+(,121/,1(

Citation: 76 Fed. Reg. 1532 2011 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Apr 18 10:29:13 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

State

State citation Title/subject approval/ submittalEPaprvldtExanioEPA approval date Explanation

date

Section 116.922 ........ Notice of Final Action ................. 12/16/1999 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.926 ........ Permit Fee .................................. 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.928 ........ Delegation .................................. 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.930 ........ Amendments and Alterations 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page numIssued Under this Subchapter. ber where document begins].

Section 116.931 ........ Renewal ..................................... 12/16/1999 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

* 3. Section 52.2273 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (f) to read as

follows:

§52.2273 Approval status.

(f) EPA is disapproving the Texas SIP

revision submittals under 30 TAC

Chapter 116-Control of Air Pollution

by Permits for New Construction or

Modification as follows:

(1) Subchapter I-Electric Generating

Facility Permits-Section 116.911(a)(2)

(Electric Generating Facility Permit),

adopted December 16, 1999, and

submitted January 3, 2000.

[FR Doe. 2011-222 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0718; FRL-9250-1]

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: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is making final

determinations 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 (PM1 o) by their applicable

attainment dates of December 31, 1994.

On the basis of these determinations,

EPA concludes that these three

"moderate" nonattainment areas are not

subject to reclassification by operation

of law to "serious." EPA is not finalizing

determinations with respect to the air

quality in these areas subsequent to

their 1994 attainment dates.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is

effective on February 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket

number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0718 for

this action. The index to the docket 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:

Table of Contents

I. Context for Today's Actions

II. Summary of Proposed Actions

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

IV. Final Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Context for Today's Actions

On November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67220),

we published a direct final rule that

made certain determinations we are

making in this document. On November

2, 2010 (75 FR 67303), we also

published a corresponding proposed

rule in the event that we received

adverse comment leading us to

withdraw the direct final rule. In our

direct final rule, we indicated that we

would withdraw the direct final rule if

we received adverse comments, and

address public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. On November 3, 2010,

we received adverse comments, and

subsequently withdrew the direct final

rule (75 FR 72964, November 29, 2010).

Today, we take final action based on our

November 2, 2010 proposed rule and

our consideration of the public

comments received.

II. Summary of Proposed Actions

In our November 2, 2010 proposed

rule, we proposed to determine,

pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the

Clean Air Act, that three Arizona

"moderate" PM10 nonattainment areas

(Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/

Douglas) had attained the PM1 o NAAQS

by the applicable attainment date

(December 31, 1994), and that, based on

these proposed determinations, we

concluded that none of these areas is

subject to reclassification to serious by

operation of law. We also proposed to

find that more recent data for 2007-

2009 show none of the areas is currently

attaining the standard. More detailed

information is contained in the

November 2 direct final rule, which is

summarized in the paragraphs that

follow.

First, our direct final rule described

the relevant NAAQS, 150 micrograms

per cubic meter (pg/ms), 24-hour

average, against which monitored

ambient concentrations of PM10 in the

three subject areas (Hayden,1 Nogales,2

'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 square 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).

2 The Nogales planning area covers approximately

70 square miles along the border with Mexico

within Santa Cruz County. The only significant

population center in this area is the city of Nogales

with a population of roughly 21,000. The

population of Nogales, Mexico, which lies just

1532

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1532 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

and Paul Spur/Douglas 3) are to be

compared in evaluating whether the

areas attained the standard. Next, we

described the designations and

classifications of these three areas, all of

which are classified as "moderate"

nonattainment with an applicable

attainment date of December 31, 1994

under CAA section 188(c). Also, we

discussed the status of the various air

quality plans submitted by the State of

Arizona to address moderate area PM10

requirements in the three subject areas

(Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas).

In our direct final rule, we also

described how EPA makes attainment

determinations. As explained therein,

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 an "exceedance"),

as determined in accordance with 40

CFR part 50, appendix K, is equal to or

less than one. 4 See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40

CFR part 50, appendix K. Generally,

EPA determines whether an area's air

quality is meeting the PM1 o NAAQS

based upon complete (minimum of 75

percent of scheduled PM1 o samples

recorded in each quarter), qualityassured 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.

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

standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and

appendix K.

across the border from Nogales, Arizona is roughly

160,000.

3 The Paul Spur/Douglas planning area covers

approximately 220 square miles along the border

with Mexico within Cochise County. Cities and

towns within this area include Douglas (population

roughly 20,000) and Pirtleville (population roughly

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

which lies just across the border from Douglas is

roughly 70,000.

4 An exceedance is defined as a daily value that

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

M 3) after rounding to the nearest 10 pg/m 3 (i.e.,

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

Thus, a recorded value of 154 pg/m 3 would not be

an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 pg/

m 3 whereas a recorded value of 155 pg/m 3 would

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160

pg/m 3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.

Based on the available monitoring

data for the 1992-1994 period collected

in the three subject Arizona

nonattainment areas (Hayden, Nogales, 5

and Paul Spur/Douglas) and the

application of the PM10 NAAQS

attainment criteria described above, we

proposed to determine that all three

areas attained the PM10 NAAQS by the

December 31, 1994 attainment date for

"moderate" areas, and thus, are not

subject to reclassification to "serious" by

operation of law under CAA section

188(b)(2). In addition, we proposed to

find that, although the three areas

attained the standard by the applicable

attainment date, none appears to be

currently attaining based on the most

recent available data, although Hayden

appears likely to attain in the near

future if current trends continue. We

indicated that we plan to address the

PM1 o needs for Nogales and Paul Spur/

Douglas areas over the next few years.

In today's action, EPA is not finalizing

any of the proposed determinations

with respect to recent data. Instead, we

plan to further assess recent data,

including data available for 2010 and

2011, in the context of future

rulemaking actions on the submitted,

but not yet approved, air quality plans

for these areas. Section 188(b)(2)

obligates EPA to make a determination

only as to whether these areas have

attained by their applicable 1994

attainment dates, and we are not

required by that section to make

determinations regarding subsequent

time periods. Other portions of the

Clean Air Act authorize EPA to address

current air quality issues as needed

through separate statutory authority and

mechanisms.

Please see our November 2, 2010

direct final rule for more information

about our proposal of the same date.

III. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

As noted previously, we published a

proposed rule (75 FR 67303) on

5 Table 2 ("Summary of PM10 Monitoring Data,

Nogales Nonattainment Area, 1992-1994"), as

published in our November 2, 2010 direct final rule,

contains a publisher's error that erroneously

combines certain columns and rows and thereby

causes a mismatch between concentrations and the

corresponding years in which they were monitored.

The correct values for the highest 24-hour PM10 concentrations (pg/m 3

) are 153 in 1992, 119 for

1993, and 116 for 1994 from the Nogales Post Office

monitor. Also, the maximum concentrations shown

for the other three monitors located in Nogales were

collected in 1994, not 1993. These errors do not

appear in the version of the direct final rule that

was signed by the EPA Region IX Regional

Administrator. In any event, these errors would not

have affected the outcome of our attainment

determinations since none of the values for any of

the years exceeded 154 pg/m 3.

November 2, 2010. We received

comments from WildEarth Guardians

("WildEarth"), dated November 3, 2010,

challenging EPA's interpretation of CAA

section 188(b)(2) that limits

reclassifications by operation of law to

the air quality conditions as of the

applicable attainment date.

Comment: WildEarth contends that

section 188(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act

does not state that the EPA is limited

only to considering air quality data up

until the attainment date when it makes

its finding, but rather requires any

moderate nonattainment area that fails

to attain "after the applicable attainment

date" to be reclassified to "serious"

regardless of whether EPA makes a

timely finding.

WildEarth finds further support for its

interpretation by noting that CAA

section 188(b)(2) uses both past-tense

and present-tense wording with regards

to the context of EPA's assessment of an

area's attainment status. Specifically,

the statute states that EPA's finding "shall determine whether the area

attained * * " (emphasis added), but

then states "If the Administrator finds

that any Moderate Area is not in

attainment * * " (emphasis added).

WildEarth contends that use of both the

past-tense and present-tense in this

context indicates that, although the

Clean Air Act intended EPA to assess an

area's attainment status based on

whether it attained the NAAQS by the

attainment date, it also required that a

moderate nonattainment area be

reclassified to "serious" if it "is not in

attainment" at the time the EPA makes

its finding. If EPA's assessment were to

be limited only to whether an area "attained" in the past, WildEarth

contends that it would render

meaningless the Clean Air Act's

substantive requirement that a moderate

area be bumped up to "serious" if it "is

not in attainment" when EPA makes its

finding. WildEarth contends that, as

such, EPA's interpretation reads a

substantive provision out of the Clean

Air Act.

Response: First, we note that

WildEarth does not object to any aspect

of EPA's proposed rulemaking other

than the interpretation as to the legal

consequences that they contend would

flow from finalizing determinations

that, although the three areas attained

by their applicable 1994 attainment

dates, sixteen years later they are not

currently in attainment. First, we note

that in today's rulemaking EPA is not

finalizing any proposed determinations

with respect to the air quality in these

areas subsequent to the areas' applicable

dates. Nor does section 188(b)(2) impose

such an obligation. Pursuant to section

1533

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1533 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

188(b)(2), EPA is finalizing here its

determinations that the areas attained

the standard "by that [applicable

attainment] date." Section 188(b)(2) does

not impose upon EPA any obligation to

make a final determination of

attainment except with respect to an

area's applicable attainment date.

Thus, it is not necessary for the

purposes of our final actions here,

which are limited to determinations of

attainment as of the areas' applicable

attainment dates, to respond to

WildEarth's assertions regarding the

legal consequences of determinations

regarding air quality in subsequent

decades. Nevertheless, we note our

disagreement with WildEarth's

interpretation that CAA section

188(b)(2) would require reclassification

of any moderate PM10 nonattainment

area if EPA were to make a final

determination that the area was not

attaining after the applicable attainment

date, regardless of the air quality

conditions as of the applicable

attainment date itself.

EPA's interpretation of section

188(b)(2) as requiring and authorizing

reclassification to serious based only on

air quality conditions as of the

applicable attainment date, and not

thereafter, is confirmed by a reading of

that section in its entirety:

Within 6 months following the applicable

attainment date for a PM-10 nonattainment

area, the Administrator shall determine

whether the area attained the standard by

that date. If the Administrator finds that any

Moderate Area is not in attainment after the

applicable attainment date-

(A) The area shall be reclassified by

operation of law as a Serious Area; and

(B) the Administrator shall publish a notice

in the Federal Register no later than 6

months following the attainment date,

identifying the area as having failed to attain

and identifying the reclassification described

under subparagraph (A).

While the second sentence of section

188(b)(2) contains the language quoted

by WildEarth ("any Moderate Area is not

in attainment after the applicable

attainment date"), it is clear that in the

context of the first sentence of the

provision, which is the sentence that

establishes the duty to make an

attainment determination, that the duty

is to "determine whether the area

attained the standard by that date

[referring to the phrase "applicable

attainment date" in the opening clause

of the first sentence]." Thus, EPA's duty

is to determine whether the area

attained by its attainment date and the

language in the second sentence

regarding a finding after the attainment

date may reasonably be interpreted as

referring to the date the finding is made,

which would necessarily be after the

attainment date, not to the date used in

the determination as the benchmark for

determining attainment.

Further, the second sentence of CAA

section 188(b)(2), i.e., the one that

includes the language cited by

WildEarth ("any Moderate Area is not in

attainment after the applicable

attainment date"), includes two

subparagraphs, one of which provides

for reclassification of a moderate area to

serious by operation of law and another

that refers to publication of a notice in

the Federal Register six months after

the attainment date, identifying the area "as having failed to attain" that clearly

relates back to the earlier, legally

relevant attainment date (in this case,

December 31, 1994). Thus, whether

EPA's obligation under CAA section

188(b)(2) is viewed in its entirety, or

whether the second sentence of CAA

section 188(b)(2) is viewed in isolation,

it is clear that the question of whether

an area must be reclassified is

considered along with the question of

whether an area has achieved

attainment by the attainment date.6 To

accept WildEarth's interpretation would

be to ignore the reference to a specific

point in time ("no later than 6 months

following the attainment date") for

publishing a notice in subparagraph (B)

of CAA section 188(b)(2) in identifying

the appropriate benchmark for

reclassifying moderate areas to serious

under subparagraph (A). 7

6 EPA's sole obligation under CAA section

188(b)(2) is to determine whether the three Arizona

areas attained the PM10 standard by the applicable

attainment date, and while the statute requires EPA

to make this determination within six months of the

applicable attainment date, the applicable

attainment date (in this case, December 31, 1994)

remains the same no matter when EPA actually

makes the determination. EPA was not obligated in

the November 2, 2010 proposed rule, nor in this

final rule, to determine whether the areas are

attaining the standard at the present time. As stated

above, EPA is not here finalizing any

determinations as to the current air quality in the

area, but is merely noting what more recent

monitoring data suggest about the current air

quality area quality in these areas, sixteen years

after the 1994 attainment dates that are the subject

of the final rulemaking here. We included the

observations about current air quality in our

proposed rule because we believe that such

observations, and the related discussion of future

Agency actions, is of as much public interest, if not

more, as are the determinations of the aft quality

conditions that occurred sixteen years ago.

7 While EPA believes that the plain language of

section 188(b)(2) supports EPA's interpretation that

reclassifications to "serious" are to be based only on

aft quality conditions as of the applicable

attainment date, and not thereafter, EPA believes

that, to the extent section 188(b)(2) is ambiguous,

EPA's interpretation is reasonable in that it is

consistent with the statutory scheme for SIP

revisions upon findings of failure to attain under

subpart 1 and for mandatory reclassifications under

subparts 2 and 3 for ozone and carbon monoxide

areas. See CAA sections 179(c) and (d), 181(b)(2)

Commenter's interpretation of section

188(b)(2) fails to harmonize the second

sentence of the section with the first

sentence and with the sentences that

follow. Indeed, it could more plausibly

be argued that the second sentence adds

a cumulative condition for

reclassification-that is, an area will be

reclassified if and only it fails to attain

by its attainment date and "if the

Administrator finds [the area] is not in

attainment after the applicable

attainment date." Contrary to

commenter's contention, EPA does not

believe that Congress intended for the

language regarding determining

attainment as of the attainment date not

to apply when an attainment

determination occurs more than six

months after the attainment date. The

second sentence of section 188(b)(2)

does not somehow override the

language of the first sentence and

require reclassification if an area slips

back into nonattainment after its

attainment date. EPA's reading is

consistent with the language of section

188(b)(2) and with other provisions of

the Clean Air Act, as well as with its

structure and purpose. EPA believes

that other parts of the Act, notably

section 110(k)(5), provide the means to

address nonattainment that occurs after

an area's attainment date. Contrary to

commenter's contention, EPA's reading

does not "nullif[y]" applicable text.

Rather, EPA is properly reading

188(b)(2) as requiring EPA to determine

whether an area has attained by its

attainment date, with reclassification as

a consequence for areas that fail to do

SO.

In the present case, the air quality

data from the years 1992-1994 are the

relevant data for determining whether

the three Arizona areas must be

reclassified to serious because their

applicable attainment date is December

31, 1994, and because we have

and 186(b)(2) and compare the language from these

sections to section 188(b)(2). While the language for

such SIP revisions under subpart 1 and for

reclassifications for ozone and carbon monoxide

areas under subparts 2 and 3 uses slightly different

language to link SIP revisions and reclassifications

solely to air quality "as of the attainment date" than

the language for reclassification of PMo areas under

subpart 4, we find no reason that Congress would

have established a different scheme for PM10 areas

under subpart 4 than generally applicable under

subpart 1 or for ozone or carbon monoxide areas

under subparts 2 and 3. For further explanation of

EPA's interpretation of reclassification under the

Clean Air Act, see the responses to comments in

EPA's final Determination of Attainment of 1-hour

Ozone Standard as of November 15, 1993 for the

Birmingham, AL Marginal Ozone Nonattainment

Area (67 FR 67113, November 4, 2002). To the

extent relevant here, EPA reaffirms and

incorporates by reference the responses to

comments contained in our November 4, 2002 final

rule.

1534

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1534 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

determined that the areas did in fact

attain by the applicable attainment date,

they are not subject to reclassification to

serious by operation of law under CAA

section 188(b)(2).

This does not mean that the Clean Air

Act provides no means to address

NAAQS violations in areas that had

initially attained the standard by the

applicable attainment date but then

experience subsequent violations years

after the applicable attainment date. For

example, EPA could issue a "SIP call"

under CAA section 110(k)(5) if EPA

were to determine that the SIP is

"substantially inadequate" to attain the

PM1 o NAAQS in areas where violations

of the PM10 NAAQS occur after the

applicable attainment date. Such SIP

calls require the State to revise the SIP

as necessary to correct the inadequacies.

The SIP call, unlike reclassification, is

capable of addressing and correcting the

specific circumstances causing

nonattainment sixteen years after the

applicable attainment date. While EPA

has no current plans to issue SIP calls

for any of the three subject Arizona

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas,

EPA is working with the State of

Arizona to update the state's earliersubmitted, but not yet EPA-approved air

quality plans. EPA intends to ensure

that the plans meet all applicable

requirements for moderate PM10

nonattainment areas through both

cooperative efforts with the State and

through subsequent EPA rulemaking

actions on the updated plans.

IV. Final Action

EPA has reviewed the comments that

have been submitted, and concluded

that none of them convince us to change

our action as proposed on November 2,

2010 with respect to determinations of

attainment as of the applicable

attainment date. Thus, under section

188(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, and

based on sufficient, quality-assured

data, we take final action to determine

that the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul

Spur/Douglas PM10 nonattainment areas

attained the 24-hour PM1o 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.

V. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

This action merely make

determinations 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.);

* 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 March 14, 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. 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: December 30, 2010.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

[FR Doe. 2011-221 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance)

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified

BFEs are made final for the

communities listed below. The BFEs

and modified BFEs are the basis for the

floodplain management measures that

each community is required either to

adopt or to show evidence of being

already in effect in order to qualify or

remain qualified for participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing

BFEs and modified BFEs for each

community. This date may be obtained

by contacting the office where the maps

are available for inspection as indicated

in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each

community are available for inspection

at the office of the Chief Executive

Officer of each community. The

1535

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1535 2011