[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51839-51840]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20970]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67701; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding
Client Information About Agency Orders of Floor Brokers

August 21, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 10, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to make it possible for the staff of Phlx to
require an immediate answer to their inquiries to floor brokers for
client information about the agency orders those floor brokers handle.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx/, at Phlx's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Phlx proposes to have the ability to require an immediate answer to
its inquiries to floor brokers related to the identity of the clients
behind agency orders that the floor brokers handle. The current text of
the rule to be amended provides each member, member organization or
associated person a timeframe of two business days to respond to the
Exchange's inquiries in order for the response to be deemed as a prompt
compliance. However, in the case where a floor broker receives an
agency order from his client, the Exchange's regulatory staff must be
able to know immediately the identity of that client when the order is
subject of a complaint or otherwise requires regulatory review. Such
authority is necessary in order for the Phlx regulatory staff to be
able to take an action regarding concerns that stem from their
observation of order handling, a complaint by a market participant, or
a complaint by regulatory staff from another self-regulatory
organization that is party to an information sharing agreement with
Phlx. Accordingly, Phlx is proposing that the fines provided for in
Option Floor Procedure F-8 will be assessed if a floor broker fails to
respond immediately to a request for information about its client.
2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Phlx believes that the
change is necessary to give its staff the ability to provide
appropriate surveillance of agency orders handled by floor brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2012-107 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-107. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-107 and should be
submitted on or before September 17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20970 Filed 8-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5098-5099]
[DOCID:fr31ja06-82]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53174; File No. SR-NSX-2006-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Fee Schedule Contained in Exchange Rule 11.10(A) To Decrease the
Monthly Transaction Fee Cap

January 24, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 19, 2006, the National Stock Exchange (``NSX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The NSX
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule reflected in
Exchange Rule 11.10(A) to reduce its monthly transaction fee cap in
Exchange Rule 11.10(A)(i) from $200,000 to $50,000. The text of the
proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is in
italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
CHAPTER XI
Trading Rules
* * * * *
Rule 11.10 National Securities Trading System Fees
A. Trading Fees
    (a)-(h) No change.
    (i) Transaction Fee Cap. The monthly transaction fee charged to
each member shall be equal to the lesser of (1) the amount assessed
pursuant to Paragraph (A)(a) through (A)(h) of this Rule 11.10 or (2)
[$200,000] $50,000.
    (j)-(r) No change.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The NSX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's fee schedule reflected in Exchange Rule 11.10(A)
currently provides for fees payable by members based upon, among other
things, transactions executed on the Exchange. The Exchange's current
fee schedule provides for a monthly transaction fee cap of the lesser
of the fees contained in Exchange Rule 11.10(A)(a) to 11.10(A)(h) or
$200,000. With this filing, the Exchange proposes to reduce the dollar
cap parameter from $200,000 to $50,000. This proposal will allow the
Exchange to cap the transaction fee (which consists of trading fees in
respect of agency, odd lot, professional agency, proprietary and
preferencing transactions, as well as the fees associated with crosses
and meets and the agency order mix fee) at $50,000 per month for
competitive reasons in an attempt to preserve order flow. Please note
that this transaction fee is calculated shortly after the month end
activity (i.e., the transaction fee for January would be calculated in
February) and would be collected thereafter (in February), after the
effective date of this filing. Accordingly, the Exchange will utilize
this new rule in the calculation of the January fee (which would
represent a reduction of the transaction fees for all NSX members).
    The NSX believes the reduction of the fee cap will in no way impede
the Exchange's current regulatory program or its ability to enforce
compliance by its members with the Exchange's Rules or the Act.
2. Statutory Basis
    The NSX believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor recieved written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or
other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the Exchange, and,
therefore, has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\ At any
time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NSX-2006-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSX-2006-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NSX. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-NSX-2006-01 and should be submitted on or before February
21, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1177 Filed 1-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 190)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60680-60689]
[DOCID:fr01oc10-27]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0491; FRL-9209-4]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Arizona; Pinal County; PM10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is
proposing to redesignate from ``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment''
an area generally covering the western half of Pinal County, Arizona,
for the 1987 national ambient air quality standard for particles with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10), and therefore also proposing to revise the
boundaries of the existing ``rest of state'' unclassifiable area. EPA's
proposal to establish this new PM10 nonattainment area,
referred to as ``West Pinal,'' is based on numerous recorded violations
of the PM10 standard at various monitoring sites within the
county. EPA's proposed boundaries would encompass all land
geographically located within Pinal County west of the north-south line
defined by the boundary between Townships 10E and 11E, but excluding
the main reservation of the Tohono O'odham Nation (TON) and excluding
the Apache Junction portion of the existing Phoenix PM10
nonattainment area. San Carlos Apache lands, which are located in the
eastern quarter of the county, would be excluded from the proposed
nonattainment area along with the rest of the eastern half of the
county. If finalized as proposed, the new ``West Pinal''
PM10 nonattainment area would be classified as ``moderate''
by operation of law. The effect of this action would be to establish
and delineate a new PM10 nonattainment area within Pinal
County and thereby to impose certain planning requirements on the State
of Arizona to reduce PM10 concentrations within this area,
including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit, within 18
months of redesignation, a revision to the Arizona state implementation
plan that provides for attainment of the PM10 standard as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year after redesignation. Lastly, EPA is deferring action on
the status of certain tribal lands located within this area, including
the tribal lands of the Ak-Chin Indian Community and the Gila River
Indian Community, as well as TON's Florence Village and San Lucy Farm,
pending further consultation with the affected tribes.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by November 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0491, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3964<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Decision to Address PM10 Violations Monitored
in Pinal County Through Redesignation
III. State of Arizona's Recommendation for Boundaries for New
Nonattainment Area
IV. EPA's Review of the State's Recommendation and Rationale for
Proposed Boundaries
V. EPA's Review of Recommendations From Affected Indian Tribes
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 1, 1987, EPA revised the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for particulate matter (52 FR
24634), replacing total suspended particulates as the indicator for
particulate matter with a new indicator called PM10 that
includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers.\1\ In order to attain the NAAQS for
24-hour PM10, an air quality monitor cannot measure levels
of PM10 greater than 150 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) more than once per year on average over a consecutive
three-year period. The rate of expected exceedances, therefore,
indicates whether a monitor attains the air quality standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1987 PM10 standard included a 24-hour (150
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)) and an annual standard
(50 [micro]g/m\3\). In 2006, EPA revoked the annual standard. See 71
FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of Pinal County, Arizona, including the area that is the
subject of today's action, was included in the ``rest of state'' area,
which was designated ``unclassifiable'' for PM10 by
operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``Act'').\2\ See section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii). The
PM10 designations established by operation of law under the
CAA, as amended in 1990, are known as ``initial'' designations. The CAA
grants EPA the authority to change the designation of, or
``redesignate,'' such areas in light of changes in circumstances. More
specifically, CAA section 107(d)(3) authorizes EPA to revise the
designation of areas (or portions thereof) on the

basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any
other air-quality-related considerations that EPA deems appropriate.
Pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3), EPA in the past has redesignated
certain areas in Arizona to nonattainment for the PM10
NAAQS, including the Payson and Bullhead City areas. See 56 FR 16274
(April 22, 1991); and 58 FR 67334 (December 21, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While most of Pinal County was designated
``unclassifiable,'' two PM10 planning areas that extend
into Pinal County were designated under the CAA, as amended in 1990,
as ``nonattainment:'' The Phoenix planning area, which includes the
Apache Junction area within Pinal County; and the Hayden/Miami
planning area, which includes the northeastern portion of the
county. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991); and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992). In 2007, we approved a
redesignation request by the State of Arizona to split the Hayden/
Miami PM10 nonattainment area into two separate
PM10 nonattainment areas. See 72 FR 14422 (March 28,
2007). Today's proposed action would not affect these pre-existing
PM10 nonattainment areas. EPA codifies area designations
in 40 CFR part 81. The area designations for the State of Arizona
are codified at 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Decision to Address PM10 Violations Monitored in
Pinal County Through Redesignation

    As noted above, EPA has the authority under CAA section 107(d)(3)
to redesignate areas (or portions thereof) on the basis of air quality
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air-quality-
related considerations. Last year, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), EPA
notified the Governor of Arizona and tribal leaders of the four Indian
Tribes (whose Indian country is located entirely, or in part, within
Pinal County) that the designation for Pinal County, and any nearby
areas that may be contributing to the monitored violations in Pinal
County, should be revised. Our decision to initiate the redesignation
process stemmed from review of 2006-2008 ambient PM10
monitoring data from PM10 monitoring stations within the
county that showed widespread, frequent, and in some instances, severe,
violations of the PM10 standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a letter dated October 14, 2009, EPA notified the State
of Arizona that the PM10 designation in Pinal County
should be revised. EPA notified the tribal leaders of the Ak-Chin
Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, San Carlos Apache
Tribe, and Tohono O'odham Nation by letters dated December 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1, below, presents a summary of the latest available quality-
assured PM10 monitoring data (2007-2009). A map showing the
location of the monitors is included in our Technical Support Document
(TSD), contained in the docket for this rulemaking.

   Table 1--Pinal County--PM10 Air Quality Monitoring Data, 2007-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          PM10 Expected
              Site name                    AQS* ID        exceedances**
                                                            2007-2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Junction***..................     04-021-3002-1                 0
Casa Grande.........................     04-021-0001-1                 0
                                         04-021-0001-3               4.7
Combs School (Queen Creek)..........     04-021-3009-3              17.6
Coolidge............................     04-021-3004-1                 2
Cowtown (southeast of Maricopa).....     04-021-3013-1             112.9
                                         04-021-3013-3             139.8
Eloy................................     04-021-3014-1                 0
Mammoth.............................     04-021-3006-1                 0
Marana (Pinal Air Park).............     04-021-3007-1                 0
Maricopa............................     04-021-3010-3              12.6
Pinal County Housing/PCH (approx. 11     04-021-3011-1               6.5
 miles east of Casa Grande).........
                                         04-021-3011-2               5.9
                                         04-021-3011-3              15.6
Riverside (Kearny)..................     04-021-3012-1                 0
Stanfield (approx. 15 miles west of      04-021-3008-1              16.4
 Casa Grande).......................
                                         04-021-3008-3              17.8
Bapchule (Gila River Indian              04-021-7004-1               6.6
 Community monitors)................
                                         04-021-7004-2               7.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*AQS (Air Quality System) is an EPA database of ambient air quality.
**The 24-hour PM10 standard is met when the 3-year average of the
  expected exceedances is equal to or less than one.
***The Apache Junction site is located in the existing Phoenix PM10
  nonattainment area.

    As shown in Table 1, the data from 2007-2009 reveal violations at
the PM10 monitors located in Queen Creek, Casa Grande,
Coolidge, Cowtown (which is southeast of Maricopa), Maricopa,
Stanfield, at the Pinal County Housing Complex (which is east of Casa
Grande, roughly half-way between Coolidge and Eloy), and within the
Gila River Indian Reservation. Expected annual exceedances (of the 150
[micro]g/m\3\ 24-hour standard) at these monitoring sites range from
two (at Coolidge) to more than 100 (at Cowtown). (For the purposes of
comparison, the NAAQS is met when the 3-year average of the expected
exceedances is equal to or less than one.) Maximum 24-hour
concentrations measured at a number of these sites (such as Cowtown,
Maricopa and Stanfield) can be more than two to three times the level
of the standard. In light of the widespread, frequent, and severe
violations of the PM10 standard monitored at various
monitoring sites in Pinal County, EPA continues to believe that the SIP
planning and control requirements that are triggered by redesignation
of an area to nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS would be the
most appropriate means to ensure that this air quality problem is
remedied.
    Section III of this document describes the State of Arizona's
recommendation with respect to the boundaries of this new
PM10 nonattainment area, and section IV of this document
summarizes EPA's review of the State's recommendation and rationale for
EPA's proposed boundaries. Section V describes the Indian Tribes'
recommendations and our corresponding responses. Section VI describes
our proposed action and the corresponding CAA planning requirements
that would thereby be triggered.

III. State of Arizona's Recommendation for Boundaries for New
Nonattainment Area

    Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(B) of the Act, the Governor of
Arizona responded to EPA's October 14, 2009 notification that the
PM10 designation of Pinal County, and any nearby areas that
may be contributing to violations in Pinal County, should be revised.
The Governor responded in a letter dated

March 23, 2010 in which the Governor recommended a partial-county
nonattainment area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated March 23,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The boundaries of the prospective PM10 nonattainment
area recommended by the Governor of Arizona encompass a portion of
central and western Pinal County, and form an area that resembles a
backwards ``L.'' \5\ See figure 2 of EPA's TSD for a map of both the
State's recommended boundaries as well as EPA's proposed boundaries.
The state-recommended area includes all or most of the cities of
Maricopa, Coolidge, Casa Grande and the Pinal County portion of the
town of Queen Creek, as well as the western-most portion of the town of
Florence and the northern-most portion of the city of Eloy. It includes
an area that at its western-most boundary includes nearly all of the
City of Maricopa. The southern boundary is defined by a line that
coincides approximately with Interstate 8. The area continues to the
east for approximately 35 miles where it extends to the north,
including portions of Florence and Coolidge, and the Pinal County
portion of Queen Creek, and terminates just south of Apache Junction.
The eastern boundary is defined by the north-south line between
Townships 8E and 9E. The northern boundary follows the county line
south from the Apache Junction area and then follows the boundary of
the Gila River Indian Reservation to close back around to the
recommended western boundary. See the Governor's March 23, 2010 letter
for the legal description of the State's recommended boundaries by
township and range and for an enclosed map illustrating this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Governor explicitly excludes Indian country, which is
appropriate given that the State of Arizona is not authorized to
administer programs under the CAA in the affected Indian country.
The ``backwards L'' shape of the recommended area is partly
explained by this exclusion because the recommended area partially
surrounds Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the Governor's recommendation, on March 26, 2010, the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted to EPA a
technical report entitled, ``Arizona Air Quality Designations,
Technical Support Document, Boundary Recommendation for the Pinal
County 24-hour PM10 Nonattainment Area (March 15, 2010),''
(herein referred to as ADEQ's ``technical report''). ADEQ's technical
report compiles and evaluates information addressing nine factors \6\
derived from and discussed in EPA guidance on designation criteria; see
citation on page 2 of ADEQ's technical report to Memorandum from Robert
J. Meyers, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator, ``Area Designations for
the Revised 24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standard,'' dated June 8, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The nine factors considered in ADEQ's technical report are
air quality data, emissions data, population density and degree of
urbanization, traffic and commuting patterns, growth rates and
patterns, meteorology, geography/topography, jurisdictional
boundaries, and level of control of emission sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ points to a number of elements that it believes support the
recommended boundaries. Specifically, ADEQ claims that its recommended
area would include: all of the violating monitors; the majority of
PM10 emissions generated within the county; the vast
majority of the county's population; the rapidly growing urbanized and
developed areas, high-traffic Interstate corridors and areas with the
highest employment densities; the significant growth areas along
Interstates 8 and 10; and the agricultural basin where stagnation
conditions are known to impact PM10 concentrations. ADEQ
also believes that its recommended redesignation would maintain
jurisdictional cohesiveness. To buttress its recommended exclusion of
eastern Pinal County from the new nonattainment area, ADEQ compares
these factors as they apply to western Pinal County with those for
eastern Pinal County. ADEQ asserts that in contrast to the western
portion of Pinal County, the eastern portion has no violating monitors,
contains few emissions sources (other than certain major sources that
are already included in an existing PM10 nonattainment
area), is largely undeveloped and has limited growth potential. As set
forth below in more detail, while EPA believes this characterization
applies to the eastern half of Pinal County, EPA also believes that the
western portion that should be redesignated is far more extensive than
the State's recommendation.

IV. EPA's Review of the State's Recommendation and Rationale for
Proposed Boundaries

    CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) generally defines a nonattainment area as
any area that does not meet, or that contributes to ambient air quality
in a nearby area that does not meet, the national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard for the relevant pollutant. Thus, in
reviewing the State's recommended boundaries, EPA has considered not
only areas where violations of the relevant NAAQS have been monitored,
but also that contribute to such violations.
    EPA guidance \7\ provides for the use of ``a qualitative analysis
of the area of representativeness of the monitoring station, together
with the consideration of terrain, meteorology, and sources of
emissions * * *'' in defining nonattainment area boundaries for
PM10. Consistent with that guidance, EPA generally
recommends that States identify nonattainment area boundaries based on
the weight of evidence of the following factors and other relevant
information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PM10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA-450/2-86-001,
June 1987.

--Air quality data;
--Pollutant emissions;
--Population density and degree of urbanization;
--Traffic and commuting patterns;
--Growth;
--Meteorology;
--Geography and topography;
--Jurisdictional boundaries; and
--Level of control of emissions sources.
See, e.g., Memorandum from Robert J. Meyers, EPA Acting Assistant
Administrator, ``Area Designations for the Revised 24-Hour Fine
Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' dated June 8, 2007.
EPA also looks to the same kinds of factors in the context of
redesignations. See, e.g., EPA's proposed (73 FR 22307, at 22308-22310,
April 25, 2008) and final approval (73 FR 66759, November 12, 2008) of
a state request to redesignate the San Joaquin Valley PM10
nonattainment area. In addition, CAA section 107(d)(3)(A) allows EPA,
in redesignating areas to nonattainment, to take into consideration
``any other air-quality-related considerations.'' In its technical
report, ADEQ refers to the nine factors in developing the State's
recommended boundaries for the new PM10 nonattainment area.
In the following paragraphs, we review and evaluate ADEQ's nine factor
analysis.
    Air Quality Data. ADEQ's technical report summarizes 2006-2008
PM10 monitoring data from 12 monitoring sites within Pinal
County. Most of the monitoring sites are located in the west central
portion of the county (Maricopa, Cowtown, Stanfield, Casa Grande, Pinal
County Housing Complex, and Coolidge). Two are located in the southern
portion (Eloy and Pinal Air Park); two are located in the northern
portion [Apache Junction and Combs School (located in Queen Creek)];
and two are located in the far eastern portion of the county (Riverside
and Mammoth). The Apache Junction and Riverside

monitoring sites are located within existing PM10
nonattainment areas.
    Based on 2006-2008 data, ADEQ finds six of the monitoring sites to
be in violation of the PM10 NAAQS. EPA has updated this
monitoring information by reviewing 2007-2009 data. Although we find
that these data are largely consistent with the data presented by ADEQ,
the more recent data set shows seven violating monitors (not counting
the PM10 monitoring site on the Gila River Indian
Reservation) rather than six. Coolidge is the additional monitoring
site that is newly violating based on the more recent data set. In its
technical report, ADEQ notes that its proposed boundaries include the
locations of all of the violating monitors within Pinal County. While
we agree that Arizona's proposed boundaries do in fact include all of
the violating monitors (i.e., other than the monitoring site located
within the Gila River Indian Reservation and those located within
existing PM10 nonattainment areas), we disagree with ADEQ's
contention that its proposed boundaries include all areas that do not
experience violations but nonetheless contribute to the violations that
are recorded at the monitoring sites based on an evaluation of the
other eight factors as discussed in the following paragraphs.
    Emissions Data. ADEQ developed an annual emissions inventory of
PM10 sources in the county for the year 2007 for the purpose
of defining a boundary for the new nonattainment area. ADEQ's inventory
relies on a number of different data sources, assumptions, and methods
(including EPA's MOBILE model and compilation of emissions factors (AP-
42)) to calculate annual PM10 emissions in the county.
ADEQ's inventory points to fugitive emissions from vehicular traffic on
paved and unpaved roads as the single largest source category, followed
in importance by agricultural sources (including concentrated animal
feeding operations), industrial sources, and construction. ADEQ's
technical report includes maps that show the relative distribution of
emissions generated within the county using 4-kilometer grid cells. See
in particular the following maps in the State's technical report:
Figure 3-3 on page 8 (all PM10 sources) and figure 3-4 on
page 11 (paved and unpaved on-road sources). The maps show that
PM10 emissions in the county are concentrated in the western
half of the county, with the highest emissions densities in the west
central portion of the county. In contrast, the eastern half of the
county (outside of the existing nonattainment areas) is characterized
predominantly by the lowest category of emissions densities (i.e., 0 to
20 tons per year per 4-kilometer grid). See page 8 of ADEQ's technical
report.
    While EPA finds that the PM10 emissions inventory for
Pinal County and ADEQ's corresponding maps are helpful in defining the
boundaries of the new nonattainment area, we do not believe that they
justify ADEQ's conclusions about its recommended boundaries. ADEQ
claims that the emissions inventory and maps demonstrate that sources
in the eastern and southern regions of the county do not
``significantly contribute'' to violations in the other regions of the
county. See page ES-3 of ADEQ's technical report. EPA notes, however,
that CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) defines a nonattainment area as one that
does not meet, or that ``contributes to'' ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. The definition of
nonattainment areas is not limited to areas that, in ADEQ's words,
``significantly'' contribute to a violating area. Moreover, ADEQ's maps
show that areas immediately to the east and south of the recommended
area (but still within the western half of the county) include the same
types of emissions sources, with similar emissions densities, as those
that predominate within the recommended area. For example, figure 3-3
(page 8 of State's technical report) shows emissions densities similar
to those estimated within the State's recommended boundaries to the
east in Coolidge and Florence, as well as south to Eloy. In addition,
figures 3-4, 3-7, and 3-10 (on pages 11, 14, and 17, respectively, of
the State's technical report) illustrate the locations of unpaved roads
(with average daily traffic volumes greater than 100) and show that
higher relative concentrations of PM10 emissions from such
sources as vehicle entrainment of dust over paved and unpaved roads,
tilling and harvesting, and concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) extend to central, and south central Pinal County. Thus, the
emissions inventory data and related maps do not support the State's
recommended boundaries but rather argue for a larger nonattainment area
consisting of the western half of the county.
    In contrast, EPA's proposed boundaries include all of the areas for
which emissions data show relatively higher PM10 emissions
from the types of sources contributing the most to the overall
PM10 emissions inventory. For instance, based on the
information sources described above in the State's technical report,
EPA's proposed boundaries include the areas of relatively higher
emissions densities in and around Coolidge, Florence, and Eloy that
reflect the same types of PM10-generating activities
(vehicle entrainment of dust over paved and unpaved roads, tilling and
harvesting, and CAFOs) as found within the smaller nonattainment area
boundaries recommended by the State.
    Population density, degree of urbanization, growth rate and
patterns. This factor reflects EPA's belief that the size, density, and
location of population can be indicative of emissions activity that
contributes to violations of the PM10 NAAQS in an area.
ADEQ's technical report presents population growth and density figures
for municipalities in Pinal County. The data show that Pinal County has
grown dramatically over the past decade (nearly doubling from a
population of approximately 180,000 in 2000 to nearly 360,000 in 2008).
EPA independently collected and reviewed population-related information
and notes that the populations of the largest cities and towns in the
western half of the county, such as (the city of) Maricopa (2008
population of approximately 46,000), Casa Grande (41,000), Apache
Junction (33,000), Florence (21,000), and Eloy (13,000), contrast
sharply with much smaller populations in the largest cities and towns
in the eastern half of the county, including Superior (3,000), Kearny
(3,000), and Mammoth (3,000). See page 14 of EPA's TSD.
    ADEQ also submitted maps showing population densities both under
current conditions and projections for the year 2030 when the
population of Pinal County is anticipated to exceed 1,000,000. Under
existing conditions, higher population densities are found in the west
central portion of the county, but there are also population centers in
the northern (Apache Junction and Queen Creek) and southern portions
(Eloy) of the county. ADEQ's maps show that future growth is expected
to be concentrated in the Interstate 8 and 10 corridors, which extend
through the west central and southern portions of the county, although
a certain amount of growth is also expected in the Falcon Valley area
farther to the east.
    In its technical report, ADEQ concludes that the eastern and
southern portions of the county are largely undeveloped and have very
low population densities, and finds that this information provides
support for the State's recommended boundaries. However, like the
emissions data discussed above, we believe that the data do not justify
the restricted nature of the State's recommended boundaries, which
exclude much of the western half of the County. Specifically, EPA

believes that the State's recommended exclusion of areas in the eastern
and southern sections of the western half of the county is contradicted
by evidence showing that land use development in Pinal County extends
further east and south than the State's recommended boundaries. For
example, the State's recommended boundaries fail to include the
agricultural and more urbanized uses in and around Eloy and the future
growth areas along the two Interstate corridors. See figures 3-13 and
3-14 from the State's technical report. In contrast, EPA's proposed
boundaries would include all of the western half of Pinal County
(excluding TON's main reservation and the Apache Junction portion of
the Phoenix PM10 nonattainment area) and thereby would
include the areas with relatively higher population densities and most
of the areas where significant levels of growth are expected.
    Traffic and commuting patterns. This factor considers the commuting
patterns of residents in, and commuters to, Pinal County. More
specifically, this factor considers the number of commuters in each
surrounding county who drive to Pinal County, the percent of total
commuters in each county who commute to Pinal County, the percent of
total commuters in each county who commute into the statistical area in
which Pinal County is located, as well as the total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) for each county.
    ADEQ's technical report (page 23) presents statistics from the 2000
census quantifying the number of commuters from each county within the
State of Arizona to jobs within Pinal County, and the number of
commuters residing in Pinal County to jobs in Maricopa and Pima
counties. The data from 2000 indicate that approximately 10,000
commuters, or roughly 20% of total commuters to jobs within Pinal
County, reside outside of Pinal County. Conversely, approximately
36,000 (roughly 80%) of commuters travel solely within Pinal County.
Almost 80% of the out-of-county commuters reside to the north in
Maricopa County, and nearly all remaining out-of-county commuters
commuting to Pinal County reside to the south in Pima County. Moreover,
nearly 40% of commuters residing in Pinal County work in either
Maricopa or Pima counties, whereas 60% of commuters residing in Pinal
County also work in Pinal County.
    EPA independently reviewed these same data and observed that the
principal route for traffic through Pinal County (serving in-county as
well as out-of-county commuters) is Interstate 10, which bisects the
western half of the county and connects metropolitan Phoenix (largely
in Maricopa County) to the north with metropolitan Tucson (in Pima
County) to the south. ADEQ cites traffic and commuting patterns as a
factor supporting the exclusion of the eastern half of the county from
the new nonattainment area. While EPA agrees that it is reasonable to
distinguish between the eastern and western halves of the county, EPA
believes that the data indicate that the entire western half of the
county, and not a small portion of it, as the State recommends, should
be redesignated to nonattainment. Thus, EPA finds that traffic and
commuting patterns do not make a case for the state's recommendation,
but rather lend support to the creation of a larger nonattainment area
generally encompassing the western half of the County. See figure 3-17
from the State's technical report, which shows much higher employment
densities projections for year 2030 in the western half of the county
than those in the eastern half but which also show higher employment
densities east and south of the State's recommended boundaries (but
still within the western half of the county).
    Meteorology. Generally, the analysis of meteorology looks to wind
data for evidence that emissions originating from areas in certain
locations relative to violating monitors may be more prone to
contribute than emissions originating from sources located elsewhere.
ADEQ's technical report describes the dynamics responsible for region-
wide weather patterns and the associated winds blowing across Arizona,
as well as the frequent occurrence of ``drainage'' winds, which occur
when large-scale weather influences wane. ADEQ describes how steep
pressure gradients result from strong high pressure building over the
western United States and low pressure to the east. As the high
pressure builds, a steep pressure differential is created that causes
strong winds over Arizona to entrain and transport dust from in-county
and out-of-county sources. These can cause elevated PM10
concentrations. ADEQ also notes however, that not all exceedances of
the PM10 standard are wind-related and that stagnation
conditions in the fall and winter occur when cold air and the absence
of winds trap ambient PM10 in the lower atmosphere. ADEQ
notes that the region of the county most impacted by stagnation
conditions is the western agricultural basin.
    The State recommends including the agricultural basin region of the
county where stagnation conditions are known to impact PM10
concentrations. While we agree that the new nonattainment area should
include the agricultural basin region where stagnation conditions
occur, we find that the State's recommended boundaries do not in fact
accomplish this. As shown on page 14 of the ADEQ's technical report,
the agricultural basin region of the county, roughly defined based on
tilling and harvesting emissions within the county, lies in the western
half of the county, and also extends south of Interstate 10 towards the
southern county line. Moreover, as discussed in the following
paragraph, a review of available wind data supports the inclusion of
areas to the south and east of the violating monitors (i.e., beyond the
State's recommended boundaries) based on the prevalence of winds from
the southeast quadrant.
    EPA has considered the information provided by ADEQ but also
reviewed available wind data for Pinal County and finds that winds are
similar throughout central and western Pinal County in that the
predominant wind directions are from the southeast quadrant. See figure
10 of EPA's TSD. (We note that winds blow out of the north and
northwest far less frequently, making transport of PM10 from
the metropolitan Phoenix area unlikely under most circumstances.) In
this instance, the predominance of southeast winds support boundaries
that extend south and east of the violating monitors because
PM10 sources, including agricultural activities and unpaved
roads, are found in those directions. EPA's recommended boundaries
encompass the types of sources that are believed to cause or contribute
to the monitored violations and that are located east and south of the
violating monitors, whereas the State's recommended boundaries largely
exclude these sources. See figure 2 (PM10 monitors, ADEQ's
recommended nonattainment area boundary, and EPA's proposed
nonattainment area boundary), figure 4 (Pinal County agriculture,
cattle operations, and unpaved roads), and figure 5 (ADEQ's map
illustrating the distribution of emissions in Pinal County) from EPA's
TSD.
    Lastly, EPA recognizes that high wind events do occur in Pinal
County, and that some of these events may result in monitored
particulate matter exceedances that qualify as caused by exceptional
events under EPA's exceptional events rule.\8\ However, as

ADEQ itself acknowledges, even if EPA were eventually to determine that
all of the exceedances that ADEQ has flagged are caused by
``exceptional events,'' the area would still clearly be in violation of
the PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, Treatment of
Data Influenced by Exceptional Events, 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
rule, EPA may exclude data from use in determinations of National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) exceedances and violations if a
state demonstrates that an ``exceptional event'' caused the
exceedances, and satisfies other criteria set forth by the rule. See
72 FR 13560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Geography/Topography. The geography/topography factor evaluates
physical features of the land that might have an effect on the airshed,
and therefore, on the distribution of particulate matter over an area.
In its technical report, ADEQ describes the topography of Pinal County
in terms of a broad basin, low in elevation (roughly 1,200 feet in
elevation), surrounded on all sides by mountain ranges. ADEQ finds that
topographic considerations support the State's inclusion of the basin
region of the county, which is characterized by open-ended valleys with
few topographic barriers, within the recommended boundaries.
Conversely, ADEQ finds that topographic considerations support the
State's exclusion from the recommended boundaries of the eastern
portion of the county, which is characterized by rough terrain and
steep mountain ranges reaching over 7,000 feet in elevation.
    EPA too has considered topography and generally agrees with ADEQ's
description of the topography of Pinal County. We believe that the
various mountain ranges found on each side of the county inhibit
transport of PM10 (which is largely crustal in composition--
see figure 6 of EPA's TSD) from outside the county to the violating
monitors within the county. Within the county itself, we believe that
the mountains in the eastern quarter of the county, which rise to
approximately 6,000 feet near the eastern borders with Gila and Graham
counties, inhibit intra-county transport from sources located in the
eastern quarter to the violating monitors. See figure 11 of EPA's TSD.
(The portion of the San Carlos Apache Reservation that lies within
Pinal County is located in the eastern quarter of the county.)
    However, the existence of the steep mountain ranges in the eastern
quarter of the County does not justify ADEQ's recommendation to exclude
from redesignation a much larger section of the western half of the
County. EPA believes that, taking other factors into account, the
western half of the County, located in the basin region that features
few topographic barriers, should be redesignated to nonattainment.
Indeed, it is arguable that topography alone would lend support to
redesignating a far larger area than EPA is proposing, one that would
encompass the entire county, excepting only the eastern quarter.
However, EPA believes that topography when evaluated in the context of
the various other factors, supports redesignation of the western half
of the county, rather than the much more restricted boundaries that
ADEQ suggests.
    Jurisdictional Boundaries. The analysis of jurisdictional
boundaries evaluates the planning and organizational structure of an
area to determine if the implementation of controls in a potential
nonattainment area can be carried out in a cohesive manner. ADEQ's
technical report notes the absence of any certified metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) for Pinal County and the exclusion of
Indian country from the State's recommendation. As such, ADEQ concludes
that the State's recommended boundaries maintain jurisdictional
cohesiveness requiring no new institutional arrangements for
accomplishing required tasks.
    EPA also considered the planning and organizational structure of
the State of Arizona and Pinal County (cities, towns, and
unincorporated areas), but also took into account Indian country, to
ensure that the implementation of controls within the prospective
nonattainment area could be carried out in a cohesive manner. ADEQ
exercises overall jurisdiction over environmental programs in the State
of Arizona (i.e., excluding Indian country). Under state law, ADEQ has
the responsibility for preparing air quality attainment and maintenance
plans in Pinal County. With respect to permitting and enforcement, the
Pinal County Air Quality Control District (AQCD or ``District'') has
jurisdiction over most types of stationary sources operating, or
proposing to locate, within Pinal County, but state law retains ADEQ's
statewide jurisdiction over certain types of stationary sources
(smelters, refineries, coal-fired power plants, and agricultural
operations). Neither ADEQ nor the District have jurisdiction within
Indian country.
    In its technical report, ADEQ notes that five cities and towns
(Casa Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, Florence, and City of Maricopa), as well
as a portion of a sixth (Queen Creek) are located in central and
western Pinal County. ADEQ indicates that the incorporated boundaries
of these municipalities have been taken into account in developing the
nonattainment area boundaries. However, EPA's review of the
incorporated boundaries of these municipalities (see, e.g., figure 2 of
EPA's TSD) shows that the State's recommended boundaries omit portions
of the City of Maricopa and Coolidge, and most of Florence and Eloy. In
contrast, EPA's proposed nonattainment area boundaries encompass all of
these cities and towns, where most of the county's population resides.
Inclusion of entire cities and towns within the nonattainment area
boundaries would facilitate attainment planning to the extent that such
local governments will ultimately be relied upon for development and/or
implementation of specific PM10 control measures.
    Level of Control of Emission Sources. The level of control factor
looks at the emissions controls currently implemented in each area. As
a general matter, most existing and proposed stationary sources within
Pinal County (excluding Indian country) are subject to the generally
applicable prohibitory rules and permitting requirements established by
the Pinal County AQCD, or, in the case of certain types of stationary
sources (smelters, refineries, coal-fired power plants, and
agricultural operations), State prohibitory rules and permitting
requirements established by ADEQ.
    Pinal County AQCD has established rules for dust abatement purposes
that apply within a subarea of Pinal County established under state law
(Arizona Revised Statutes section 49-541) and referred to as ``Area
A.'' Within Pinal County, ``Area A'' generally refers to an area
encompassing the Pinal County portions of Apache Junction and Queen
Creek. Pinal County has also adopted a number of ordinances that are
also intended to reduce dust generated within ``Area A.'' These include
ordinances placing restrictions on residential fireplaces, leaf
blowers, open burning, vehicle commute trips, and vehicle idling. For
one township located within ``Area A,'' the township included in the
Phoenix Area PM10 nonattainment area (i.e., Township 1
north, range 8 east; referred to as ``Apache Junction''), Pinal County
AQCD has adopted further dust abatement rules.\9\ The State's
recommended boundaries include a portion, but not all, of ``Area A.''
In contrast, EPA's proposed boundaries for the new nonattainment area
would encompass

all of ``Area A,'' thereby facilitating review and modification of
these existing PM10 emissions controls within the broader
SIP attainment planning context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The township referred to as Apache Junction would be
unaffected by our proposed action and would remain part of the
Phoenix planning area, which is designated as a ``serious''
PM10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conclusion. CAA section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that after notifying
the Governor of State of its intent to redesignate an area, EPA shall
promulgate the redesignation, if any, of the area or portion thereof,
submitted by the Governor, ``making such modifications as EPA may deem
necessary. * * *'' Pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3), we have reviewed
the State's recommendation (dated March 23, 2010) and related technical
report (submitted on March 26, 2010).
    Both EPA and the State agree that sources outside of the county do
not contribute to PM10 violations at the violating monitors
within the county, and that sources in the eastern half of the county
do not contribute to the violating monitors (which are concentrated in
the central and western portions of the county). But while EPA and the
State both use the nine-factor analysis for evaluation of the
prospective nonattainment area boundaries, we reach quite different
conclusions.
    As explained above, and more fully in EPA's TSD, EPA does not
believe that the State's recommended boundaries encompass the full
geographic area from which emissions-generating activities contribute
to the monitored PM10 violations. More specifically, we
believe that the Governor's recommended boundaries, which cut through
municipalities and contiguous expanses of agricultural fields, exclude
sources that have been identified as dominant sources of
PM10 and that are contributing to elevated levels of
PM10 at violating monitors.
    We believe that our proposed boundaries, which are defined as all
land geographically located within Pinal County west of the north-south
line defined by the boundary between Townships 10E and 11E, but
excluding TON's main reservation and excluding the existing Apache
Junction portion of the existing Phoenix PM10 nonattainment
area, encompass the areas in which PM10 violations are being
monitored, as well as the areas that contribute to the monitored
violations, and that they are thus consistent with the definition of
nonattainment areas in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). Our conclusion is
based on EPA's analysis of the factors as set forth in the body of this
document and in further detail in the TSD. In sum, we base our proposed
boundaries on the following considerations: (1) Monitored violations
occur in the west, central and northern portions of the western half of
the county, not in the eastern half (i.e., outside of existing
PM10 nonattainment areas); (2) the emissions from
agricultural operations, feedlots, dairies, and other cattle
operations, as well as roads, are concentrated in the western half of
the county; (3) population densities are much greater in the western
half of the county than in the eastern half and growth is expected to
be concentrated primarily along the Interstate corridors that extend
through the western half of the county; (4) Interstate 10, which
connects Pinal County with the employment centers in metropolitan
Phoenix and Tucson, bisects the western half of Pinal County; (5)
predominant southeasterly winds support inclusion of PM10
sources in areas to the south and east of the violating monitors; (6)
the western half of Pinal County encompasses the incorporated
boundaries of all of the cities in Pinal County (Apache Junction, Casa
Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, Maricopa), as well as the larger towns
(Florence and Queen Creek) thereby potentially facilitating
implementation of future control measures; and (7) dust abatement
measures already in effect in ``Area A'' (within Pinal County) can
readily be applied, as necessary and appropriate, throughout the other
portions of the western half of Pinal County. A map comparing the
State's recommended boundaries to EPA's proposed boundaries is included
as figure 2 in our TSD.
    EPA therefore deems it necessary and appropriate to propose
boundaries that differ from the State's recommended boundaries and that
we believe better satisfy air quality data, planning, control and other
air-quality-related considerations. CAA Section 107(d)(3). Under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(C), EPA must notify the State whenever EPA intends to
modify State recommendations concerning boundaries for areas to be
redesignated, at least 60 days prior to EPA promulgation of final
redesignations. EPA intends to notify the State of Arizona of our
proposed action soon after this notice is signed.

V. EPA's Review of Recommendations From Affected Indian Tribes

    Ak-Chin Indian Community. The Ak-Chin Indian Community is located
in western Pinal County, and is included in the existing ``rest of
state'' unclassifiable area for PM10. The Ak-Chin Indian
Community does not operate a PM10 monitoring site, but lies
in proximity to several PM10 monitoring sites that do
monitor violations of the PM10 NAAQS (e.g., the Maricopa and
Cowtown sites). In a letter dated September 2, 2010 the Ak-Chin Indian
Community responded to EPA's December 30, 2009 letter concerning the
PM10 designation of Pinal County with a recommendation that
the Ak-Chin lands be designated attainment/unclassifiable. We have
offered formal consultation to the Ak-Chin Indian Community and have
decided to defer action on redesignation of the Ak-Chin Indian
Community for PM10 to allow time for formal consultation to
occur and for further consideration of this issue as part of that
process. If in the future EPA decides to take action to redesignate the
Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Agency will do so in a separate
rulemaking.
    Gila River Indian Community. The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC)
is a community located on 374,000 acres in south central Arizona.
Approximately one-third of GRIC lies within Maricopa County and two-
thirds lies within Pinal County. The Maricopa County portion of GRIC is
included in the Phoenix Area PM10 nonattainment area. The
Pinal County portion of GRIC is included in the existing ``rest of
state'' unclassifiable area for PM10. GRIC operates a
PM10 monitoring site in the Pinal County portion of its
lands and GRIC's monitor has recorded a number of PM10
exceedances. See table 1 above in this document. However, GRIC has
flagged a significant number of these exceedances as caused by
``exceptional events'' under EPA's exceptional event rule (50 CFR
50.14), and EPA has not yet taken action to determine whether any of
these data should be excluded on that basis from consideration in a
redesignation action. In October 2009, EPA approved GRIC's application
for treatment in the same manner as a state for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d) air quality designations. More recently, we proposed
approval of GRIC's submitted tribal implementation plan. See 75 FR
48880, August 12, 2010.
    As noted above, on December 30, 2009, EPA notified GRIC that the
PM10 designation for Pinal County should be revised. GRIC
first indicated orally, and later confirmed in a letter dated May 27,
2010, that the community would not be making a recommendation for
PM10 until formal consultation is conducted. By letter dated
April 30, 2010, EPA responded to GRIC's oral request with an offer of
formal consultation. As with the Ak-Chin Indian Community, we have
decided to defer action on a decision whether to redesignate GRIC to
allow time for formal consultation to occur and for further
consideration of this issue as part of that process. In

addition, the deferral for GRIC will provide EPA with the time
necessary to address the exceptional events issues. If in the future
EPA decides to undertake redesignation of the Pinal County portion of
the Gila River Indian Community, the Agency will do so in a separate
rulemaking.
    San Carlos Apache Tribe. The San Carlos Apache Reservation extends
over a portion of eastern Pinal County, as well as portions of Gila and
Graham counties. A section of the Pinal County portion of the San
Carlos Apache Reservation lies in the existing Hayden PM10
nonattainment area. The rest of the Pinal County portion of the
reservation is located within the ``rest of state'' unclassifiable area
for PM10. The San Carlos Apache Tribe did not respond to
EPA's December 30, 2009 letter concerning the PM10
designation in Pinal County.
    For the reasons discussed in section IV of this document, we
believe that emissions sources in the eastern half of Pinal County do
not contribute to violations monitored in the western half of the
county, and thus are proposing only that the western half of the county
(excluding TON's main reservation and the Apache Junction portion of
the existing Phoenix PM10 nonattainment area) be
redesignated to nonattainment. Given that the San Carlos Tribe's Indian
country extends only into far eastern Pinal County, we propose to
retain the Tribe's current designations for the PM10
standard (i.e., a portion remains in the existing Hayden
PM10 nonattainment area, and a portion remains in the
existing ``rest of state'' unclassifiable area).
    Tohono O'odham Nation. The Tohono O'odham Nation (TON) extends over
portions of Pima, Maricopa and Pinal counties. TON's main reservation
covers much of southwestern Pinal County and extends over portions of
Pima and Maricopa counties. TON's lands also include a small area
(approximately 25 acres), known as Florence Village, which is located
approximately two miles west of the town of Florence in central Pinal
County, and a 3,200-acre parcel east of the main reservation called San
Lucy Farm. With the exception of a small portion of TON included within
the existing Rillito PM10 nonattainment area (which is
located in Pima County), TON is included in the ``rest of state''
unclassifiable area for PM10.
    In a letter dated February 11, 2010, TON responded to EPA's
December 30, 2009 letter concerning the PM10 designation in
Pinal County with a recommendation that the TON land within Pinal
County be designated attainment/unclassifiable for PM10.
With respect to the main reservation in southwestern Pinal County, we
agree with TON's recommendation and are proposing a nonattainment area
with boundaries that exclude TON's main reservation. We agree with
TON's recommendation in this regard because (1) the closest violating
monitors (Stanfield and Casa Grande) are located in the midst of the
county's agricultural basin, well north of TON's main reservation; (2)
the types of emissions sources believed to be responsible for the
PM10 violations, such as agricultural operations, feedlots,
and dairies (see figure 4 of EPA's TSD), as well as roads, are largely
absent from TON; (3) the population density of TON is very low, and is
an order of magnitude less than the average population density of Pinal
County (see table 5 of EPA's TSD); and (4) TON is a separate sovereign
not subject to state or county jurisdiction thereby complicating
planning and implementation issues. We conclude therefore that TON's
main reservation is not contributing to the PM10 violations
monitored elsewhere in Pinal County and propose to exclude TON from the
new nonattainment area. Under this proposal, the designation of TON's
main reservation would remain unchanged, i.e., it would remain part of
the ``rest of state'' unclassifiable area for PM10.
    As to Florence Village and San Lucy Farm, EPA is deferring
redesignation to allow for further consultation with TON. If in the
future EPA decides to take action to redesignate TON's Florence Village
and San Lucy Farm, the Agency will do so in a separate rulemaking.

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act and based on our
evaluation of air quality data, planning, control and other air-
quality-related information and considerations, and our review of the
Governor's recommendation, EPA is proposing to redesignate from
``unclassifiable'' to ``nonattainment'' an area generally covering the
western half of Pinal County, Arizona, for the 1987 PM10
NAAQS and therefore to revise the boundaries of the existing ``rest of
state'' unclassifiable area. EPA's proposal to establish this new
PM10 nonattainment area, referred to as ``West Pinal,'' is
based on numerous recorded violations of the PM10 standard
at various monitoring sites within the county, and on the other grounds
set forth in this document and in the TSD.
    EPA's proposed boundaries for the nonattainment area would
encompass all of the area recommended by the State of Arizona, but
would extend further to the east and south, and to a lesser degree, to
the north and west. EPA's proposed boundaries would encompass all land
geographically located within Pinal County west of the north-south line
defined by the boundary between Townships 10E and 11E, but excluding
TON's main reservation and excluding the Apache Junction portion of the
existing Phoenix PM10 nonattainment area. If finalized as
proposed, the new ``West Pinal'' PM10 nonattainment area
would be classified as ``moderate'' by operation of law. See figure 2
of EPA's TSD for a map showing EPA's proposed boundaries.
    We believe that our proposed boundaries as described above
encompass the areas in which PM10 violations are being
monitored, as well as the areas that contributes to the monitored
violations, and that they are thus consistent with the definition of
nonattainment areas in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A). Our conclusion is
based on EPA's analysis of the factors as set forth in the body of this
document and in further detail in the TSD. We find support for our
proposed boundaries based on the following considerations: (1)
Monitored violations occur in the west, central and northern portions
of the western half of the county, not in the eastern half (i.e.,
outside of existing PM10 nonattainment areas); (2) the
emissions from agricultural operations, feedlots, dairies, and other
cattle operations, as well as roads, are concentrated in the western
half of the county; (3) population densities are much greater in the
western half of the county than in the eastern half and growth is
expected to be concentrated primarily along the Interstate corridors
that extend through the western half of the county; (4) Interstate 10,
which connects Pinal County with the employment centers in metropolitan
Phoenix and Tucson, bisects the western half of Pinal County; (5)
predominant southeasterly winds support inclusion of PM10
sources in areas to the south and east of the violating monitors; (6)
the western half of Pinal County encompasses the incorporated
boundaries of all of the cities in Pinal County (Apache Junction, Casa
Grande, Coolidge, Eloy, Maricopa), as well as the larger towns
(Florence and Queen Creek) thereby potentially facilitating
implementation of future control measures; and (7) dust abatement
measures already in effect in ``Area A'' (within Pinal County) can
readily be applied, as necessary and appropriate, throughout the other

portions of the western half of Pinal County.
    EPA has determined that activities occurring on the main Tohono
O'odham Nation (TON) reservation are not causing or contributing to
violations occurring in Pinal County and we are therefore proposing to
exclude the main TON reservation from the new nonattainment area. San
Carlos Apache lands, which are located in the eastern quarter of the
county, would be excluded from the proposed nonattainment area along
with the rest of the eastern half of the county. EPA is deferring its
decision regarding redesignation of the Ak-Chin and Gila River Indian
Community lands, as well as TON's Florence Village and San Lucy Farm,
pending consideration of issues unique to tribal lands, completion of
formal consultation with the tribal governments, and (in the case of
GRIC) consideration of exceptional events flags. The existing Phoenix
PM10 nonattainment area (including the Apache Junction
portion of western Pinal County) would be unaffected by this action.
    Areas redesignated as nonattainment, as proposed herein, are
subject to the applicable requirements of part D, title I of the Act
and will be classified as moderate by operation of law (see section
188(a) of the Act). Within 18 months of the redesignation, the State is
required to submit to EPA an implementation plan for the area
containing, among other things, the following requirements: (1)
Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(including reasonably available control technology) are implemented
within 4 years of the redesignation; (2) a permit program meeting the
requirements of section 173 governing the construction and operation of
new and modified major stationary sources of PM10; (3)
quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until
the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrates reasonable
further progress, as defined in section 171(1), toward timely
attainment; and (4) either a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as
nonattainment, or a demonstration that attainment by such date is
impracticable (see, e.g., section 188(c), 189(a), 189(c), and 172(c) of
the Act). We have issued detailed guidance on the statutory
requirements applicable to moderate PM10 nonattainment areas
[see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)].
    If we finalize the proposed redesignation, the State would also be
required to submit contingency measures (for the new PM10
nonattainment area), pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the Act, which
are to take effect without further action by the State or EPA, upon a
determination by EPA that an area has failed to make reasonable further
progress or attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date (see 57 FR 13510-13512, 13543-13544). The EPA is
proposing to establish a deadline for submission of contingency
measures as called for in section 172(b) of the Act to coincide with
the submittal date requirement for the other SIP elements discussed
above, i.e., 18 months after redesignation. Lastly, any new
PM10 nonattainment area would be subject to EPA's general
and transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subparts A
and B) upon the effective date of redesignation. See section 176(c) of
the Act.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for thirty
days from the date of publication of this notice, and will consider any
relevant comments in taking final action on today's proposal.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA has
determined that the redesignation to nonattainment proposed today, as
well as the establishment of SIP submittal schedules, would result in
none of the effects identified in Executive Order 12866, section 3(f).
Under section 107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to nonattainment are
based upon air quality considerations. The proposed redesignation,
based upon air quality data showing that West Pinal is not attaining
the PM10 standard and upon other air-quality-related
considerations, does not, in and of itself, impose any new requirements
on any sectors of the economy. Similarly, the establishment of new SIP
submittal schedules would merely establish the dates by which SIPs must
be submitted, and would not adversely affect entities.

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).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.,
a redesignation to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3), and the
establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for a redesignated area, do
not, in and of themselves, directly impose any new requirements on
small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (DC Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider the
rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule).
Instead, this rulemaking simply proposes to make a factual
determination and to establish a schedule to require the State to
submit SIP revisions, and does not propose to directly regulate any
entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that
today's proposed action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those terms
for RFA purposes.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, EPA has concluded that this proposed rule is not
likely to result in the promulgation of any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any
one year. It is questionable whether a redesignation would constitute a
Federal mandate in any case. The obligation for the state to revise its
State Implementation Plan that arises out of a redesignation is not
legally enforceable and at most is a condition for continued receipt of
federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such an
action creates any enforceable duty within the meaning of section
421(5)(a)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and if it does the duty
would appear to fall within the exception for a condition of Federal
assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
658(5)(a)(i)(I).
    Even if a redesignation were considered a Federal mandate, the
anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not exceed $100
million to either the private sector or State, local and tribal
governments. Redesignation of an area to nonattainment does not, in
itself, impose any mandates or costs on the private sector, and thus,
there is no private sector mandate within the meaning of section 421(7)
of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting from the
redesignation itself is the cost to the State of Arizona of developing,
adopting, and submitting any necessary

SIP revision. Because that cost will not exceed $100 million, this
proposal (if it is a federal mandate at all) is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535).
EPA has also determined that this proposal would not result in
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because only the State would take any action as
result of today's rule, and thus the requirements of section 203 (2
U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 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.'' This rule will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to redesignate an
area for Clean Air Act planning purposes and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' The area proposed for
redesignation does not yet include, and EPA is deferring action on the
Ak-Chin Indian Reservation, the Pinal County portion of the Gila River
Indian Reservation, and TON's Florence Village and San Lucy Farm. In
formulating its further action on these areas, EPA has been
communicating with and plans to continue to consult with
representatives of the Tribes, as provided in Executive Order 13175.
Accordingly, EPA has addressed Executive Order 13175 to the extent that
it applies to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
(``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks'') (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. The EPA believes
that the requirements of NTTAA are inapplicable to this action because
they would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Today's action proposes to redesignate an area to nonattainment for
an ambient air quality standard. It will not have disproportionately
high and adverse effects on any communities in the area, including
minority and low-income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Particulate Matter, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: September 21, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-24683 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P