is 2.0 (which is calculated by taking into 

account the one-day-in-six monitoring 

schedule).10 Because the annual 

expected exceedance rate for the area 

(2.0) is greater than 1.0, we conclude 

that the area is not currently attaining 

the PM10 standard. 

EPA’s determination that the Paul 

Spur/Douglas area is not currently 

attaining the PM10 standard does not 

result in reclassification of this 

‘‘moderate’’ area to ‘‘serious’’ by 

operation of law because such 

reclassification is tied to air quality 

conditions ‘‘as of the attainment date,’’ 

(see CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 

188(b)(2)), and, as discussed in section 

II.A.3 of this document, we have 

concluded that the Paul Spur/Douglas 

area attained the standard by the 

attainment date. We do, however, plan 

to address the PM10 planning needs for 

the Paul Spur/Douglas area over the 

next few years. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

Under section 188(b)(2) of the Clean 

Air Act, and based on sufficient, 

quality-assured data, we find that the 

Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/ 

Douglas PM10 nonattainment areas 

attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date, 

December 31, 1994. On the basis of this 

determination, EPA concludes that 

these three ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment 

areas are not subject to reclassification 

to ‘‘serious’’ by operation of law. This 

action is not a redesignation to 

attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) 

because we have not yet approved 

maintenance plans for these areas as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA or determined that the 

areas have met the other CAA 

requirements for redesignation. 

On the basis of a review of more 

recent ambient monitoring data, EPA 

has determined that the Hayden, 

Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas 

nonattainment areas are not currently 

attaining the PM10 standard. EPA’s 

determination that the Hayden, Nogales, 

and Paul Spur/Douglas areas are not 

currently attaining the PM10 standard 

does not result in reclassification of 

these ‘‘moderate’’ areas to ‘‘serious’’ by 

operation of law because such 

reclassification is tied to air quality 

conditions ‘‘as of the attainment date,’’ 

(see CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 

188(b)(2)), and EPA has determined that 

both areas attained the standard by the 

applicable attainment date. 

We are publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipates no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, 

EPA is publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal should 

adverse comments be filed. This action 

will be effective January 3, 2011, 

without further notice unless the EPA 

receives relevant adverse comments by 

December 2, 2010. 

If we receive such comments, then we 

will publish a document withdrawing 

the final rule and informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. We will not 

institute a second comment period. 

Parties interested in commenting should 

so at this time. If no such comments are 

received, the public is advised that this 

rule will be effective on January 3, 2011 

and no further action will be taken on 

the proposed rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action merely makes a 

determination based on air quality data 

and does not impose any additional 

Federal requirements. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67227 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is 

not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 3, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Particulate matter, Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27634 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 74 and 78 

[WT Docket No. 02–55, ET Docket No. 00– 

258 and 95–18; FCC 10–179] 

Relocation Cost Sharing in the 

Broadcast Auxiliary Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document concludes the 

Commission’s longstanding efforts to 

relocate the Broadcast Auxiliary Service 

(BAS) from the 1990–2110 MHz band to 

the 2025–2110 MHz band, freeing up 35 

megahertz of spectrum in order to foster 

the development of new and innovative 

services. This decision addresses the 

outstanding matter of Sprint Nextel 

Corporation’s (Sprint Nextel) inability to 

agree with Mobile Satellite Service 

(MSS) operators in the band on the 

sharing of the costs to relocate the BAS 

incumbents. To resolve this controversy, 

the Commission applies its timehonored relocation principles for 

emerging technologies previously 

adopted for the BAS band to the instant 

relocation process, where delays and 

unanticipated developments have left 

ambiguities and misconceptions among 

the relocating parties. In the process, the 

Commission balances the 

responsibilities for and benefits of 

relocating incumbent BAS operations 

among all the new entrants in the 

different services that will operate in the 

band. 

DATES: Effective December 2, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Oros, (202) 418–0636, Policy 

and Rules Division, Office of 

Engineering and Technology, 

Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Fifth 

Report and Order, Eleventh Report and 

Order, Sixth Report and Order, and 

Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 02– 

55, ET Docket No. 00–258 and 95–18, 

adopted September 29, 2010, and 

released September 29, 2010. The full 

text of this document is available on the 

Commission’s Internet site at 

www.fcc.gov. It is also available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text of this document also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplication contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554; telephone (202) 488–5300; fax 

(202) 488–5563; e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Summary of the Fifth Report and 

Order, Eleventh Report and Order, 

Sixth Report and Order, and 

Declaratory Ruling 

1. This Report and Order and 

Declaratory Ruling concludes the 

Commission’s longstanding efforts to 

relocate the Broadcast Auxiliary Service 

(BAS) from the 1990–2110 MHz band to 

the 2025–2110 MHz band, freeing up 35 

megahertz of spectrum in order to foster 

the development of new and innovative 

services that can provide mobile 

broadband and nationwide 

communications capabilities. This 

decision in particular addresses the 

outstanding matter of Sprint Nextel 

Corporation’s (Sprint Nextel) inability to 

agree with Mobile Satellite Service 

(MSS) operators in the band on the 

sharing of the costs to relocate the BAS 

incumbents. To date, Sprint has 

shouldered the entire cost of this 

relocation, which was completed on 

July 15, 2010. 

2. To resolve this important issue, the 

Commission applied its time-honored 

relocation principles for emerging 

technologies previously adopted for the 

BAS band to the instant relocation 

process, where delays and 

unanticipated developments have left 

ambiguities and misconceptions among 

the relocating parties. These principles 

have been a fundamental part of the 

Commission’s past efforts to unlock 

value and promote investment through 

the relocation process. In the end, the 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES