[Federal Register: October 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 52524-52525]
[DOCID:fr13oc09-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0924]

Airport Compliance Program

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance
Manual.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of FAA Order 5190.6B,
Airport Compliance Manual, issued September 30, 2009. Order 5190.6B
cancels and replaces Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Requirements,
issued on October 2, 1989. Order 5190.6B provides current guidance to
FAA employees on administration and implementation of the FAA airport
compliance program. This program implements FAA's responsibilities for
the enforcement of the obligations of airport operators to the United
States Government arising from FAA grant agreements and from federal
deeds of property for airport use. The order updates cancelled Order
5190.6A by reflecting statutes, policy changes, case decisions and
complaint resolution procedural rules issued since 1989 and by
including more specific guidance material on a number of compliance
subjects. FAA orders are intended for the use of FAA employees.

DATES: FAA Order 5190.6B was issued on September 30, 2009 and was
effective upon issuance. Comments received by March 31, 2010 will be
considered by the agency in a determination whether any further
revision of the order is required.

ADDRESSES: You can get an electronic copy of FAA Order 5190.6B on the
FAA Airports Web site at http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/
publications/orders/compliance_5190.6/.
    You may send comments identified by Docket Number, FAA-2009-0924
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590; between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    For more information on the notice and comment process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Privacy: We will
post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: To read
background documents or comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground floor
of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Erhard, Manager, Airport
Compliance Division, ACO-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
3187; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this notice and all other
documents in this docket using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal (http://
www.regulations.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.

Background

    Order 5190.6, Airport Compliance Requirements, was issued on August
24, 1973. Order 5190.6 was cancelled and replaced by Order 5190.6A,
Airport Compliance Requirements, on October 2, 1989. Each of these
orders, while it was in effect, served as the handbook or manual for
FAA employees responsible for monitoring and enforcing the compliance
of airport operators with obligations to the federal government. Those
obligations most commonly arise from conditions, or assurances,
contained in agreements with the FAA for grants in aid to airports, and
from the terms in deeds of property transferred by the federal
government for airport use.
    The current FAA airport grant program is the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP), established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982 as amended, 49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq. (AAIA). Section 47107 requires
the Secretary of Transportation to obtain certain assurances from an
airport operator as a condition of receiving a grant under the AIP. The
FAA implements this requirement with a standard set of grant assurances
for airport sponsors, which can be viewed on the FAA Airports Web site
at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/.
    An airport operator may also have Federal obligations under a deed
of property transferred under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as
amended, 49 U.S.C. 47151-47153, or the Federal Airports Act of 1946, as
amended, 49 U.S.C. 47125.
    Since 1989, there have been substantial changes to the laws and
policies relating to the Federal obligations of airport operators, and
also changes to the procedures for investigating and resolving
complaints

over apparent noncompliance. These changes include:
     New statutory direction on airport rates and charges and
on the use of airport revenue, 49 U.S.C. 47107(k) through (p), 47129,
and 47133.
     The DOT Policy Regarding the Establishment of Airport
Rates and Charges in 1996, as partially voided by a decision of the
U.S. court of appeals in 1997 and revised by an agency amendment in
2008;
     Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport
Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16, issued in 1996;
     The FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of
Airport Revenue, issued in 1999;
     Enactment of 49 U.S.C. 47134, establishing a pilot program
for airport privatization;
     More than 105 determinations issued under 14 CFR Part 16
by the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards, the Office of
Compliance and Operations, and the Associate Administrator for
Airports, as well as decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals on
petitions for review of agency determinations.
    To incorporate these changes and provide the most useful and
current program guidance to agency employees, the Office of Compliance
and Field Operations has updated and revised the manual, and issued the
new manual as Order 5190.6B on September 30, 2009.

Request for Public Comment

    Order 5190.6B became effective when issued, and FAA employees are
using the order as the primary manual for implementation of the FAA
airport compliance program. The FAA expects that future changes to the
manual may be necessary to reflect new decisions by federal courts,
amendments to the agency's authorizing statutes, and the Associate
Administrator for Airports' interpretations of agency policy in case
determinations issued under 14 CFR part 16. For that reason the agency
plans periodic reviews of the manual, with the first review being
approximately one year after the issuance date, in September 2010.
    While the FAA generally does not request public comment on internal
orders, the agency has established a docket for public comments on
Order 5190.6B in recognition of the interest of all segments of the
airport community in the FAA's airport compliance program. The agency
will consider all comments received by March 31, 2010, in this first
review of Order 5190.6B. Comments received after that date may be
considered if consideration will not delay agency action on the review.
The purpose of the review will be to ensure that the summaries of
agency policy in the order accurately reflect the current legal
authorities that define an airport operator's obligations. Comments
that address that purpose will be the most useful to the agency in its
review.

Notice of availability

    Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Manual, issued September 30, 2009
is available for review and downloading from the FAA Airports Web site
at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/
compliance_5190.6.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 1, 2009.
Randall S. Fiertz,
Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-24627 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 96)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28370-28371]
[DOCID:fr16my08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 565

[Docket No. NHTSA 2008-0022]
RIN 2127-AJ99

Vehicle Identification Number Requirements; Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA published in the Federal Register of April 30, 2008, a
final rule making certain changes in the 17-character vehicle
identification number (VIN) system so that the system will remain
viable for at least another 30 years. The regulatory text of the final
rule contained several typographical errors, which this document
corrects. In addition, this document makes clear that all motor
vehicles identified by their manufacturer as model year (MY) 2009 or
earlier vehicles must comply with the current Part 565 VIN requirements
(which are set forth in subpart C of Part 565 of the final rule).

DATES: Effective Date: May 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-120),
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
202-366-6987) (FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues, you may contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal
Register of April 30, 2008, (73 FR 23367; NHTSA Docket 2008-0022) that
made certain changes in the 17-character vehicle identification number
(VIN) system so that there will be a sufficient number of unique
manufacturer identifiers and VINs to use for at least another 30
years.\1\ The regulatory text of the final rule contained several
typographical errors which this document corrects. In addition, this
document makes clear that all motor vehicles identified by their
manufacturer as model year (MY) 2009 or earlier vehicles must comply
with the current Part 565 VIN requirements (which are set forth in
subpart C of Part 565 of the final rule).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The bulk of the changes in 49 CFR Part 565 applied to
passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or
less. There were relatively few changes to the regulation that
impact the manufacturers of other vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all
manufacturers to read the new regulation carefully to determine the
specific changes that apply to them, such as the new requirement
that the vehicle make now be communicated in and decipherable from
the second section of the VIN as opposed to the first section of the
VIN as previously required.
    \2\ In the Federal Register document at page 23376, middle
column under the heading ``Agency Analysis and Response'' (which
related to ``14. Effective Date of the Rule'') there is a discussion
relating to the effective date that focuses on the letters ``A'' and
``B'' in the 10th VIN position. The entire thrust of that discussion
was intended to make clear that the application of the new
regulation begins with the 2010 model year. However, while the
agency intended that the application of the old regulation was to
end with the completion of the 2009 model year, this application was
not clearly stated. This correction addresses the lack of clarity in
establishing the end of the old regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction of Publication

0
In rule FR Doc. 08-1197 published on April 30, 2008, (73 FR 23367),
make the following corrections.

0
1. On page 23379, in the second column, Sec.  565.2 is correctly
revised to read as follows:

Sec.  565.2  Application.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
Subpart B of this part 565 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (including trailer kits),
incomplete vehicles, low speed vehicles, and motorcycles manufactured
on or after October 27, 2008 whose VINs have a letter ``A'' or ``B'' in
the 10th position, and to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (including trailer kits), incomplete
vehicles, low speed vehicles, and motorcycles manufactured on or after
April 30, 2009. Vehicles imported into the United States under 49 CFR
591.5(f), other than by the corporation responsible for the assembly of
that vehicle or a subsidiary of such a corporation, are excluded from
requirements of Sec.  565.13(b), Sec.  565.13(c), Sec.  565.13(g),
Sec.  565.13(h), Sec.  565.14 and Sec.  565.15.
    (2) All motor vehicles identified as model year 2009 or earlier
vehicles by their manufacturer must comply with Subpart C of this part
565.
    (b) Subpart B of this part 565 applies to vehicles manufactured on
or after April 30, 2008 and before April 30, 2009, whose vehicle
identification number (VIN) does not have a letter ``A'' or ``B'' in
the 10th position of the VIN and that are not identified as model year
2009 or earlier vehicles by their manufacturer.

Sec.  565.11  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 23379, in the second column, in Sec.  565.11, ``572'' in the
first sentence of the paragraph is corrected to read ``565,'' and the
phrase ``that are not identified by their manufacturer as model year
2009 or earlier vehicles'' is added to the end of the second sentence.
In the third column of the same page, in Sec.  565.11, ``591.14(f)'' is
corrected to read ``591.5(f).''

Sec.  565.21  [Corrected]

0
3. On page 23383, in the first column, in Sec.  565.21, ``572'' in the
first sentence of the paragraph is corrected to read ``565.'' In the
third sentence, ``591.24(f)'' is corrected to read ``591.5(f).''

    Issued: May 8, 2008.
 Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-10831 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5367-5369]
[DOCID:fr02fe10-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61424; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC Amending the Rule Governing the
Issuance of Trading Licenses

January 26, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 13, 2010, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 amend Exchange Rule 300 (Trading Licenses)
to provide that a member organization shall be ineligible to purchase a
trading license, either in the annual offering or subsequently, if such
member organization is three months in arrears in paying monthly
installments of the trading license fee payable in respect of any
previously purchased trading license. The Exchange also proposes to
amend Rule 309 (Failure to Pay Exchange Fees) to provide that failure
to pay trading license fee installments will be governed by proposed
Rule 300(h).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Exchange Rule 300 provides that member organizations may buy
trading licenses in the annual offering and may buy licenses at any
other time in the year, provided that the maximum number of 1366
licenses has not been issued and subject to limitations on the number
of licenses a single member organization may hold. Rule 300 provides
that member organizations must pay for their trading licenses in 12
monthly installments, with the first installment due prior to the
commencement of the applicable year. The Exchange has experienced
difficulty in collecting trading license fee installments promptly from
a small number of member organizations. Consequently, the Exchange now
proposes to amend Rule 300 by adding proposed new subparagraph (h),
providing that a member organization shall be ineligible to purchase a
trading license, either in the annual offering or subsequently, if, at
the time of such proposed purchase, such member organization remains
three months in arrears in paying monthly installments of the trading
license fee payable in respect of any previously purchased trading
license.
    Any trading license purchased by a member organization in the
annual auction for the calendar year commencing January 1, 2010, will
be subject to automatic revocation at the close of business on March
31, 2010, if the member organization that holds such license remains
three months in arrears in making such payments at that time. The
Exchange believes that this transitional approach for 2010 is
appropriate as it will enable it to give the affected member
organizations adequate notice and a reasonable period in which to pay
their overdue trading

license fee installments to avoid losing their floor trading
privileges. Upon approval of this filing, the Exchange intends to
distribute an Information Memorandum to its member organizations to
inform them of the rule change.\4\ Member organizations receive monthly
trading license bills, which reflect unpaid balances from previous
periods, so member organizations that are three months in arrears are
aware of that fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The first such notice will be sent to member organizations
that are two months or more in arrears as of the end of February
2010. This notice will state that the revocation of any trading
licenses pursuant to proposed Rule 300(h) on April 1, 2010, will be
contingent upon SEC approval of SR-NYSE-2010-03 prior to that date.
See email from John Carey, Chief Counsel--U.S. Equities, NYSE
Euronext LLC, to David Liu, Assistant Director, and Leigh W. Duffy,
Attorney-Adviser, Commission, dated January 25, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The acceptability proceedings requirements of Rule 308 will not be
applicable to any denial or revocation of a trading license under
proposed Rule 300(h). Instead, Rule 300(h) will include its own appeal
procedure. One calendar month prior to the effective date of any
potential denial of renewal or revocation of a trading license (the
``Expiration Date'') pursuant to Rule 300(h), the Exchange will notify
each applicable member organization that is currently two months or
more in arrears in paying monthly installments of the trading license
fee payable in respect of any previously purchased trading license of
the amount of then overdue trading license installment payments and the
possibility of denial of renewal or revocation of the trading license
on the Expiration Date. The notice referenced in the immediately
preceding sentence must include a description of the appeal process
described below. If the member organization believes the Exchange's
records are incorrect, the member organization must submit a written
appeal within five business days of receipt of the Exchange's notice to
the officer of the Exchange identified for that purpose in such notice,
providing an explanation as to why it believes the Exchange's records
are incorrect, and providing copies of any relevant documentation. The
Exchange must provide a final determination in writing in response to
any such appeal no later than 15 calendar days prior to the effective
date of the potential denial of renewal or revocation of the applicable
trading license.\5\ This written determination shall be final and
conclusive action by the Exchange. If the Exchange denies the appeal,
its written final determination must specifically address the arguments
made by the member organization in its submission. A written record
shall be kept of any proceedings under Rule 300(h). As the appeal
procedures under proposed Rule 300(h) will not include any provision
for an oral hearing, the Exchange expects that the written record will
generally consist of (i) the written appeal and supporting documents
(if any) submitted by the member organization and (ii) the Exchange's
written determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the Exchange denies a member organization's appeal under
Rule 300(h), the Exchange will notify the Commission in the manner
required by Exchange Act Rule 19d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 309 (``Failure to Pay Exchange Fees'') will not apply to the
nonpayment of trading license fee installments, which will be dealt
with solely under proposed Rule 300(h). The adoption of proposed Rule
300(h) will not in any way limit the application of Rule 309 in the
event of the nonpayment by a member organization of any fee other than
a trading license fee or any other sum due to the Exchange. The
Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 309 to explicitly provide that
failure to pay trading license fee installments will be governed by
proposed Rule 300(h).
    The Exchange notes that it relies in part on the revenues from
trading license fees to pay for the maintenance of the trading floor
and to fund its trading floor regulatory activities. If some member
organizations consistently fail to pay their trading license fee bills,
the Exchange will be forced to impose higher fees on those member
organizations which do pay their bills. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will cause member organizations to pay their bills
more promptly and thereby enable the Exchange to avoid imposing the
cost of the nonpayment by a small number of member organizations on the
majority of other member organizations that routinely pay on time. It
is neither the intention nor the expectation of the Exchange that a
significant number of member organizations will lose their ability to
conduct a trading floor business as a result of this amendment. Rather,
the Exchange believes that most member organizations that are late in
paying their bills will respond to the possibility of losing their
access to the floor by paying off their outstanding balances. The
Exchange notes that any member organization which forfeits its trading
licenses as of March 31, 2010 will only owe the pro rata license fee
for 2010 through that date. In addition, any member organization which
forfeits its trading licenses in 2010 or is ineligible to purchase
trading licenses thereafter may purchase trading licenses (to the
extent there are available unsold licenses) at such time as it is no
longer three months in arrears in its payments.
2. Statutory Basis
    The bases under the Act for this proposed rule change are the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) \6\ that an exchange have rules that
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its members, listed companies and other persons using its
facilities and the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \7\ that an
exchange have rules that are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
Exchange believes that the proposed amendment provides for an equitable
allocation of fees among member organizations, as it will deprive
member organizations of floor access only if they do not pay the
trading license fees applicable to all member organizations with a
trading floor business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-NYSE-2010-03 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-NYSE-2010-03. 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,\8\ 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, 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 NYSE. 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-NYSE-2010-03 and should be
submitted on or before February 23, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2090 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Attachment 1

ARIZONA

Area Designations for the PM2.5

24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The table below identifies the county in Arizona that EPA has designated
as not attaining the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) standard.  A
county (or part thereof) is designated as nonattainment if it has an air
quality monitor that is violating the standard or if the county is
determined to be contributing to the violation of the standard.

Area	Arizona Recommended Nonattainment Counties	EPA’s Final Designated
Nonattainment Counties

Nogales	Santa Cruz County (partial) 	Santa Cruz County (partial)

EPA has designated the remaining counties in the state as
“unclassifiable/attainment.” EPA designated a county as
“unclassifiable” when:  one or more of its monitors recorded a
violation in 2004-2006; all monitors in the county with complete
2005-2007 data showed attainment; and one or more other monitors in the
county had 2005-2007 monitoring data that was not complete and could not
be used for determining compliance with the standard.

EPA Technical Analysis for Nogales

Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA must designate as
nonattainment those areas that violate the NAAQS and those nearby areas
that contribute to violations.  This technical analysis for the Nogales
area identifies the county with monitors that violate the 24-hour PM2.5
standard and evaluates the counties that potentially contribute to fine
particle concentrations in the area.  EPA has evaluated these counties
based on the weight of evidence of the following nine factors
recommended in EPA guidance and any other relevant information:

- pollutant emissions

- air quality data

- population density and degree of urbanization

- traffic and commuting patterns

- growth

- meteorology

- geography and topography

- jurisdictional boundaries

- level of control of emissions sources

Figure 1 is a map of Santa Cruz County which encompasses the
nonattainment area. The map includes other relevant information such as
the locations and design values of air quality monitors, the
metropolitan area boundary, and other nearby counties.

                                                             Figure 1

In a letter dated December 19, 2007, Arizona recommended that a portion
of Santa Cruz County be designated as “nonattainment” for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standard based on air quality data from 2004 - 2006.
These data are from Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitors located in
the state. The Nogales area did not previously violate the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, but now has one monitor that violates the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) noted that the
monitor located at the Nogales Post Office in Nogales, Arizona has
recorded two exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006, and ADEQ
recommended that the area be designated as nonattainment based on the
most recent three years of air quality data.  The term
“nonattainment” means an area is violating the PM2.5 standards or
contributing to violations of the standards. A “not classifiable”
designation is appropriate for areas where monitors have insufficient
data, but where available data support attainment of standards. A State
submittal that only addressed whether monitored violations are occurring
in an area does not suffice as the sole justification for designating
the boundaries of a nonattainment area.

The Nogales Arizona Area is already designated as a PM10 nonattainment
area and ADEQ has recommended that the boundaries of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 nonattainment area coincide with the existing PM10 nonattainment
area boundaries. The Nogales Arizona area was not previously designated
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standards.

Based on EPA's technical analysis described below and currently
available information, EPA has designated a portion of Santa Cruz
County, the Nogales area, as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5
air-quality standard. This county is listed in the table below.

Nogales Area	State-Recommended Nonattainment Counties	EPA’s Designated
Nonattainment Counties

Arizona	Santa Cruz County (partial) 	Santa Cruz County (partial)

The following is the technical analysis for the Nogales, Arizona 24-hour
PM2.5 nonattainment area.

Factor 1:  Emissions data

For this factor, EPA evaluated county level emission data for the
following PM2.5 components and precursor pollutants:  “PM2.5 emissions
total,” “PM2.5 emissions carbon,” “PM2.5 emissions other,”
“SO2,” “NOx, “VOCs,” and “NH3.”  “PM2.5 emissions
total” represents direct emissions of PM2.5 and includes:   “PM2.5
emissions carbon,” “PM2.5 emissions other”, primary sulfate (SO4),
and primary nitrate.  (Although primary sulfate and primary nitrate,
which are emitted directly from stacks rather than forming in
atmospheric reactions with SO2 and NOx, are part of “PM2.5 emissions
total,” they are not shown on the template or data spreadsheet as
separate items).  “PM2.5 emissions carbon” represents the sum of
organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) emissions, and “PM2.5
emissions other” represents other inorganic particles (crustal).
Emissions of SO2 and NOx, which are precursors of the secondary PM2.5
components sulfate and nitrate, are also considered.  VOCs (volatile
organic compounds) and NH3 (ammonia) are also potential PM2.5 precursors
and are included for consideration.

Emissions data were derived from the 2005 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI), version 1.  See
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_2006_techinfo.html.

EPA also considered the Contributing Emissions Score (CES) for each
county.  The CES is a metric that takes into consideration emissions
data, meteorological data, and air quality monitoring information to
provide a relative ranking of counties in and near an area.  Note that
this metric is not the exclusive manner for consideration of data for
these factors.  A summary of the CES is included in attachment 2, and a
more detailed description can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_2006_techinfo.html#C.

Table 1 shows emissions of PM2.5 and precursor pollutant components
(given in tons per year) and the CES for violating and potentially
contributing counties in the Nogales area.  Potentially contributing
counties are listed in descending order by CES.

Table 1.  PM2.5 Related Emissions and Contributing Emissions Score

County	State Recom-mended Non-attain

ment	CES	PM2.5

emissions

total

(tpy)	PM2.5

emissions

carbon

(tpy)	PM2.5

emissions

other

(tpy)	SO2

(tpy)	NOx

(tpy)	VOCs

(tpy)	NH3

(tpy)

Pima 	No	66	4,220	1,678	2,542	6,133	30,326	32,966	1,947

Santa Cruz 	Yes, P	18	631	287	344	116	1,520	3.156	466

Cochise 	No	7	1,691	496	1,195	3,712	16,151	7,123	3,404

Based on emission levels and CES values only, Pima, and Cochise Counties
in Arizona are candidates for a 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment designation.
Santa Cruz County has a violating monitor so it is a candidate for a
nonattainment designation despite the low emission levels and low CES
value.

It is interesting to note that Santa Cruz County has much lower PM2.5
and precursor emissions than either Pima County or Cochise County where
there are no PM2.5 violations.  ADEQ provided summary information from a
winter 2005 study by Arizona State University (ASU), which indicated
that the majority of PM2.5 concentrations in Nogales, Arizona are a
result of transport from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, via nighttime drainage
flows. The ASU study identified wood burning, food cooking, open
burning, dust emissions, and tailpipe emissions from on-road and
off-road vehicles as the primary sources.  The Sonora, Mexico side has
94% of the total emissions, i.e. its emissions are some 15 times higher
than the U.S. side, according to PM10 and PM2.5 emission inventories
developed by ADEQ for the 1993 Nogales PM10 SIP.  Since the CES tool
does not include these Mexican emissions, the CES county results above
are not conclusive for purposes of identifying relative contributions to
total PM2.5 levels on days with high PM2.5 levels.

With respect to the CES values, Pima County has the highest CES score of
66, followed distantly by the violating county, Santa Cruz, and Cochise
County.  Tucson, Arizona, in Pima County, is located approximately 60
miles north of Nogales and does not appear to contribute to the PM2.5
air quality problems in Nogales, due to topography and meteorologic
conditions during wintertime exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
this is discussed under factors 6 and 7 below.  In addition, there is no
commuting relationship between Tucson and Nogales, and there are no
violating monitors in Pima County, or in Green Valley to the south of
Tucson.  Based on these factors, EPA  eliminated Pima County from
consideration as part of the 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area.  As
indicated by the very low CES, Cochise County does not impact Nogales at
all and is, in fact, separated from Nogales by the Patagonia Mountains.
Considering several factors, including low emissions, low CES score, and
the topographical barriers, EPA also eliminated Cochise County from
consideration in the nonattainment area.

Although it has low emissions and a low CES value, Santa Cruz County has
a violating monitor.  Emissions sources in the part of Santa Cruz County
where the violating monitor is located are concentrated along Interstate
19, in the valley formed by the Nogales Wash (see population factor
below).

Based on emissions information, including consideration of the
information provided by the State of Arizona documenting substantial
emissions from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, EPA’s nonattainment area
designation of a part of Santa Cruz County includes the population (and
thus, the population-associated emissions), as well as major nearby
highways and stationary sources, taking into account the topographical
separation of the Nogales area from part of the county.

Factor 2:  Air quality data

This factor considers the 24-hour PM2.5 design values (in µg/m3) for
air quality monitors in counties in the Nogales area based on data for
the 2005-2007 period.  A monitor’s design value indicates whether that
monitor attains a specified air quality standard. The 24-hour PM2.5
standards are met when the 3-year average of a monitor’s 98th
percentile values are 35 µg/m3 or less.  A design value is only valid
if minimum data completeness criteria are met.

The 24-hour PM2.5 design values for counties in the Nogales area are
shown in Table 2.

Table 2.  Air Quality Data

County	State

Recommended

 Nonattainment	24-hr PM2.5 Design

Values, 2004-2006

(µg/m3)	24-hr PM2.5 Design

Values, 2005-2007

(µg/m3)

Santa Cruz County, AZ	Yes, P	38	39

City of Nogales	Yes	38	39

P = partial

The City of Nogales in Santa Cruz County, Arizona shows a violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and so, Santa Cruz County is included in the
nonattainment area.  There are no monitors with violating values
elsewhere in Santa Cruz County or in Pima County to the north, therefore
it is appropriate to include Santa Cruz County in the nonattainment
area.   The absence of a violating monitor alone is not sufficient to
eliminate a portion of Santa Cruz County as a candidate for
nonattainment status.  EPA considered eight other factors (plus other
relevant factors or circumstances) when determining the boundaries of
the Nogales nonattainment area and, as further explained below and based
on the weight of evidence, concurs with the State’s recommendation.

Air quality monitoring data on the composition of fine particle mass are
available from the EPA Chemical Speciation Network and the IMPROVE
monitoring network.  Analysis of these data indicates that the days with
the highest fine particle concentrations occur in cool seasons, and the
average chemical composition of the highest days is typically
characterized by high levels of organic carbon.

High PM2.5 values in Nogales generally occur under stagnant, light wind
conditions during winter, and are associated with southerly flow (i.e.,
from the direction of Mexico).  Measurements of PM2.5 composition during
an Arizona State University study during the winter of 2005-2006 (quoted
in ADEQ recommendation), showed that the main emission sources are wood
burning, food cooking, open burning, dust emissions, and tailpipe
emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles. Carbonaceous emissions
with about 15% EC are consistent with wood burning or food cooking, and
not consistent with diesel emissions, although diesel emissions are
important at the U.S.-Mexico border crossing and elsewhere in the
Nogales area.

Note:  Eligible monitors for providing design value data generally
include State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) at
population-oriented locations with an FRM monitor.  All data from
Special Purpose Monitors (SPM) using an FRM is eligible for comparison
to the relevant NAAQS, subject to the requirements given in the October
17, 2006 Revision to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations (71 FR 61236).
All monitors used to provide data must meet the monitor siting and
eligibility requirements given in 71 FR 61236 to 61328 in order to be
acceptable for comparison to the 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS for designation
purposes.

Factor 3: Population density and degree of urbanization (including
commercial development)

Table 4 shows the 2005 population for each county in the area being
evaluated, as well as the population density for each county in that
area.  Population data gives an indication of whether it is likely that
population-based emissions might contribute to violations of the 24-hour
PM2.5 standards.

Table 4.  Population

County	State Recommended Nonattainment	2005 Population	2005 Population
Density (pop/sq mi)

Santa Cruz County, AZ	Yes, P 	46,907	38

City of Nogales	Yes	21,746	1,046

Pima County	No	925,000	101

Cochise County 	No	126,153	20

These data show that the City of Nogales is densely populated, but that
Santa Cruz County is sparsely populated.  In the entire County, there
are only 47,000 people, or 38 people per square mile.  Based solely on
this factor, Santa Cruz County would not be considered as high-ranking
for designation as nonattainment. The figures supplied by ADEQ indicate
that the population density in Nogales, Sonora in Mexico is 17,411
people per square mile. This supports the contention that the major
portion of PM2.5 emissions in the City of Nogales, Arizona comes from
Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, which has a large metropolitan population of
approximately 200,000 people.

Based on this factor, the Nogales area is a candidate for a
nonattainment status for PM2.5 and the rest of Santa Cruz County is not.
Pima and Cochise Counties are included for comparison.  Their population
densities are very low, and these counties were previously eliminated
from inclusion in the nonattainment area.

Factor 4: Traffic and commuting patterns

This factor considers the number of commuters in each county who drive
to another county within the Nogales area, the percent of total
commuters in each county who commute to other counties within the
Nogales area, as well as the total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for each
county in millions of miles (see Table 5). A county with numerous
commuters is generally an integral part of an urban area and is likely
contributing to fine particle concentrations in the area.

Table 5.  Traffic and Commuting Patterns

County / City	State Recommended Nonattainment	2005 VMT

(millions of mi)	Number Commuting to any violating counties

	Percent

Commuting to any violating counties

	Number Commuting to and Within Statistical  Area	Percent Commuting to
and Within Statistical Area

Santa Cruz 	Yes, P	464	10,960	87%	10,960	87%

City of Nogales 	Yes

	Pima County	No	8,759	1,420	0	1,420	0%

Cochise County	No	1,906	130	0	130	0%

Major highways in the Nogales, Arizona area are Arizona State Route 82,
which connects Nogales, Arizona with Patagonia, Arizona (19 miles) and
Sonoita (31 miles) to the northeast, and US Interstate 19 which connects
Tucson, Arizona to Nogales, Arizona and continues south into Mexico. The
numbers above indicate that most traffic is local and stays within Santa
Cruz County. There is no commuting pattern between the City of Nogales
and the City of Tucson, in Pima County to the north, as indicated by a
value of 0% for people commuting to any violating counties from Pima
County.  Rather, most of the traffic is personal or commercial coming to
and from the ports of entry. Since truck traffic is an integral part of
the Nogales Area, this information has been included as well.

Figure 2

Two ports of entry connect the Nogales, Arizona area with Sonora,
Mexico.  These ports of entry are the Mariposa Port of entry, which
handles primarily commercial truck traffic, and the DeConcini Port of
Entry, which primarily handles passenger cars, buses and non-commercial
trucks.  In 2006, approximately 3.2 million personal vehicles, 289,000
trucks, and 11,500 buses used the Nogales ports of entry.  This traffic
is the major commuting pattern in the Nogales Area and in Santa Cruz
County.  The average daily truck traffic is  approximately 2001-5000
trucks.

(See map (Figure 2) “Nogales, Arizona, Emission Sources and Population
Density” which shows the major highways in the Nogales area.)

There are a significant number of vehicles traveling from within Santa
Cruz County to the City of Nogales.  In addition, there is significant
traffic from the Mexican border to beyond the city limits of the City of
Nogales. The Figure 2 map indicates that the heaviest truck and daily
traffic is on Interstate 19 that winds from the Mexican border to the
City of Nogales and through Santa Cruz County to Tucson. ADEQ indicates
the possibility of high levels of mobile source PM2.5 emissions due to
the high level of car and truck traffic within the Nogales area.

Because the truck traffic goes beyond the city limits of the City of
Nogales, and with the analysis of geography and topography described in
factor 7 below, we agree with the recommendation of Arizona that the
northern border of the PM2.5 nonattainment area should be drawn
coincident with the the current northern border of the PM10
nonattainment area in order to capture the contributing
transportation-related emissions from the Interstate 19 corridor. This
area extends beyond the City of Nogales, north into Santa Cruz County,
as shown in Figure 3.

The 2005 VMT data used for tables 5 and 6 of the technical analysis have
been derived using methodology such as that described in "Documentation
for the  2005 Mobile National Emissions Inventory, Version 2," December
2008, prepared for the Emission Inventory Group, U.S. EPA.  This
document may be found at:   HYPERLINK
"ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005_nei/mobile_sector/documentation/20
05_mobile_nei_version_2_report.pdf"
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005_nei/mobile_sector/documentation/200
5_mobile_nei_version_2_report.pdf

Factor 5:  Growth rates and patterns

This factor considers population growth for 2000-2005 and growth in
vehicle miles traveled for 2000-2005 for counties in Nogales area, as
well as patterns of population and VMT growth.  A county with rapid
population or VMT growth is generally an integral part of an urban area
and likely to be contributing to fine particle concentrations in the
area.  Table 6 below shows population, population growth, VMT and VMT
growth for Santa Cruz, Pima, and Cochise Counties, as well as the 2005
population for the City of Nogales.

Table 6.  Population and VMT Values and Percent Change.

County	Population (2005)	Population % change (2000 - 2005)	2005 VMT

(million)	VMT

Growth (% 2000 to 2005)

Santa Cruz County	42,012	9 %	464	1%

City of Nogales 	21,746

	Pima County	925,000	9%	8,759	52%

Cochise County	126,153	7%	1,906	29%

Figure 3

map source: ADEQ Technical Support Document for Nogales Recommendation

ADEQ estimates that population growth for Nogales, Arizona and the
Nogales PM10 nonattainment area will be small, and the population growth
for Santa Cruz County is projected to be moderate.  Between 2007 and
2015, the population of Santa Cruz County is projected to increase 20%
to 56,144 residents, compared to a significantly slower growth rate of
10% or 23,858 residents for the City of Nogales.  However, Nogales,
Arizona will still represent a plurality of the population of Santa Cruz
County.

With regard to VMT, Santa Cruz County shows a 1% decrease in VMT from
2000 to 2005.  According to ADEQ, there will be moderate population
growth in Santa Cruz County from 2007 and 2015 and the number of
registered vehicles in Santa Cruz County has grown from 41,527 in
January 2004 to 47,460 in July 2007.  There are no statistics for what
proportion of the vehicles are owned by residents of the City of
Nogales, but since 50% of the total county population resides in the
City of Nogales, a large proportion of VMT is within the City of
Nogales.

While there is population growth, it is contained within the boundaries
of the area proposed by ADEQ which coincides with the existing PM10
nonattainment area.  There is no evidence of significant population
growth or high VMT anywhere else in Santa Cruz County.

Factor 6:  Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

For this factor, EPA considered data from National Weather Service
instruments in the area.  Wind direction and wind speed data for
2004-2006 were analyzed, with an emphasis on “high PM2.5 days” for
each of two seasons (an October-April “cold” season and a
May-September “warm” season).  These high days are defined as days
where any FRM or FEM air quality monitors had 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations above 95% on a frequency distribution curve of PM2.5
24-hour values.

EPA developed a “pollution rose” to understand the prevailing wind
direction and wind speed on the days with highest fine particle
concentrations. The pollution rose for Nogales, Arizona, site 040230004,
shown in Figure 4, indicates that elevated levels of particulate matter
occur during the cool season during time periods when prevailing winds
are light, consistent with the analysis submitted by Arizona.

Note:  the meteorology factor is also considered in each county’s
Contributing Emissions Score because the method for deriving this metric
included an analysis of trajectories of air masses for high PM2.5 days.

                                                                Figure 4

EPA also directly examined exceedance day backward wind trajectories
from the HYSPLIT model, based on Eta Data Assimilation System (EDAS)
gridded meteorological data.  These trajectories were not conclusive.
However, that is not surprising given that EDAS has a 40 km grid
resolution, whereas the valley containing Nogales is at most 20 km wide:
the data were not resolved enough to portray the south-north valley
drainage flows that are a key feature of local Nogales meteorology.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality maintains a
meteorological site located at the Nogales Post Office.  Review of four
years of hourly wind data, from the meteorological site at the Nogales
Post Office, indicates that 47% of the time winds were out of the south
(between 145 and 225 degrees).  Winds out of the north (315 to 45
degrees) occurred 18% of the time, east (45 through 145 degrees) 20% of
the time, and west (225 through 315 degrees) occurred 15% of the time.
These data show a definite south to north wind flow along the Nogales
Wash, likely aided by the decrease in elevation from the south to the
north.

The 2005 study by Arizona State University (ASU) mentioned above
confirmed that PM2.5 crosses the border from Mexico to Arizona,
primarily via southerly drainage flow during the evening hours. This
drainage flow is strongest during the winter months when there are
strong temperature inversions and light to no winds.  Air quality
modeling performed in 1999 found that PM10 concentrations drop to low
levels by the time they reach the northern boundary of the PM10
nonattainment area.  A similar pattern would hold for PM2.5, though
concentrations would be expected to drop off more slowly due to its
smaller diameter and lower deposition rate. The information provided by
ADEQ indicates that there is transport from Mexico to the Nogales area,
and that concentrations decline with distance from the border.

Factor 7:  Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin
boundaries)

The geography/topography analysis looks at physical features of the land
that might have an effect on the air shed and, therefore, on the
distribution of PM2.5 over the Nogales area.

The Nogales area is situated between three mountain ranges located east,
west, and north of the city.  (See terrain shown in Figures 2 and 3.)
The City of Nogales, Arizona encompasses 21 square miles and lies 3,865
feet above sea level.  With the Pajarito, Atascosa, and Tumacacori
Mountains about 7 miles to the west and the Patagonia Mountains roughly
13 miles east, Nogales rests between the two mountain ranges in the
Nogales Wash.  While the crests of these ranges are roughly 20 miles
apart, the intervening high terrain makes for a narrow north-south
valley.  This valley contains the Nogales Wash, Interstate 19, and the
anthropogenic sources in the southern portion of the county.

To the north and northeast are the Santa Rita mountains, including Mount
Wrightson at 9,432 feet.  .This range forms a partial barrier to
northward flow; after angling to the west, the main north-south valley
continues northward.  This partial barrier is a reasonable northern edge
to the PM2.5 area; the range separates the Nogales area, on the north,
from the rest of the county.

The elevation decreases from south of the US/Mexico border heading north
toward Tucson, Arizona.  Thus, nighttime drainage flow is typically from
south to north along the Nogales Wash.  According to ADEQ, the narrow
valley topography can trap air pollutants, especially during the evening
hours when the diurnal flow is from the south, out of Nogales, Sonora.

While it is possible that some PM2.5 may travel beyond the northern
edge, the PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the portions with high
concentrations, and includes nearly all of the U.S. sources that
contribute to PM2.5 levels on days with exceedances of the standard (see
factors 3-5).  Considering these factors together, EPA believes that the
State’s recommended PM2.5 nonattainment boundary, which coincides with
the existing PM10 nonattainment area, is justified.

Factor 8:  Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., existing PM and ozone areas)

The analysis of jurisdictional boundaries considered the planning and
organizational structure of the Nogales Area to determine if the
implementation of controls in a potential nonattainment area can be
carried out in a cohesive manner.  Santa Cruz County has no air quality
planning agency.  Consequently, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality is responsible for developing any state implementation plans
that are required for the Nogales Area.

Santa Cruz County is an existing nonattainment area for the 24-hour PM10
standard and is in attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.  ADEQ is
the air quality agency responsible for preparing the PM10 Plan, and is
also responsible for preparing any PM2.5 plan that is required.  EPA
believes that the boundaries established for implementing the existing
PM10 standards are appropriate for implementing the new 24-hour PM2.5
standard. Establishment of the same boundaries for nonattainment of both
PM standards facilitates overall air quality planning for attaining both
standards.

Factor 9:  Level of control of emission sources

This factor considers emission controls currently implemented for major
sources in the Nogales PM2.5 nonattainment area.  In considering
county-level emissions, EPA used data from the 2005 National Emissions
Inventory version 1, the most current version of the national inventory
available at the beginning of the designations process in late 2007.
However, EPA recognized that for certain counties, emissions may have
changed significantly since 2005.  For example, certain power plants or
large sources of emissions in or near an area may have installed
emission controls or otherwise significantly reduced emissions since
2005.

For the Nogales nonattainment area, there are no large contributing
sources for which this factor would apply.

Conclusion

EPA agrees with the State’s nonattainment area boundary recommendation
and is, therefore, designating part of Santa Cruz County, the same part
that comprises the existing PM10 nonattainment area, as nonattainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  This is the Nogales area within
Santa Cruz County.  EPA believes that the emissions data, air quality
data, population data, growth patterns, traffic and commuting patterns,
meteorology, and topography all support establishing a smaller
nonattainment area than the whole county.  Taking into account the
topography in this area, the nonattainment area boundary includes nearly
all of the U.S. sources that contribute to PM2.5 levels on days with
exceedances of the standard.

Additional information regarding responses to specific State comments
can be found in EPA's Response to Comments document at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/tech.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/tech.htm

Attachment 2

Description of the Contributing Emissions Score

The CES is a metric that takes into consideration emissions data,
meteorological data, and air quality monitoring information to provide a
relative ranking of counties in and near an area.  Using this
methodology, scores were developed for each county in and around the
relevant metro area.  The county with the highest contribution potential
was assigned a score of 100, and other county scores were adjusted in
relation to the highest county.  The CES represents the relative maximum
influence that emissions in that county have on a violating county.  The
CES, which reflects consideration of multiple factors, should be
considered in evaluating the weight of evidence supporting designation
decisions
fo⁲慥档愠敲⹡഍桔䕃⁓潦⁲慥档挠畯瑮⁹慷⁳敤楲
敶祢椠据牯潰慲楴杮琠敨映汯潬楷杮猠杩楮楦慣瑮椠
普牯慭楴湯愠摮瘠牡慩汢獥琠慨⁴浩慰瑣倠㉍㔮琠慲獮
潰瑲ഺ

	Major PM2.5 components:  total carbon (organic carbon (OC) and
elemental carbon (EC)), SO2, NOx, and inorganic particles (crustal).

	PM2.5 emissions for the highest (generally top 5%) PM2.5 emission
days (herein called “high days”) for each of two seasons, cold
(Oct-Apr) and warm (May-Sept)

	Meteorology on high days using the NOAA HYSPLIT model for
determining trajectories of air masses for specified days

	The “urban increment” of a violating monitor, which is the urban
PM2.5 concentration that is in addition to a regional background PM2.5
concentration, determined for each PM2.5 component

	Distance from each potentially contributing county to a violating
county or counties

[A more detailed description of the CES can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_2006_techinfo.html#C.]

 EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 fine particle standards
in 2005.  In 2006, the primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards
were revised from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (average of 98th
percentile values for 3 consecutive years) to 35 micrograms per cubic
meter; the level of the primary and secondary annual PM2.5 standards
remained unchanged at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (average of annual
averages for 3 consecutive years).

h<-

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

#

/

0

?

F

m

o

r

€

Š

Ž

—

±

³

¶

Ó

á

é

ó

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

"̤̀옍)

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

㜂$␸䠀$摧䘉4"̀Ȥ옍)

옍)

  h‹

  h‹

  h‹

옍)

@

옍)

옍)

h

kdS

"ԀĤ옍)

옍)

"ԀĤ옍)

h

"̤̀옍)

옍)

"̤̀옍)

h

옍)

옍#

h‹

h‹

h‹

h‹

옍)

옍)

옍)

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

PAGE

 PAGE   15

Concentration:

  > 40 µg/m3

  35 - 40 µg/m3

  30 - 35 µg/m3

  < 30 µg/m3

Season:

     cool (Oct-Apr)

     warm (May-Sep)

2007

2006

2005

TUCSON_INTERNATIONAL_AP (ID=23160)

Meteorological data from 55.0 miles away

Nogales, AZ

(due to missing or variable wind data)

2 exceedance(s) not plotted

   39-NA

Value

Design

.

4

1

# days > 35

28.2

56.2

33.0

98th %-ile

2006

2005

2004

Year

Pollution Rose, 2005-2007

Nogales, AZ [Santa Cruz County, AZ]

Site 040230004

Wind Speed (mph)

12+

10

8

6

4

2

E

W

S