+(,121/,1(

Citation: 76 Fed. Reg. 6056 2011 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Nov 6 13:15:20 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

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

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 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

m 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 Doe. 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-OAR2010-0163; 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 PM 2.

5 NAAQS designations. It

establishes the initial PM 2.5 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 PM 2.

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-HQOAR-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.

6056

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6056 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

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 Tennessee.

Planning Branch, EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth,

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

562-9033.

Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Texas.

Planning Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, TX 75202, (214)

665-7242.

Monica Morales, Chief, Air Montana.

Quality Planning Unit, EPA

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop

Street, Denver, CO 80202-

1129, (303) 312-6936.

Lisa Hanf, Chief, Air Planning Arizona and

Office, EPA Region 9, 75 California.

Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, (415)

972-3854.

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.s

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

gg/m 3 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 PM 2.5

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 PM 2.

5 NAAQS of 35 pg/m 3

State lands in a portion of Pinal County,

6057

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6057 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

Arizona.' 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

PM 2.

5 at 40 CFR section 51.1000-1012

apply only to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

EPA is considering amending those

regulations to encompass the 2006 24-

hour PM 2.

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 PM 2.

5 NAAQS

should be comparable to those for the

1997 PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 NAAQS.

When EPA promulgated the initial air

quality designations in the November

'By "State lands" we mean all land within the

State boundary that is not within Indian County,

including privately and Federally owned land.

22007-2009 data also show the area to be in

violation of the 2006 24-hour PM 5 NAAQS.

13, 2009 notice (74 FR 58688), we also

announced that our review of 2006-

2008 monitoring data for the annual

PM 2.

5 NAAQS indicated that two areas

initially designated as "unclassifiable/

attainment" for the 1997 annual PM 2.5

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 (pg/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 PM 2.5 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

32007-2009 data also show this area to be in

violation of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, with

a 2007-2009 design value of 40 pg/m 3.

Counties) surrounding the PhoenixMesa-Scottsdale CBSA, 4 for the 2006

24-hour PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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)

4 As 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.

6 The 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.

6058

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6058 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

submitted a technical report entitled

Arizona Air Quality Designations,

Technical Support Document, Boundary

Recommendation for the Pinal County

24-hour Standard PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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 PM 2.5 and PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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 pg/m 3)

and Shasta County, California (2006-

2008 24-hour design value of 48 pg/m 3)

appeared to be in violation of the 2006

24-hour PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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

PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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

PM 2.

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

7 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional

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

California Air Resources Board, dated March 11,

2010.

8 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional

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

California Air Resources Board, dated April 2, 2010.

Evidence Regarding Claimed

Exceptional Events Leading to 24-hour

PM 2.

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

PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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 pg/m 3) and

for Shasta County, California (2006-

2008 24-hour design value of 24 pg/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 PM 2.

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

92007-2009 data also show Shasta and Plumas

Counties in attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with 2007-2009 design values of 21 pg/m 3

(Shasta County) and 34 pg/m 3 (Plumas County).

6059

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6059 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

"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 pg/m 3 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 pg/m 3) and

Harris County, Texas (2006-2008

annual average design value of 15.2 jg/

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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.

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 PM 2.

5

NAAQS, not the annual PM 2.

5 NAAQS

(40 CFR 58.30). No other monitoring site

in Pinal County has shown a violation

of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in

either the 2006-2008 or 2007-2009

timeframes. In the absence of

monitoring data suitable for comparison

to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 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 PM 2.

5

NAAQS. However, EPA has determined

that monitor is no longer violating the

1997 annual PM 2.

5 NAAQS based on a

review of complete, quality-assured,

certified 2007-2009 data resulting in an

annual average design value of 14.1 pg/

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 PM 2.

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

10 2007-2009 data show that all other Pinal

County monitors are in attainment of the 1997

annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

all areas in Texas that have monitors

with data eligible for comparison to the

1997 annual PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS."

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

PM 2.5 NAAQS for certain areas in

Arizona and California. EPA is also

making two corrections related to the

2006 24-hour PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5

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 PM 2.

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

"Letter from Al Armendariz, Regional

Administrator, EPA Region 6, to Rick Perry,

Governor of Texas, dated April 28, 2010.

6060

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6060 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

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.govl

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 PM 2.5

NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13), therefore, no

UMRA analysis is needed. This rule

establishes the application of the PM 2.5

standard and the designation for each

area of the country for the PM 2.5

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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.

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

6061

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6061 2011
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 PM 2.5 NAAQS (40

CFR section 50.13). This rule establishes

the application of the PM 2.

5 standard

and the designation and classification

for certain areas of the country for the

PM 2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, no Tribe

has implemented a CAA program to

attain the PM 2.5 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 PM 2.

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

PM 2.5 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

PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS on

children. The results of this risk

assessment are contained in the NAAQS

for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.

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.

L 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 PM 2.

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 PM 2.

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

6062

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6062 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

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

m 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.

m 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.

m 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-PM 2.5

[24-hour NAAQS]

Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a

Designated area Date 1 Type Date 2 Type

West Central Pinal:

P inal C ounty (pa rt) .................................................

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;

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

6063

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6063 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

ARIZONA-PM 2.

5-Continued

[24-hour NAAQS]

Designation for the 1997 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa

Designated area Date I 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 ......................................................

G ila C o u n ty ............................................................

Graham County ......................................................

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

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

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

La Paz County ....................................................... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent .......

M a ricopa C ounty ....................................................

P im a C o u nty ...........................................................

Pinal County (remainder, excluding lands of the

Gila River Indian Community and Ak-Chin Indian Community.

Yavapai County ....................................

Y u m a C o u nty ......................................................... ................

Lands of the Gila River Indian Community in Pinal

County.

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

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

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

Unclassifiable/Attainment .......

Unclassifiable/Attainment .......

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

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

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

6064

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6064 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

ARIZONA-PM 2.

5-Continued

[24-hour NAAQS]

Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a

Designated area Date I Type Date 2 Type

Lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community in Pinal ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainment.

County.

* 3. In § 81.305, the "California-PM2.

5 "Siskiyou County" under the heading of * d. By revising the entries for "Plumas

(24-hour NAAQS)" table is amended as "Northeast Plateau Air Basin" to read as County," and "Sierra County" under the

follows: set forth below. heading "Northern Mountain Counties"

m a. By revising the entry for "Trinity m c. By revising the entries for "Butte to read as set forth below.

County" under the heading of "North County (remainder)", "Shasta County",

Coast Air Basin" to read as set forth "Tehama County", and "Yuba County § 81.305 California.

below. (remainder)" under the heading "Upper . . . . .

* b. By revising the entries for "Lassen Sacramento Valley Region" to read as set

County," "Modoc County," and forth below.

CALIFORNIA-PM 2.

5

[24-hour NAAQS]

Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a

Designated area

Date I Type Date 2 Type

Rest of State:

North Coast Air Basin:

Trinity County ........................................................ ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainm ent.

Northeast Plateau Air Basin:

Lassen County ....................................................... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainm ent.

Modoc County ........................................................ ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/ Attainm ent.

Siskiyou County ..................................................... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainm ent.

Upper Sacramento Valley Region:

Butte County (remainder) ............................... Unclassifiable/Attainment ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainment.

Shasta County ........................................................ ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainm ent.

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/Attainm ent ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/ Attainm ent.

Sierra County ......................................................... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent ....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/ Attainm ent.

* 4. In § 81.32 7, 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.

m c. By adding a section for "Ravalli

County" after "Prairie County" to read as

set forth below.

§ 81.327 Montana.

6065

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6065 2011
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

MONTANA-PM 2.5

[24-hour NAAQS]

Designation for the 1997 NAAQXa Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a

Designated area

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type

Statewide:

Ravalli County ........................................................ ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent ....... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent.

5. In § 81.343, the "Tennessee-PM2.5 "Knoxville,TN" and adding in its place § 81.343 Tennessee.

(24-hour NAAQS)" table is amended by "Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN" * * * *

removing the designated area to read as follows:

TENNESSEE-PM 2.5

[24-hour NAAQS]

Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a

Designated area

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type

Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN.

[FR Doe. 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

6066

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6066 2011