Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31285 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it has only a 

domestic impact and is not subject to 

the Trade Agreements Act requirements. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$141.3 million. 

This rulemaking action does not 

contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not 

apply to this regulation. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect 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. Therefore, we 

have determined that this final rule does 

not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312 and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

18, 2001). We have determined that it is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 65 

Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, 

Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse, 

Aviation safety Drug abuse, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures. 

The Amendment 

■ Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration amends part 65 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

Part 65) as follows: 

PART 65—CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN 

OTHER THAN FLIGHT 

CREWMEMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 65 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8335(a); 49 U.S.C. 

106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 44701– 

44703; 49 U.S.C. 44707; 49 U.S.C. 44709– 

44711; 49 U.S.C. 45102–45103; 49 U.S.C. 

45301–45302. 

■ 2. Amend § 65.111 by revising the 

introductory text of paragraph (b); 

redesignating existing paragraphs (c), (d) 

and (e) as paragraphs (d), (e) and (f), 

respectively; and adding a new 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 65.111 Certificate required. 

* * * * * 

(b) No person may pack any main 

parachute of a dual-parachute system to 

be used for intentional parachute 

jumping in connection with civil 

aircraft of the United States unless that 

person— 

* * * * * 

(c) No person may maintain or alter 

any main parachute of a dual-parachute 

system to be used for intentional 

parachute jumping in connection with 

civil aircraft of the United States unless 

that person— 

(1) Has an appropriate current 

certificate issued under this subpart; or 

(2) Is under the supervision of a 

current certificated parachute rigger; 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 

2010. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13388 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

27 CFR Part 478 

[Docket No. ATF 17F; AG Order No. 3160– 

2010 (2008R–10P)] 

Decision-Making Authority Regarding 

the Denial, Suspension, or Revocation 

of a Federal Firearms License, or 

Imposition of a Civil Fine 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice has 

adopted as final, without change, an 

interim rule that amended the 

regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

(‘‘ATF’’) to delegate to the Director of 

ATF the authority to serve as the 

deciding official regarding the denial, 

suspension, or revocation of federal 

firearms licenses, or the imposition of a 

civil fine. Under the interim rule, the 

Director has the flexibility to delegate to 

another ATF official the authority to 

decide a revocation or denial matter, or 

may exercise that authority himself. 

Because the Director can redelegate 

authority to take action as the final 

agency decision-maker to Headquarters 

officials, field officials, or some 

combination thereof, such flexibility 

allows ATF to more efficiently conduct 

denial, suspension, and revocation 

hearings, and make the determination 

whether to impose a civil fine. This 

gives the agency the ability to ensure 

consistency in decision-making and to 

address any case backlogs that may 

occur. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James P. Ficaretta, Enforcement 

Programs and Services; Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives; U.S. Department of Justice; 

99 New York Avenue, NE., Washington, 

DC 20226; telephone: 202–648–7094. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
31286 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

I. Background 

The Attorney General is responsible 

for enforcing the provisions of the Gun 

Control Act of 1968 (‘‘the Act’’), 18 

U.S.C. Chapter 44. He has delegated that 

responsibility to the Director of ATF, 

subject to the direction of the Attorney 

General and the Deputy Attorney 

General. 28 CFR 0.130(a). ATF has 

promulgated regulations that implement 

the provisions of the Act in 27 CFR part 

478. 

The regulations in Subpart E of Part 

478, §§ 478.71–78, relate to proceedings 

involving federal firearms licenses, 

including the denial, suspension, and 

revocation of a license, and the 

imposition of a civil fine. Prior to the 

2009 amendments under the interim 

rule, § 478 provided as follows: Under 

§ 478.71, whenever the Director of 

Industry Operations (‘‘DIO’’) had reason 

to believe that an applicant was not 

qualified to receive a license under the 

provisions of § 478.47, he could issue a 

notice of denial, on ATF Form 4498, to 

the applicant. The notice would set 

forth the matters of fact and law relied 

upon in determining that the 

application should be denied, and 

would afford the applicant 15 days from 

the date of receipt of the notice in which 

to request a hearing to review the 

denial. If no request for a hearing was 

filed within such time, the application 

would be disapproved and a copy, so 

marked, would be returned to the 

applicant. 

