Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1525 

(12) The National Declassification 

Center (NDC). 

(f) NARA uses its office, program, and 

other official logos (usually in 

conjunction with the agency logo) for 

official business, which includes, but is 

not limited to: 

* * * * * 

(g) Use of logos by others. NARA logos 

may be used by the public and other 

Federal agencies for events or activities 

co-sponsored by NARA, but only with 

the written approval of the Archivist or 

his designee. See Subpart C for 

procedures to request approval for use. 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 4. Revise the heading for § 1200.8 to 

read as follows: 

§ 1200.8 How do I request to use the 

official seals and logos? 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 5, 2011. 

David S. Ferriero, 

Archivist of the United States. 

[FR Doc. 2011–492 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0031; FRL–9248– 

9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to Rules and Regulations for 

Control of Air Pollution; Permitting of 

Grandfathered and Electing Electric 

Generating Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove revisions of the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ, or 

Commission) on January 3, 2000, and 

July 31, 2002, as supplemented on 

August 5, 2009. These revisions are to 

regulations of the TCEQ that relate to 

application and permitting procedures 

for grandfathered electric generating 

facilities (EGFs). The revisions address 

a mandate by the Texas Legislature 

under Senate Bill 7 to achieve nitrogen 

oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

particulate matter (PM) emission 

reductions from grandfathered EGFs. 

The emissions reductions will 

contribute to achieving attainment and 

help ensure attainment and continued 

maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate 

matter in the State of Texas. As a result 

of these mandated emissions reductions, 

in accordance with section 110(l) of the 

Federal Clean Air Act, as amended (the 

Act, or CAA), partial approval of these 

revisions will not interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. EPA has 

determined that the revisions, but for a 

severable provision, meet section 110, 

part C, and part D of the Federal Clean 

Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA’s 

regulations. Therefore, EPA is taking 

final action to approve the revisions but 

for a severable portion that allows 

collateral emissions increases of carbon 

monoxide (CO) created by the 

imposition of technology controls to be 

permitted under the State’s Standard 

Permit (SP) for Pollution Control 

Projects (PCP). EPA is taking final action 

to disapprove this severable portion 

concerning the issuance of a PCP SP for 

the CO collateral emissions increases. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2005–TX–0031. All documents in this 

docket are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULESER11JA11.203</GPH> ER11JA11.204</GPH>
1526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 am and 

4:30 pm weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal, which is part of 

the EPA record, is also available for 

public inspection at the State Air 

Agency listed below during official 

business hours by appointment: 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 

Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Rick Barrett, Air Permits Section (6PD– 

R), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

214–665–7227; fax number 214–665– 

7263; e-mail address: 

barrett.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘our,’’ 

and ‘‘us’’ refers to EPA. 

Outline 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. Background 

A. Texas Senate Bill 7 

B. January 3, 2000 Submittal 

C. July 31, 2002 Submittal 

III. What are the grounds for these actions? 

A. January 3, 2000 Submittal 

B. July 31, 2002 Submittal 

IV. Did we receive public comments on the 

proposed rulemaking? 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

We are partially approving and 

partially disapproving the revision to 

Title 30, Chapter 116, of the TAC 

submitted by the State of Texas on 

January 3, 2000. We are also fully 

approving the revision to Title 30, 

Chapter 116, of the TAC submitted by 

the State of Texas on July 31, 2002. The 

January 3, 2000 submittal concerns 

Subchapter A: ‘‘Definitions,’’ section 

116.18; and Subchapter I: ‘‘Electric 

Generating Facility Permits,’’ sections 

116.910–914, 116.916, 116.920–922, 

116.930, and 116.931. We are fully 

approving all of this 2000 submittal but 

for the severable reference in 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2) that, if approved, would 

allow the use of a Texas PCP SP for the 

permitting of the CO collateral 

emissions increases. We are 

disapproving this reference in submitted 

30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) allowing the use 

of a PCP SP for the collateral CO 

emissions. The July 31, 2002 submittal 

concerns Subchapter A: ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

sections 116.10 and 116.18; and 

Subchapter I: ‘‘Electric Generating 

Facility Permits,’’ sections 116.910, 

116.911, 116.913, 116.917, 116.918, 

116.921, 116.926, 116.928, and 116.930. 

The TCEQ adopted these revisions on 

December 16, 1999, and May 22, 2002, 

respectively. 

Please note that in the July 31, 2002 

submittal concerning Subchapter A: 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 116.10 is 

severable and was approved in a 

separate rulemaking (See 75 FR 19468 

April 14, 2010). 

EPA is taking final action on the 

submitted application and permitting 

procedures for grandfathered EGFs, as 

mandated by the Texas Legislature, to 

achieve NOX, SO2 and PM emission 

reductions (Texas SB7 SIP) by December 

31, 2010, as provided in the Consent 

Decree entered on January 21, 2010 in 

BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 

3:08–cv–01491–N (N.D. Tex). 

II. Background 

A. Texas Senate Bill 7 

Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), formed 

under the 76th Texas State Legislature, 

1999,amended the Texas Utilities Code 

(TUC), Title 2, Public Utility Regulatory 

Act, Subtitle B, Electric Utilities, and 

created a new Texas Utilities Code 

Chapter 39, ‘‘Restructuring of Electric 

Utility Industry.’’ SB 7 requires the 

TCEQ to establish a regulatory program 

implementing the statute’s mandatory 

emissions reductions for ‘‘grandfathered 

facilities’’ under the Texas Utilities Code 

section 39.264. A ‘‘grandfathered 

facility’’ is one that existed at the time 

the Legislature amended the Texas 

Clean Air Act (TCAA) in 1971. 

These facilities were not required to 

comply with (i.e., grandfathered from) 

the then new requirement to obtain 

permits for construction or 

modifications of facilities that emit air 

contaminants. Texas began permitting 

new and modified sources in 1971, and 

sources built before Texas’ permitting 

rules became effective were not required 

to obtain permits for air emissions as 

long as they were not modified as 

defined under Texas’ New Source 

Review SIP program. 

Section 39.264 of the TUC now 

requires EGFs that existed on January 1, 

1999, to obtain a permit from the 

Commission even though these sources 

were not previously required to obtain 

a permit under the TCAA, section 

382.0518(g). 

Section 39.264 of the TUC specifically 

requires owners or operators of all 

grandfathered EGFs to apply for a 

permit to emit NOX and, for coal-fired 

grandfathered EGFs, SO2, and PM 

through opacity limitations. These 

applications were due on or before 

September 1, 2000. A grandfathered 

EGF that does not obtain a permit may 

not operate after May 1, 2003, unless the 

Commission finds good cause for an 

extension. Section 39.264 of the TUC 

requires that for the 12-month period 

beginning May 1, 2003, and for each 

12-month period following, annual 

emissions of NOX from grandfathered 

EGFs not exceed 50% of the NOX

emissions reported to the Commission 

for 1997. Furthermore, it requires that 

emissions of SO2 from coal-fired 

grandfathered EGFs not exceed 75% of 

the SO2 emissions reported to the 

Commission in 1997. In addition, TUC 

section 39.264(e) requires electric 

generating facility permits (EGFPs) for 

coal-fired, grandfathered EGFs to 

contain appropriate opacity limitations 

provided by the commission’s rules in 

30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 

Ch.111.111, ‘‘Requirements for Specified 

Sources.’’ As described in more detail 

below, the emission limitations may be 

satisfied by using control technology or 

by participating in the banking and 

trading of allowances under Texas’ 

Emission Banking and Trading of 

Allowances (EBTA) program. 

Overall, SB 7 mandates specific 

pollution reduction in an area, while 

allowing individual sources flexibility 

in how they meet emissions reductions. 

As participants in the program, EGFs 

must obtain a permit allocating them a 

certain level of emissions which they 

cannot exceed. In each defined region, 

the total level of emissions are 

restricted, or capped, to a level 

consistent with the SB 7 statutory goals. 

The individual EGF, to meet its 

allocated emissions level, can either 

choose to install pollution controls, shut 

down operations, or purchase 

allowances from another source that 

already reduced emission levels below 

its permitted amount. 

To achieve SB 7’s mandate, the TCEQ 

revised 30 TAC Chapter 116, ‘‘Control of 

Air Pollution by Permits for New 

Construction or Modification,’’ by 

establishing an allowance and 

permitting program for regulating 

grandfathered EGFs under Subchapter I. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1527 

TCEQ concurrently adopted Chapter 

101, Subchapter H, ‘‘Emissions Banking 

and Trading,’’ that establishes a regional 

cap and trade system to distribute 

emission allowances for use by EGFs. 

The new Division 2, Chapter 101, 

Subchapter H, concerning EBTA, sets 

out the allowance system to be used to 

assist grandfathered and electing EGFs 

in meeting the emission reduction 

requirements of TUC, section 39.264. 

Together, the two rules define categories 

of EGFs that are eligible to use the 

trading system. As discussed above, the 

first category consists of grandfathered 

facilities. The second category of EGFs 

consist of currently permitted EGFs that 

are not subject to the permitting 

requirements mandated by SB 7, yet 

elect to participate in the allowance 

trading system. These are referred to as 

‘‘electing’’ EGFs and participation in the 

permitting program will allow electing 

EGFs to obtain allowances under the 

EBTA. 

Please note that EPA’s action on 30 

TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, 

Division 2, concerning Emissions 

Banking and Trading of Allowances, is 

being finalized in a separate notice and 

is evaluated in a separate TSD. (RME 

Docket R06–OAR–2005–TX–0012). 

The background for today’s actions is 

also discussed in more detail in our 

October 19, 2010, proposal to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

revisions to the Texas SIP (75 FR 

64235–64240). 

B. January 3, 2000 Submittal 

Regarding the January 3, 2000 

submittal, SB 7 requires that for the 12- 

month period beginning May 1, 2003, 

and for each 12-month period following, 

annual emissions of NOX from all 

grandfathered EGFs not exceed 50% of 

the NOX emissions reported to the 

Commission for 1997. Furthermore, the 

legislation requires that emissions of 

SO2 from all coal-fired grandfathered 

EGFs not exceed 75% of the SO2

emissions reported to the Commission 

in 1997, and to contain appropriate 

opacity limitations by way of permitting 

the emissions of particulate matter. 

C. July 31, 2002 Submittal 

Regarding the July 31, 2002 submittal, 

this submittal allows the owners or 

operators of previously grandfathered 

and electing EGFs who have already 

applied for an electric generating facility 

(EGF) permit required by SB 7 to also 

obtain a permit for all air contaminants, 

certain generators and auxiliary fossil 

fuel fired combustion facilities. 

III. What are the grounds for these 

actions? 

A. January 3, 2000 Submittal 

These submitted provisions, with the 

exception of 116.911(a)(2) discussed 

below, meet the requirement in 40 CFR 

51.160(a) that each plan include legally 

enforceable procedures to determine 

whether the construction or 

modification of a facility, building, 

structure, or installation, or combination 

of these will result in (1) a violation of 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy; or (2) interference with 

attainment or maintenance of a national 

standard in the State in which the 

proposed source (or modification) is 

located or in a neighboring State. As 

such, they are consistent with the Act 

and its permitting requirements. 

Regarding the submitted 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2), EPA approved Texas’s 

general regulations for Standard Permits 

in 30 TAC Subchapter F of 30 TAC 

Chapter 116 on November 14, 2003 (68 

FR 64548) as meeting the minor NSR 

SIP requirements. The Texas Clean Air 

Act provides that the TCEQ may issue 

a standard permit for ‘‘new or existing 

similar facilities’’ if it is enforceable and 

compliance can be adequately 

monitored. See section 382.05195 of the 

TCAA. EPA approved the State’s 

Standard Permit program as part of the 

Texas Minor NSR SIP program on 

November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64548). 

However, when EPA approved the 

Texas Standard Permits Program as part 

of the Texas Minor NSR SIP, it 

explicitly did not approve the Pollution 

Control Project (PCP) Standard Permit 

(30 TAC 116.617). This is the PCP SP 

referenced in 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) of 

this SIP submittal which owners or 

operators of grandfathered or electing 

electric generating facilities used to 

permit collateral emissions of CO 

which, otherwise, would have triggered 

PSD review. Following the State of New 

York, et al. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 801 (D.C. 

Cir. 2005) court decision (New York I), 

Texas submitted a repeal of the 

previously submitted PCP Standard 

Permit and submitted the adoption of a 

new PCP Standard Permit at 30 TAC 

116.617—State Pollution Control Project 

Standard Permit, on February 1, 2006. 

One of the main reasons Texas adopted 

a new PCP Standard Permit was to meet 

the new Federal requirements to 

explicitly limit this PCP Standard 

Permit only to Minor NSR. In New York 

I, the Court vacated the federal pollution 

control project provisions for NNSR and 

PSD. Although the new PCP Standard 

Permit explicitly prohibits the use of it 

for Major NSR purposes, TCEQ failed to 

demonstrate how this particular 

Standard Permit met the Texas Standard 

Permits NSR SIP since it applies to 

numerous types of pollution control 

projects, which can be used at any 

source that wants to use a PCP, and is 

not an authorization for similar sources. 

EPA disapproved the new PCP Standard 

Permit submittal on September 15, 

2010. 75 FR 56,424 (September 15, 

2010). Thus, we are disapproving the 

submitted 116.911 (a)(2) because it 

refers to and relies on the PCP SP that 

does not meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act, and was 

previously disapproved by EPA as a part 

of the Texas SIP. 

The rationale for today’s actions is 

also discussed in more detail in our 

October 19, 2010, proposal to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

revisions to the Texas SIP (75 FR 

64237–64239). See our Technical 

Support Document, Attachment A, for 

additional details. 

B. July 31, 2002 Submittal 

These provisions meet the 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(a) that 

each plan include legally enforceable 

procedures to determine whether the 

construction or modification of a 

facility, building, structure, or 

installation, or combination of these 

will result in (1) a violation of 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy; or (2) interference with 

attainment or maintenance of a national 

standard in the state in which the 

proposed source (or modification) is 

located or in a neighboring state. As 

such, they are consistent with the Act 

and its permitting requirements. 

The rationale for today’s actions is 

also discussed in more detail in our 

October 19, 2010, proposal to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

revisions to the Texas SIP (75 FR 

64239). See our Technical Support 

Document, Attachment B, for additional 

details. 

IV. Did we receive public comments on 

the proposed rulemaking? 

In response to our October 19, 2010, 

proposal, we received comments from 

the following: Association of Electric 

Companies of Texas (AECT); Baker 

Botts, L.L.P., on behalf of Texas 

Industrial Project (TIP); Jackson Walker 

L.L.P., on behalf of the Gulf Coast 

Lignite Coalition (GCLC); Luminant 

Generation Company LLC (Luminant); 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ); and Texas Mining and 

Reclamation Association (TMRA). 

We respond to these comments in our 

evaluation and review under this final 

action below. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
1528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 1: TMRA, Luminant, GCLC, 

AECT, and TCEQ commented generally 

that the submitted 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) 

was in compliance with all federal 

regulations and policies at the time it 

was adopted and submitted to EPA, and 

the subsequent court decisions 

including the EPA appeal decision, to 

vacate the provision should not be 

applied retroactively. Further, these 

commenters assert that EPA action on 

this provision should apply 

prospectively only and not to any 

permits issued prior to the court 

decisions. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. As discussed above, EPA 

approved the State’s Standard Permit 

program as part of the Texas Minor NSR 

SIP program on November 14, 2003 (68 

FR 64548). When EPA approved the 

Texas Standard Permits Program as part 

of the Texas Minor NSR SIP, it 

explicitly DID NOT approve the 

Pollution Control Project (PCP) 

Standard Permit (30 TAC 116.617). This 

is the PCP SP referenced in 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2) of this SIP submittal 

which owners or operators of 

grandfathered or electing electric 

generating facilities used to permit 

collateral emissions of CO which, 

otherwise, would have triggered PSD 

review. Following New York 1, Texas 

submitted a repeal of the previously 

submitted PCP Standard Permit and 

submitted the adoption of a new PCP 

Standard Permit at 30 TAC 116.617— 

State Pollution Control Project Standard 

Permit, on February 1, 2006. One of the 

main reasons Texas adopted a new PCP 

Standard Permit was to meet the new 

Federal requirements to explicitly limit 

this PCP Standard Permit only to Minor 

NSR. In New York 1, the Court vacated 

the federal pollution control project 

provisions for NNSR and PSD. Although 

the new PCP Standard Permit explicitly 

prohibits the use of it for Major NSR 

purposes, TCEQ has failed to 

demonstrate how this particular 

Standard Permit meets the Texas 

Standard Permits NSR SIP since it 

applies to numerous types of pollution 

control projects, which can be used at 

any source that wants to use a PCP, and 

is not an authorization for similar 

sources. EPA disapproved the new PCP 

Standard Permit submittal on 

September 15, 2010. 75 FR 56,424 

(September 15, 2010). 

We are disapproving the submitted 

116.911(a)(2) because the reference in it 

which allows obtaining a PCP SP for the 

collateral emissions does not meet the 

applicable requirements of the Act, as 

discussed herein, and was disapproved 

by EPA as a part of the Texas SIP. EPA 

is required to review a SIP revision for 

its compliance with the Act and EPA 

regulations. See CAA section 110(k)(3); 

see also BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 

355 F 3d.817, 822 (5th Cir 2003); 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir 

1995). 

Comment 2: TMRA, TIP, Luminant, 

GCLC, and AECT commented generally 

that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA 

‘‘shall not approve a revision of a plan 

if the revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress * * *.’’ EPA should therefore 

approve 116.911(a)(2) because EPA 

discusses in its proposed rule dated 

October 19, 2010, that the CO increases 

do not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS for CO, nor 

cause or contribute to increase in PSD 

increments, much less a violation of any 

NAAQS. 

Response: This comment 

misunderstands the basis on which we 

are disapproving 116.911(a)(2). We are 

disapproving the submitted 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2) because it allows the 

source to obtain a permit for its 

collateral CO emissions that is not a part 

of the Texas SIP. EPA previously 

disapproved the permit allowed for the 

collateral CO emissions because it did 

not meet the applicable requirements of 

the Act. EPA is required to review a SIP 

revision for its compliance with the Act 

and EPA regulations. See CAA section 

110(k)(3); see also BCCA Appeal Group 

v. EPA, 355 F 3d.817, 822 (5th Cir 2003); 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir 

1995). 

Comment 3: TIP, Luminant, and 

GCLC commented generally that the 

court decision of June 24, 2005, does not 

apply to 116.911(a)(2). That court 

decision dealt with an exclusion from 

major NSR, whereas the PCP SP is a 

minor NSR permitting process and 

authorization tool and the SP cannot be 

used to circumvent major NSR. One 

commenter noted that ‘‘in light of’’ the 

court decision, on February 1, 2006, 

Texas submitted to EPA a revised 

version of 30 TAC § 116.617 (Standard 

Permits for Pollution Control Projects) 

to ‘‘limit the use of the state’s PCP SP 

to Minor NSR’’. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. See response to comment 1. 

Comment 4: TMRA, Luminant, and 

AECT commented generally that they 

disagree with EPA’s allegation that there 

were two facilities where collateral 

emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

above the PSD significance level 

occurred following the installation of 

pollution control equipment. Further, 

that they disagree with EPA’s proposal 

to disapprove these already issued 

permits. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. EPA is not disapproving these 

two already issued permits with this SIP 

action. Our disapproval is strictly 

limited to the provision 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2) of the January 3, 2000, SIP 

submittal. Although it is not a basis for 

EPA’s final action here, EPA stands by 

its previous discussion of the facilities 

where collateral emissions of CO above 

PSD significance levels occurred 

following the installation of pollution 

control equipment. 

Comment 5: TMRA, Luminant, and 

AECT commented that EPA should 

follow its established position that 

Pollution Control Project permits are 

acceptable under the Clean Air Act. 

Response: It is not EPA’s position, 

established or otherwise, that PCP 

permits are acceptable under the Clean 

Air Act for Major NSR. Furthermore, the 

New York I opinion addressed the use 

of PCPs and disapproved their use for 

Major NSR requirements. In that 

decision, the court vacated the 

provisions of the Federal 2002 NSR 

Reform rule that specifically related to 

PCPs. The EPA must comply with the 

court decision. EPA disapproved the 

State’s submitted PCP SP for Minor 

NSR. See response to comment 1. 

Comment 6: TMRA and AECT 

commented generally that the proposed 

disapproval has a chilling effect on 

much needed economic investment and 

makes it even more difficult for 

companies to create jobs and provide for 

economic growth. Further, that the 

Senate Bill 7 program has achieved 

substantial emission reductions while 

providing a fair and predictable 

regulatory framework that is protective 

of human health and the environment. 

Response: Under the NAAQS 

provisions of the CAA, air pollution 

control at its source is the primary 

responsibility of States and local 

governments. EPA is respectful of the 

Act and cognizant of the cooperative 

federalism principle contained therein. 

However, while the Act does give States 

a fair degree of latitude in choosing the 

mix of controls necessary to meet and 

maintain the NAAQS, it also places 

some limits on the choices States can 

make. EPA’s role is to ensure that the 

SIP submittal is consistent with the 

CAA. Any SIP submittal must adhere to 

applicable requirements of the federal 

CAA, including the obligation to 

provide for attainment and maintenance 

of the NAAQS and to ensure that the 

SIP may be adequately enforced. EPA’s 

statutory responsibilities in reviewing a 

SIP are to ensure it meets the 

requirements of the Act. As explained in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1529 

the proposal and above, as part of EPA’s 

review, we determined that the 

provision providing for the obtaining of 

a non-SIP PCP SP is inconsistent with 

the CAA. See CAA section 110(k)(3); see 

also BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F 

3d.817, 822 (5th Cir 2003); Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. 

Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir 

1995). 

Comment 7: Luminant commented 

that EPA incorrectly concludes that its 

prior disapproval of 30 TAC 116.617 

necessitates disapproval of 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2). Rather, EPA must 

independently justify its disapproval of 

these provisions relating to the Texas 

Senate Bill No. 7 (‘‘SB7’’) permitting 

program. Further, that EPA’s 

disapproval of 30 TAC 116.617 does not 

justify or require disapproval of 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2). Also, the obligation thus 

originates from the SB7 permit rules, 

and EPA has an independent obligation 

to justify its disapproval of the 

substance of those requirements in this 

rulemaking and not simply rely on a 

prior one that did not involve the SB7 

permit program. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) allows 

a SB7 source that has collateral 

emissions of CO to obtain a TCEQ PCP 

SP rather than obtaining a Texas NSR 

SIP permit, for its CO collateral 

emissions. The PCP SP is not a part of 

the Texas NSR SIP. See the response to 

comment 1. Moreover, EPA is required 

to review a SIP revision for its 

compliance with the Act and EPA 

regulations. See CAA section 110(k)(3); 

see also BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 

355 F 3d.817, 822 (5th Cir 2003); 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir 

1995). 

Comment 8: Luminant commented 

that it supports the remainder of 

proposed approval of the January 3, 

2000 and July 31, 2002 submittals. It 

also supports the EPA’s November 16, 

2010 direct final rule to approve the 

EBTA program. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment. 

Comment 9: The TCEQ commented 

that it maintains its position that 

§ 116.617 is an efficient and legally 

supportable authorization for pollution 

control projects in Texas. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. We disapproved the PCP SP 

on September 15, 2010. See 75 FR 

56,424 (September 15, 2010). 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is partially approving and 

partially disapproving revisions to the 

Texas SIP that include 30 TAC Chapter 

116, Subchapter A: ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

section 116.18; and Subchapter I: 

‘‘Electric Generating Facility Permits,’’ 

sections 116.910–914, 116.916, 

116.920–922, 116.930, and 116.931, 

which Texas submitted on January 3, 

2000. 

EPA is approving all of the January 3, 

2000, SIP revision submittal as part of 

the Texas NSR SIP but for 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2). EPA is disapproving the 

submitted severable 30 TAC 

116.911(a)(2) for collateral emissions 

increases of CO that are allowed to be 

permitted under the Texas PCP SP. 

Further, EPA is approving revisions to 

the Texas SIP that include 30 TAC 

Chapter 116, Subchapter A: 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 116.18; and 

Subchapter I: ‘‘Electric Generating 

Facility Permits,’’ sections 116.910, 

116.911, 116.913, 116.917, 116.918, 

116.921, 116.926, 116.928, and 116.930, 

which Texas submitted on July 31, 

2002. We are taking no action on 

Chapter 116, Subchapter H: ‘‘Permits for 

Grandfathered Facilities,’’ which Texas 

submitted on July 31, 2002. The State 

understands that EPA will take future 

action on Subchapter H because it is 

independent from Subchapters A and I, 

and action is not necessary at this time. 

The January 3, 2000 and July 31, 2002 

submittals address the applicability and 

permitting requirements for 

grandfathered and electing electric 

generating facilities. The revisions will 

contribute to improvement in overall air 

quality in Texas. There will be no 

increase in ozone, SO2, and PM 

concentration levels because of 

approving the revisions. We have 

evaluated the State’s submittal, 

determined that it meets the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and EPA air 

quality regulations, and is consistent 

with EPA policy. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This final action has been determined 

not to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). 

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., because this 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Because this final action does not 

impose an information collection 

burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

does not apply. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. This rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because SIP approvals and disapprovals 

under section 110 and part D of the 

Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve or 

disapprove requirements that the States 

are already imposing. 

Furthermore, as explained in this 

action, the submissions do not meet the 

requirements of the Act and EPA cannot 

approve the submissions. The final 

disapproval will not affect any existing 

State requirements applicable to small 

entities in the State of Texas. Federal 

disapproval of a State submittal does 

not affect its State enforceability. After 

considering the economic impacts of 

today’s rulemaking on small entities, 

and because the Federal SIP disapproval 

does not create any new requirements or 

impact a substantial number of small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
1530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates 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.’’ EPA 

has determined that the disapproval 

action does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action determines that preexisting requirements under State or 

local law should not be approved as part 

of the Federally approved SIP. It 

imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

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, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action 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, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is 

disapproving would not apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. This final rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

This action does not involve or impose 

any requirements that affect Indian 

Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule 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 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through the Office 

of Management and Budget, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

EPA believes that this action is not 

subject to requirements of Section 12(d) 

of NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act. Today’s action 

does not require the public to perform 

activities conducive to the use of 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

(February 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 United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

action. In reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove 

state choices, based on the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it 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 

E‘xecutive Order 12898. 

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 United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1531 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 14, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Nonattainment, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

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

Dated: December 29, 2010. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq. 

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. The table in § 52.2270 (c) entitled 

‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the 

Texas SIP’’ is amended under Chapter 

116—Control of Air Pollution by 

Permits for New Construction or 

Modification, as follows: 

■ a. Immediately following the entry for 

Section 116.14, by adding a new entry 

for Section 116.18, Electric Generating 

Facility Permits Definitions; and 

■ b. Immediately following section 

116.615, by adding a new centered 

heading entitled ‘‘Subchapter I—Electric 

Generating Facility Permits’’ followed by 

new entries for Sections 116.910, 

116.911, 116.912, 116.913, 116.914, 

116.916, 116.917, 116.918, 116.920, 

116.921, 116.922, 116.926, 116.928, 

116.930, and 116.931. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

(c) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter A—Definitions 

* * * * * * * 

Section 116.18 .......... Electric Generating Facility Permits Definitions.5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter I—Electric Generating Facility Permits 

* * * * * * * 

Section 116.910 ........ Applicability ................................ 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.911 ........ Electric Generating Facility Permit.5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].116.911(a)(2) is not in the SIP. 

Section 116.912 ........ Electric Generating Facilities ..... 12/16/1999 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.913 ........ General and Special Conditions 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.914 ........ Emissions Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.12/16/1999 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.916 ........ Permits for Grandfathered and 

Electing Generating Facilities 

in El Paso County.

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

Section 116.917 ........ Electric Generating Facility Permit Application for Certain 

Grandfathered Coal-Fired 

Electric Generating Facilities 

and Certain Facilities Located 

at Electric Generating Facility 

Sites.

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

Section 116.918 ........ Additional General Special Conditions for Grandfathered 

Coal-Fired Electric Generating 

Facilities and Certain Facilities 

Located at Electric Generating 

Facility Sites.

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

Section 116.920 ........ Applicability ................................ 12/16/1999 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

Section 116.921 ........ Notice and Comment Hearings 

for Initial Issuance.

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
1532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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). 

2The 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 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

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 

Issued Under this Subchapter.

5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number 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 Doc. 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 (PM10) 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 PM10 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 (μg/m3), 24-hour 

average, against which monitored 

ambient concentrations of PM10 in the 

three subject areas (Hayden,1 Nogales,2


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES