# + 2

(,1 1/,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 Order12866.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 ofManagement and Budget.

Executive Order13132.This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does nothave sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation ofa Federalism Assessment.

RegulatoryFlexibility Act. The Director ofthe Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.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 ofthe Attorney General or the Director ofthe Bureau ofPrisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds. UnfundedMandatesReformAct 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 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

SmallBusinessRegulatory EnforcementFairness Act of1996. This regulation is not a major rule as defined by §804 ofthe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation will not result in

an annual effect onthe 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 ofUnited States-based companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and export markets. List of Subjects in 28 CFRPart552

Prisoners. Harley G.Lappin,

Director, BureauofPrisons.
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and delegated to the Director, Bureau ofPrisons 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 asto 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) Cannotbe approached without danger to selfor 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 resultin 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 ofLieutenant.

* 3.In §552.27, remove the term "nonlethal" and add the term "less-thanlethal" in its place.
[FRDoe. 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 AirQuality 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 Classificationsfor the Annual Fine Particles National Ambient AirQuality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Supplemental amendments; Final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated air quality designations nationwide for allbut three areas forthe 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2. 5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This rule takes several additional actions related to the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS designations. It establishes the initial PM2.5 air quality designations for three areas (Pinal County, Arizona; Plumas County, California; and Shasta County, California) and their respective surrounding counties that EPA deferred in the November 13, 2009 promulgated designations. Plumas and Shasta counties and their surrounding counties

are being designated "unclassifiable/ attainment," while aportion of Pinal County is being designated as "nonattainment." This action also includes a 110(k)(6) error correction (affecting Ravalli, Montana) and a technical correction (affecting Knoxville, Tennessee) related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. Finally, in this action, EPA announces its decision to retain the
current designation ofunclassifiable/ attainment for Harris County, Texas and Pinal County, Arizona for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: EffectiveDate:The effective date ofthis 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 (PinalCounty, 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 2011Federal 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 (HarrisCounty, Texas and Pinal County, Arizona) for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All documents contained in both dockets are listed inthe 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 inhard 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 ofAir 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 orby 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 stafflisted 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 ofthe Preamble.

I. Preamble Glossary ofTerms and Acronyms II. What is the purpose ofthis action? III. What are the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS designations promulgated inthis 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 ofpossible redesignations to nonattainment for Harris County, Texas, and Pinal County, Arizona, forthe 1997 annual PM2.s NAAQS? VII. Significance ofThis Action VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for thisrule 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 FromEnvironmental 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 AirAct CBSA Core Based Statistical Area CFR Code ofFederal Regulations DC District ofColumbia
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 ofManagement and Budget RFA RegulatoryFlexibility 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. Whatis the purpose ofthis 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 furtherthe 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 ofthis 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 ofareas in each State and in Indian Country, and the designation for each
area, appear in the tables at the end of this final rule (amendments to 40 CFR 81.300-356). In particular, EPA is designating as "nonattainment" for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 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 ofthe NAAQS. 2 Forthe designated Pinal County nonattainment area, Arizona
must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that provides for attainment ofthe NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, in accordance with the requirements ofthe CAA and applicable EPA regulations. Pursuant to CAA section 172(b), EPA is announcing that this plan must be submitted no later three years from the effective date of these designations.

Such plan must meet the requirements of section 172(c). EPA's
current implementation regulations for PM2.5 at40 CFR section 51.1000-1012 apply only to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is considering amending those regulations to encompass the 2006 24- hour PM2. 5 NAAQS andto address any other revisions to the regulations that

are necessary for these new standards. However, EPA anticipates that the SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2. 5 NAAQS should be comparable to those forthe 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, so that the regulations at sections 51.1000-1012

can be used as guidance for SIP planning for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to the extent appropriate, pending any revisions to the regulations. For those

areas designated unclassifiable/ attainment, States are not required to develop a SIP to meet the requirements of section 172(c), but States must meet other statutory and regulatory requirements to prevent significant deterioration ofair 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 ofthe Tribal consultation process.

After further review of air quality monitoring data, including an evaluation of exceptional event claims, EPA is also designating as "unclassifiable/attainment" the remaining two areas (Plumas County, California; Shasta County, California; and eight nearby counties) for which we previously deferred the initial air quality designation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

When EPA promulgated the initial air quality designations in the November

'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 ofthe 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 PM2. 5 NAAQS indicated that two areas initially designated as "unclassifiable/ attainment" for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (HarrisCounty, 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 forthePinalCounty, Arizonaareabasedon 2006-2008data. In this action, EPA is designating as "nonattainment" a portion ofState 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 ofthe NAAQS (2006-2008 design value of48 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 notedbelow, Indian Country located within those areas, as ''unclassifiable/attainment." EPA is deferring designation ofthe 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 ofthe Tribal consultation process.

In October of 2009, EPA notified the Governor ofArizona and Tribal leaders of Tribes with lands located in Pinal and Maricopa counties that amonitor in Pinal County was violating the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 standards based on the most recent (2006-2008) air quality monitoring data. Due to this new violation, and due to the need for additional time to collect data and evaluate the area to determine an appropriate nonattainment area boundary, EPA decided to defer the area designation ofPinal 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, andYuma

32007-2009 data also show this area to bein violation ofthe 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, with

a 2007-2009 design value of40 pg/m 3

. Counties) surrounding the PhoenixMesa-Scottsdale CBSA,4 for the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 standards. EPA then followed the designations process set forth in section 107(d) ofthe CAA which included sending letters in April and May of 2010 to affected States and Tribes notifying them ofEPA's intentions with respect to potential modification ofthe initial designation recommendations ofthe State orTribe. EPA also followed the guidance issued in June of 2007 related to boundary determinations for nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS. 5In keeping with this guidance, EPA completed a 9-factor analysis 6 documented in the final PinalCounty, ArizonaAreaDesignation forthe 2006 24-hourFineParticle National Ambient AirQualityStandardTechnicalSupport Documentdated May 5, 2010, and supplemented by theAddendum to EPA'sMay 5, 2010 TechnicalSupport Document:PinalCounty,ArizonaArea Designation forthe200624-hourFine Particle NationalAmbientAirQuality Standard.

In aletter dated July 19, 2010, the Governor of Arizona responded to EPA's May 10, 2010 notification ofthe need for amodification to the State's initial designation in order to designate a portion of Pinal County "nonattainment" for the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS. The Governor disagreed with EPA's modification, but also provided a revised recommendation with a suggested boundary for the nonattainment area inPinal 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 ofthe Governor's alternative boundary, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

4As described inEPA's rule promulgating initial PM2 .5designations 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 (inthis case, Pinal and Maricopa counties), and those nearby counties one ortwo 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 forthe Revised 24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards," memorandum to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10,from RobertJ. Meyers, Acting Assistant Administrator, OAR, dated June 8, 2007.

6The 9-factor analysis includes assessment of emission data, air quality data, population density and degree ofurbanization, traffic and commuting patterns, growth rates and patterns, meteorology (weather/transport patterns), geography/topography (mountainranges or otherair basin boundaries), jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, Reservations, metropolitan planning organizations), andlevel ofcontrol ofemission

sources. 

### 6058

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6058 2011

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 23/Thursday, February 3, 2011/Rules and Regulations

submitted atechnical report entitled ArizonaAirQualityDesignations, TechnicalSupportDocument,Boundary Recommendation forthePinalCounty 24-hourStandard PM2. 5 Nonattainment Area dated July 13, 2010 (ADEQ's technical report).

EPA has reviewed the Governor's July 19, 2010 letter and ADEQ's technical report and with this action is finalizing

a revised boundary determination that includes the sources of PM2.5 and PM2. 5 precursor emissions thatcontribute to air quality violations at the violating monitor. The final partial Pinal County, Arizona nonattainment area remains larger than the area recommended inthe 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 ofPM2.5 and PM2. 5 precursor emissions contributing to the exceedances ofthe NAAQS measured at the violating monitor.

All correspondence and supporting documentation related to deferred final designations canbe found in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562.

Designations forthePlumasCounty, California, andShastaCounty, California, areasbasedon 2006-2008 data.After further review ofair quality monitoring data, including an evaluation of submitted exceptional
event claims, EPA is designating as "unclassifiable/attainment" the remaining two areas for which the initial air quality designation was deferred for the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS.

As described in the November 13, 2009 notice, the monitors located in two
areas, Plumas County, California (2006- 2008 24-hour design value of 49 pg/m 3)
and Shasta County, California (2006- 2008 24-hour design value of 48 pg/m 3) appeared to be in violation ofthe 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS with the inclusion of 2008 monitoring data. In light ofthis new data indicating a violation, EPA decided to take additional time to evaluate the areas to determine whether there was a violation and, ifso, what the nonattainment area boundaries shouldbe 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 ofthe monitoring data from Plumas County and Shasta County indicate that these areas were not violating the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS based on 2006-2008 data, due
to exceptional events that affected the monitors. On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, TreatmentofData InfluencedbyExceptionalEvents (72 FR 13560), also known as the Exceptional Events Rule (EER), to govern the review and handling ofcertain 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 ofNAAQS exceedances and violations ifa 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 tojustify the exclusion. After considering the weight ofevidence provided in the demonstration, EPA decides whether or not to concur with each flagged value.

On June 17, 2009, CARB submitted a preliminary demonstration for a high PM2. 5 event that occurred at the Plumas County Portola monitor on July 8, 2007. Additional clarification concerning this event was submitted to EPA via e-mail

on December 22, 2009. On August 28, 2009, CARB submitted additional eventrelated preliminary demonstration documentation for high PM2. 5 events that occurred atvarious 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 onJanuary 19, 2010 and January 26, 2010.

EPA reviewed these demonstration submittals, and subsequently concurred, that specific wildfire-related events caused exceedances ofthe 24-hour PM2. 5 standard on July 8, 2007 at the Portola monitor in Plumas County; at the Redding, Shasta County monitor on June 23, June 29, July 5, July 17, and July 23, 2008; at the Portola, Plumas County monitor on June 23, June 26, July 11, and July 23, 2008; and at the Quincy, Plumas County monitor onJune 23, June 26, July 8, July 11, and July 19, 2008.7 8 EPA's evaluation ofthese events is documented in the Review of

7Letter 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. EvidenceRegardingClaimed ExceptionalEventsLeadingto 24-hour PM2. 5 Exceedances:PlumasCounty, CA (July8, 2007)technical support document dated March 11, 2010, the Review of EvidenceRegardingClaimed ExceptionalEventsLeadingto 24-hour PM2. 5 Exceedances:ShastaCounty, CA (June 23, 2008 and July23, 2008)and PlumasCounty, CA (June23, 2008;June 26, 2008;July11, 2008;July19,2008; andJuly23, 2008) technical support document dated March 11, 2010, and the Review ofEvidenceRegarding Claimed ExceptionalEventsLeadingto 24-hour PM2. 5 Exceedances: Shasta County,CA (June 29, 2008;July5, 2008; and July17,2008) andPlumasCounty, CA (June26, 2008;July8, 2008;andJuly 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 of34 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 ofthe NAAQS, EPA has determined that the initial designation for these counties should be "unclassifiable/attainment." As a result ofthese two counties being in attainment ofthese NAAQS, other nearby counties for which we had deferred designations are not contributing to any violation ofthe NAAQS in a nearby area. Accordingly, EPA has determined that an initial designation of"unclassifiable/ attainment" is appropriate for the counties ofButte, 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) ErrorCorrection 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 ofincorrectly 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 ofthe 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 2007-2009 design values of 21pg/m 3 (Shasta County)and 34 pg/m 3 (PlumasCounty). 

### 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 andthe data were recalculated, we determined that the designation should have been "unclassifiable/attainment." The correction made by EPA in this action is identified inthe table atthe end of this notice and the change will be reflected in a revision of40 CFRpart 81.

V. Technical Correction Related to the 2006 24-HourPM2.5 NAAQS Designations

In this rule, EPA is also making a minor technical correction to the name ofthe Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area included in the November 13, 2009 action (74 FR 58688). The name ofthe Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area isbeing changed in 40 CFR part 81 to be the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, Tennessee nonattainment area to correspond with the name ofthe CBSA and to provide an accurate area name in the Code ofFederal Regulations. The correction made by EPA in this action is identified inthe table atthe end of this notice and the change will be reflected in a revision of40 CFRpart 81.

VI. What is the status ofpossible redesignations to nonattainmentfor HarrisCounty, Texas, and Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 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 thattwo counties designated "unclassifiable/ attainment" for the 1997 annual PM2 . 5 NAAQS of 15 pg/m 3 had monitors that

were nowpotentially 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 15.2jg/ 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 TechnicalSupportDocument for Determinationthatthe Cowtown MonitorisIneligible forComparison with theAnnualPM 2.

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 ofthe site. EPA determined that data from the Cowtown monitor are ineligible for comparison to the annual PM2. 5 NAAQS because the monitor functions as a population-oriented microscale (i.e., localized hot spot) monitor. EPA regulations provide that monitors at "relatively unique population-oriented microscale, or localized hot spot, or unique population-oriented middlescale impact sites" are only eligible for comparison to the 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS, not the annual PM2. 5 NAAQS (40 CFR 58.30). No other monitoring site in Pinal County has shown a violation ofthe 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in either the 2006-2008 or 2007-2009 timeframes. In the absence of monitoring data suitable for comparison
to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS showing aviolation ofthat standard, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to retain the current designation of"unclassifiable/ attainment" for Pinal County, Arizona for these NAAQS. 1 0 In Harris County, Texas, EPA identified the "Clinton Drive" monitor (AQSID: 48-201-1035) as potentially violating the 1997 annual PM2. 5 NAAQS. However, EPA has determined that monitor is no longer violating the 1997 annual PM2. 5 NAAQS based on a review ofcomplete, 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 ofTexas ofEPA's intention to designate Harris County, Texas as "nonattainment" for the 1997 annual PM2. 5 NAAQS based on 2006- 2008 monitoring data and requested that the State provide recommendations for the intended redesignation. As part of the review and recommendation process, Texas completed an expedited review and submittal of 2009 air quality monitoring data into AQS. The result of this additional data was the recalculation ofHarris 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 ofthe 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. all areas in Texas that have monitors with data eligible for comparison to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS be classified

as unclassifiable/attainment. Because EPA believes that inclusion ofthe 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 forthe 1997 annual PM2.5 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 ofThis Action

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, EPA is promulgating the initial designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for certain areas in Arizona and California. EPA is also making two corrections related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. The first correction is a 110(k)(6) error correction related to the designation classification for Ravalli, Montana. The second correction involves a technical correction to the

name ofthe Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area included in the November 13, 2009 action. Finally, EPA is determining thatit is not necessary to redesignate areas in Texas and Arizona
to nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

The designations and corrections made by EPA in this action with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS relate
to the other designations that EPA promulgated in the November 13, 2009 action (74 FR 58688). The designations and corrections made by EPA in this rule, related to the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard, are set forth in the tables at the end ofthis notice and will change the designation status or area description for the affected areas in 40 CFR part 81 initially announced in the November 13, 2009, action. States with

areas designated as "nonattainment" for the 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS are required
to submit SIPs addressing nonattainment area requirements within three years ofdesignation, pursuant to section 172 ofthe CAA. Therefore, within three years following the March 7, 2011 effective date for the designations identified in this rulemaking, Arizona willbe required to

"Letter from Al Armendariz, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, to Rick Perry, Governor ofTexas, 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 Ifind information forming the basis forthis rule and exchanges between EPA, States, and Tribes related tothis 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 ofthis 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 ornot 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 Order12866:Regulatory Planning andReview
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 ReductionAct
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This rule responds to the requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation ofa NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed in the CAA section 107 oftitle 1.The present final rule does not establish any new information collection apart from that required by law.

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act
This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall 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 ofproposed rulemaking before issuing this rule.

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

This action contains noFederal mandate under the provisions ofTitle II ofthe 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 ofsections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 ofUMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It does not create any additional requirements beyond those ofthe PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 50.13), therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. Thisrule establishes the application ofthe PM2.5 standard and the designation for each

area ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofFederal 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 inthe aggregate.

The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result ofthis action will not cost in the aggregate $100 million or more annually. Thus, this Federal action will notimpose 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 Order13132:Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely inputby State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies thathave federalism implications. "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations thathave "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 ofgovernment."

This final rule does not have federalism implications. Itwill not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, 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 willnot modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes ofdeveloping programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F.Executive Order13175: Consultation andCoordinationWith 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 thathave Tribal implications." This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule concerns the designation and classification of

areas as "attainment" and "nonattainment" for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The CAA provides for States and eligible Tribes to develop plans to regulate emissions ofair pollutants within their areas based on their designations. The Tribal Authority Rule (TAR)provides Tribes the opportunity to apply for eligibility to develop and implement CAA programs such as programs to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS, but it leaves to the discretion ofthe Tribe the decision of whether to apply to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a program, the Tribe will seekto 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 ofthe PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR section 50.13). This rule establishes the application ofthe PM2. 5 standard and the designation and classification for certain areas ofthe country for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, no Tribe has implemented a CAA program to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. Furthermore, this rule does not affect the relationship or distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the TAR establish the relationship ofthe 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 staffregarding the designations process. EPA also sent individualized letters to all Federally recognized Tribes to explain the designation process for the 2006 24- hour PM2. 5 NAAQS, to provide the EPA designations guidance, and to offer consultation with EPA. EPA provided further information to Tribes through presentations at the National Tribal Forum and through participation in National Tribal Air Association conference calls. EPA also sent individualized letters to all Federally recognized Tribes about EPA's intended

areas area designations forthe 24-hour PM2.5 standards and offered Tribal leaders the opportunity for consultation. These communications provided opportunities for Tribes to voice

concerns to EPA about the general designations process for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as concerns specific to a Tribe, and informed EPA about key Tribal concerns regarding designations as the rule was under development.
G. Executive Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth andSafetyRisks

The action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because itis 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 ofthe PM 2.5 NAAQS on children. The results ofthis risk assessment are contained in the NAAQS for the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5, Final Rule (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144).

H.Executive Order13211:ActionsThat Significantly Affect EnergySupply, 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 NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) ofthe 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 Order12898:Federal Actions toAddressEnvironmental JusticeinMinorityPopulations 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 oftheir mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheir programs, policies, and activities onminority 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 ofprotection provided to human health or the environment.

K. Congressional ReviewAct
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rulemay take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe U.S. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe U.S. prior to publication ofthe 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 5U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective March 7, 2011.

L.JudicialReview

Section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA indicates which Federal Courts ofAppeal have jurisdiction for petitions forreview of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review mustbe 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 ifin taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action isbased on such a determination." EPA is determining that this action is ofnationwide scope and effect.

This rule designating areas forthe 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is "nationally applicable" within the meaning ofsection 307(b)(1). This rule establishes or corrects designations for several areas across the U.S.for the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS. In addition, this action relates to the priornationwide rulemaking in which EPA promulgated designations for numerous other areas nationwide. At the core ofthis rulemaking is EPA's interpretation of the definition of"nonattainment" under section 107(d)(1) ofthe 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 priorrelated rulemaking.

For the same reasons, the Administrator also is determining that the final designations are ofnationwide 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) ofthe CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of"nationwide scope or 

### 6062

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

effect" wouldbe appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond

a singlejudicial 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 ofthis 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 forreview of final designations mustbe filed in the Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action ispublished in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in40 CFRPart81

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



### m1.The authority citation for part81 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-PM 2.5 (24-hour NAAQS)" table is amended as follows: * a. By adding anew entry for "West Central Pinal" after "Santa Cruz County" under "Nogales" to read as setforth below. * b. Byrevising the entry for "Cochise County" to read as set forth below. mc. Byrevising the entry for"Gila County" to read as setforth below.
* d. Byrevising the entry for "Graham County" to read as setforth below.



### me. Byrevising the entry for"La Paz County" to read as setforth below.
* f.Byrevising the entry for "Maricopa County" to read as setforth below.
* g.Byrevising the entry for"Pima County" to read as setforth below.
* h. Byrevising the entry for "Pinal County" to read as setforth below.
* i.Byrevising the entry for "Yavapai County" to read as setforth below. 

### * j.Byrevising the entry for "Yuma County" to read as setforth below.
* k.By adding entriesfor "Landsofthe Gila River Indian Community in Pinal County" and "Lands ofthe Ak-Chin Indian Community" after "Yuma County" as setforth 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: Pinal County (part)

................................................. 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

......................................................

Gila Coun ty

............................................................

Graham County

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

.......

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

.......

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

.......

La Paz County

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

.......

M

aricopa County

....................................................

Pima County

...........................................................

Pinal County (remainder, excluding lands of the

Gila River Indian Community and Ak-Chin Indian Community.

Yavapai County

.................................... Yuma County

......................................................... ................ 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 2011Federal 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-PM 2.5 "Siskiyou County" under the heading of * d. Byrevising 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"

ma.Byrevising the entry for "Trinity mc. Byrevising 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. Byrevising 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 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa Designated area Date I Type Date 2 Type

Rest of State: North Coast Air Basin:

Trinity County

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

....... 3/7/11 Unclassifiable/Attainm ent. Northeast Plateau Air Basin: Lassen County

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upper Sacramento Valley Region: Butte County (remainder)

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

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

Shasta County

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

....... 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/Attainment

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

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

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

* 4. In §81.327,the "Montana-PM2. 5 (24-hour NAAQS)" table is amended as follows: * a. Byremoving the entry for "Ravalli County". * b. Byremoving the heading "Rest of State:" and adding in its place "Statewide" as set forth below.

mc. By adding a section for "Ravalli County" after "Prairie County" to read as setforth below.
§81.327 Montana. 

### 6065

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6065 2011Federal 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/Attainment

....... ................ Unclassifiable/Attainm ent.

5.In §81.343, the "Tennessee-PM 2.5 "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 NAAQSa Designation for the 2006 NAAQSa 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 WildlifeService

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) ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. The geographic boundary ofthe NEP includes the entire State ofLouisiana. The objectives ofthe reintroduction are: to advance recovery ofthe endangered whooping crane; to implement a primary recovery action; to further

assess the suitability ofLouisiana as whooping crane habitat; and to evaluate the merit ofreleasing 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. Ifsuccessful, this action will result in the establishment ofan 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

PreviousFederal Actions
The whooping crane (Grus americana)was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR4001). 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). Seealso "Recovery Efforts" below. Legislative

Congress made significant changes to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.), 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 ofsection 9 and the 

### 6066

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 6066 2011