Under § 478.72, an applicant who had 

been denied an original or renewal 

license could file a request with the DIO 

for a hearing to review the denial of the 

application. On conclusion of the 

hearing and after consideration of all 

relevant facts and circumstances 

presented by the applicant or his 

representative, the DIO would render a 

decision confirming or reversing the 

denial of the application. If the decision 

was that the denial should stand, a 

certified copy of the DIO’s findings and 

conclusions would be furnished to the 

applicant with a final notice of denial, 

ATF Form 4501. In addition, a copy of 

the application, marked ‘‘Disapproved,’’ 

would be furnished to the applicant. If 

the decision was that the license 

applied for should be issued, the 

applicant would be so notified, in 

writing, and the license would be 

issued. 

Section 478.73 provided that 

whenever the DIO had reason to believe 

that a firearms licensee had willfully 

violated any provision of the Act or part 

478, a notice of revocation of the license 

(ATF Form 4500), could be issued. In 

addition, a notice of revocation, 

suspension, or imposition of a civil fine 

could be issued on Form 4500 whenever 

the DIO had reason to believe that a 

licensee had knowingly transferred a 

firearm to an unlicensed person and 

knowingly failed to comply with the 

requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), 

relating to a NICS (National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System) 

background check. 

As specified in § 478.74, a licensee 

who had received a notice of suspension 

or revocation of a license, or imposition 

of a civil fine, could file a request for a 

hearing with the DIO. On conclusion of 

the hearing and after consideration of all 

the relevant presentations made by the 

licensee or the licensee’s representative, 

the DIO would render a decision and 

prepare a brief summary of the findings 

and conclusions on which the decision 

was based. If the decision was that the 

license should be revoked or, in actions 

under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5), that the 

license should be revoked or suspended, 

or that a civil fine should be imposed, 

a certified copy of the summary would 

be furnished to the licensee with the 

final notice of revocation, suspension, 

or imposition of a civil fine on ATF 

Form 4501. If the decision was that the 

license should not be revoked, or, in 

actions under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5), that 

the license should not be revoked or 

suspended, and a civil fine should not 

be imposed, the licensee would be 

notified in writing. 

Under § 478.76, an applicant or 

licensee could be represented by an 

attorney, certified public accountant, or 

other person recognized to practice 

before ATF, provided certain 

requirements were met. The DIO could 

be represented in proceedings by an 

attorney in the office of the Assistant 

Chief Counsel or Division Counsel who 

was authorized to execute and file 

motions, briefs, and other papers in the 

proceeding, on behalf of the DIO, in his 

own name as ‘‘Attorney for the 

Government.’’ 

Section 478.78 provided that if a 

licensee was dissatisfied with a posthearing decision revoking or suspending 

the license, denying the application, or 

imposing a civil fine, he could file a 

petition for judicial review of such 

action. In such case, when the DIO 

found that justice so required, the DIO 

could postpone the effective date of 

suspension or revocation of a license, or 

authorize continued operations under 

the expired license pending judicial 

review. 

II. Interim Rule 

The Department of Justice published 

an interim rule with request for 

comments at 74 FR 1875 on January 14, 

2009 (ATF 27P) that amended ATF’s 

regulations to redesignate the Director, 

as opposed to the DIO, as the deciding 

official in matters dealing with the 

denial of an original or renewal firearms 

license, the suspension or revocation of 

a license, and the imposition of a civil 

fine. ATF determined that delegating 

the final authority with respect to those 

matters to the Director is necessary and 

proper. ATF further maintained that the 

Director should be able to redelegate 

this authority to the DIO or any other 

agency official through issuance of a 

delegation order, not through regulation. 

This approach is consistent with other 

regulations in part 478. For example, 

§ 478.144 provides that the Director is 

the deciding authority with respect to 

applications for relief from firearms 

disabilities. Pursuant to ATF Order 

1120.4 (69 FR 55462, September 14, 

2004), the authority to make 

determinations on applications for relief 

from federal firearms disabilities was 

delegated to the Assistant Director 

(Enforcement Programs and Services). 

These changes to the decision-making 

and related delegation authority were 

the only substantial changes made by 

the interim rule. All other aspects of the 

ATF processes, including notice and 

review provisions, remained the same. 

ATF believes that it is appropriate for 

the Director to have more flexibility to 

delegate or directly exercise authority to 

conduct a hearing and decide denial, 

suspension, or revocation of a federal 

firearms license, or the imposition of a 

civil fine. Such flexibility allows ATF to 

more efficiently conduct revocation and 

denial hearings, because the Director 

can designate Headquarters officials, 

field officials, or some combination 

thereof, as the final agency decisionmaker. That flexibility gives the agency 

the ability to ensure consistency in 

decision-making and to address any 

case backlogs that may occur. 

Comments on the interim rule were to 

be submitted to ATF on or before April 

14, 2009. 

III. Comment Analysis and Department 

Response 

In response to the interim rule, ATF 

received three comments. Two 

commenters supported the interim 

regulations, while one commenter 

expressed opposition. Essentially, the 

opposing commenter expressed a 

concern that under the interim 

regulations the Director’s decision is not 

subject to review. 

According to the commenter: 

The only other times in the state of 

American government, aside from the 

Presidency, where one person is afforded the 

opportunity to make decisions affecting 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31287 

others without a system of checks and 

balances is by a judge. Even then, there is an 

appeals process by which this one 

individual’s interpretation of legal 

circumstances may be reviewed. * * * To 

afford the director of a government agency, 

or any other appointed individual for that 

matter, the ability to ‘‘legislate’’ freely as he 

deems necessary regarding the denial, 

suspension, or revocation of a federally 

issued license seems not only 

unconstitutional, but potentially unethical if 

this one man’s ruling is subject to a political 

agenda. 

Department Response 

ATF understands the issues and the 

concerns that the commenter raised; 

however, the due process ‘‘system of 

checks and balances’’ is already 

incorporated into the procedures for 

denying, suspending, or revoking a 

federal firearms license, or imposing a 

civil fine. Prior to any adverse decision, 

ATF must provide notice to the affected 

applicant or license holder and provide 

that person with an opportunity to 

present evidence in a hearing. Before 

the interim rule became effective, the 

DIO for each field division had the 

authority to issue the final decision. The 

interim rule vests this same authority to 

issue a final decision in the ATF 

Director. The Director may, in turn, 

delegate that authority to Headquarters 

officials, field officials, or some 

combination thereof. This gives the 

Director the ability to more effectively 

decide licensing cases and ensure 

consistency in decision-making. 

Regardless which ATF official is 

authorized to make a final decision, 

ATF must provide notice and an 

opportunity to present evidence. 

Moreover, Congress has provided, under 

18 U.S.C. 923(f), for federal court review 

of the final notice denying a person’s 

application or revoking the person’s 

license. In such a judicial review, the 

courts are not bound by the evidence 

that had been previously presented 

during the administrative proceedings 

before the agency decision. If the court 

decides that the agency was not 

authorized to deny the application or to 

revoke the license, the court shall order 

the agency to take such action as may 

be necessary to comply with the 

judgment of the court. Nothing in this 

rule change would alter or affect the 

person’s due process rights to judicial 

review as they stood prior to the change. 

The change simply elevates final 

decision-making authority to the 

Director. Therefore, no changes to the 

rule need to be made to ensure 

minimum constitutional due process 

requirements are satisfied. 

IV. Final Rule 

The Department has determined that 

an amendment of the interim 

regulations is not warranted and it is, 

therefore, adopting the interim rule as a 

final rule without change. 

How This Document Complies With the 

Federal Administrative Requirements 

for Rulemaking 

A. Executive Order 12866 

The Attorney General has determined 

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This rule will not 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million, nor will it adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health, or safety, or State, local 

or tribal governments or communities. 

This is a rule of agency organization, 

procedure, and practice. It merely 

redesignates the Director as the deciding 

official with respect to the denial, 

suspension, or revocation of a federal 

firearms license and the imposition of a 

civil fine. 

B. Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, the Attorney General has 

determined that this regulation will not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

C. Executive Order 12988 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., 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. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The 

interim rule was not subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements. 

Id. 553(b)(A). This final rule, which 

adopts the interim regulations, is a rule 

of agency organization, procedure, and 

practice. It merely delegates to the 

Director the authority to make decisions 

with respect to the denial, suspension, 

imposition of a civil fine, or revocation 

of federal firearms licenses. 

E. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million 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. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million 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. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Disclosure 

Copies of the interim rule, the 

comment received in response to the 

interim rule, and this final rule will be 

available for public inspection by 

appointment during normal business 

hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E– 

063, 99 New York Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 

648–7080. 

Drafting Information 

The author of this document is James 

P. Ficaretta; Enforcement Programs and 

Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 478 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Arms and ammunition, 

Authority delegations, Customs duties 

and inspection, Domestic violence, 

Exports, Imports, Law enforcement 

personnel, Military personnel, Penalties, 

Reporting requirements, Research, 

Seizures and forfeitures, and 

Transportation. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
31288 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority and Issuance 

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS 

AND AMMUNITION 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 27 CFR part 478, which was 

published at 74 FR 1875 on January 14, 

2009, is adopted as a final rule without 

change. 

Dated: May 27, 2010. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13392 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Plant-Verified Drop Shipment (PVDS)— 

Nonpostal Documentation 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is revising 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM®) 705.15. 2.14 to clarify that PS 

Form 8125, Plant-Verified Drop 

Shipment (PVDS) Verification and 

Clearance, is the sole source of evidence 

for USPS® purposes of the transfer of 

the custody of pieces entered as a 

mailing at the time of induction; to 

clarify that Postal employees may, upon 

request, sign additional nonpostal 

documents when presented by 

transportation providers; and to require 

segregation of documentation presented 

at the time of induction. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Thomas at 202–268–8069. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As a result 

of reviews of USPS policy concerning 

practices at induction points of plantverified drop shipment mailings, the 

Postal Service is adopting this final rule 

to clarify the use and purpose of PS 

Form 8125 as well as other documents 

that mailers’ nonpostal transportation 

providers (carriers) may present at the 

time of induction. The final rule 

provides that PS Forms 8125 must be 

segregated from any other 

documentation presented at the time of 

mailing. This measure ensures that 

postal personnel will be able to easily 

identify and process necessary postal 

documentation at the time of induction, 

thereby promoting the efficiency of 

operations. Further, the final rule 

clarifies that a PS Form 8125 serves as 

the sole source of evidence for USPS 

purposes of the transfer of the custody 

of pieces entered at the time of 

induction. No other form of 

documentation serves this purpose. 

The Postal Service adopts the 

following changes to the Mailing 

Standards for the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 

which is incorporated by reference in 

the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 

CFR Part 111.1. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

■ Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 111 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 C.F.R. 

Part continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the following sections of 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) as follows: 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) 

* * * * * 

700 Special Standards 

* * * * * 

705 Advanced Preparation and 

Special Postage Payment Systems 

* * * * * 

15.0 Plant-Verified Drop Shipment 

* * * * * 

15.2 Program Participation 

* * * * * 

[Add new 705.15.2.14 as follows:] 

15.2.14 Form 8125—Segregation and 

Nonpostal Documentation 

PS Forms 8125 must be segregated 

from all other nonpostal documentation 

and presented separately to USPS 

personnel at the time of induction. 

Nonpostal proof-of-delivery documents 

such as delivery receipts or bills of 

lading presented by a mailer’s 

transportation provider [carrier] are not 

substitutes for PS Forms 8125. USPS 

personnel may, upon request, sign such 

documents when presented by carriers. 

A PS Form 8125 signed by a postal 

employee (or electronic equivalent file 

in the Electronic Verification System 

(eVS)) serves as the sole evidence of the 

transfer of the custody of pieces entered 

as a mailing at the time of induction. 

The Postal Service does not consider a 

proof-of-delivery document such as a 

delivery receipt or a bill of lading 

furnished by a USPS customer’s carrier 

as proof of mailing, acceptance, or the 

amount of mail tendered. Any signature 

by a postal employee or agent on any 

nonpostal form does not serve any mail 

acceptance purpose. If an inconsistency 

between the information on a PS Form 

8125 and a carrier- or mailer-provided 

document designed to evidence the 

transfer of custody of pieces entered as 

a mailing at the time of induction exists, 

the information on PS Form 8125 

prevails insofar as the USPS is 

concerned. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an amendment to 39 

CFR 111 to reflect these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12885 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0705; A–1–FRL– 

9157–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode 

Island; Determination of Attainment of 

the 1997 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is determining that 

the Providence (All of Rhode Island) 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area has attained the 1997 8-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone. This determination 

is based upon complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the 2006–2008 monitoring period. In 

addition, quality-assured and certified 

ozone data for 2009, show that this area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This determination 

results in the suspension of the 

requirements for Rhode Island to submit 

an attainment demonstration, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning State Implementation Plans for 

this area related to attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. These 

requirements shall remain suspended 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on July 6, 2010. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES