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. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 552 

Prisoners. 

Harley G. Lappin, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

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 

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. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 

http://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: http:// 

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. 

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 Branch, EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta 

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth, 

Street, SW., 12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 

562–9033.

Tennessee. 

Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 

665–7242.

Texas. 

Monica Morales, Chief, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, EPA 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, CO 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6936.

Montana. 

Lisa Hanf, Chief, Air Planning 

Office, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 

972–3854.

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 

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, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1By ‘‘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. 

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. 

4As 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. 

6The 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. 

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 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 (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 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 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) 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 6059 

7Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Mary D. Nichols, 

California Air Resources Board, dated March 11, 

2010. 

8Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Mary D. Nichols, 

California Air Resources Board, dated April 2, 2010. 

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). 

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. 

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 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

10 2007–2009 data show that all other Pinal 

County monitors are in attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

11Letter from Al Armendariz, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 6, to Rick Perry, 

Governor of Texas, dated April 28, 2010. 

‘‘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 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 

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. 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 http://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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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. 

■ 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. 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

* * * * * 

ARIZONA—PM2.5

[24-hour NAAQS] 

Designated area 

Designation for the 1997 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa

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; 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ARIZONA—PM2.5—Continued 

[24-hour NAAQS] 

Designated area 

Designation for the 1997 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa

Date 1 Type Date 2 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: 

* * * * * * * 

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, excluding lands of the 

Gila River Indian Community and Ak-Chin Indian Community.

................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

Yavapai County ...................................................... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Yuma County ......................................................... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Lands of the Gila River Indian Community in Pinal 

County.

................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 6065 

ARIZONA—PM2.5—Continued 

[24-hour NAAQS] 

Designated area 

Designation for the 1997 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

Lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community in Pinal 

County.

................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

■ 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 

‘‘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. 

■ 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] 

Designated area 

Designation for the 1997 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa

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. 

*******

■ 4. In § 81.327, the ‘‘Montana—PM2.5

(24-hour NAAQS)’’ table is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing the entry for ‘‘Ravalli 

County’’. 

■ 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. 

§ 81.327 Montana. 

* * * * * 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

MONTANA—PM2.5

[24-hour NAAQS] 

Designated area 

Designation for the 1997 NAAQXa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

Statewide: 

* * * * * * * 

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

*******

■ 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: 

§ 81.343 Tennessee. 

* * * * * 

TENNESSEE—PM2.5

[24-hour NAAQS] 

Designated area 

Designation for the 1997 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa

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 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES