### 78167 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

• Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because a determinations of attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands. However, because there are tribal lands located in Milwaukee County, we provided the affected tribe with the opportunity to consult with EPA on the attainment determination. The consultation occurred on November 15, 2010. The affected tribe raised no

concerns.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register

. These actions are not ‘‘major rules ’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of these actions for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today’s Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw these direct final rules and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce their requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: November 24, 2010. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

**PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

**Subpart YY—Wisconsin**

■ 2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (y) to read as follows:

**§ 52.2585 Control strategy: Ozone.**
* * * * *

(y) Determination of attainment. EPA has determined, as of December 15, 2010 that the Milwaukee-Racine, WI and Sheboygan, WI areas have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. These determinations suspend the requirements for these areas to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress plans (RFP), contingency measures, and other State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard for as long as the areas continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. These determinations also stay the requirement for EPA to promulgate attainment demonstration and RFP Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for these areas.

[FR Doc. 2010–31339 Filed 12–14–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0521; FRL–9233–3]**

**Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on September 2, 2010 and concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from fugitive dust sources such as construction sites and related activities, unpaved roads, unpaved parking lots, and disturbed soils on vacant lots. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This rule is effective on January 14, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0521 for this action. The index to the docket 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 :**  Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we, ’’ ‘‘us ’’ and ‘‘ our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. EPA Action


### 78168 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action On September 2, 2010 (75 FR 53907), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Arizona SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

MCAPCD ...................................... 310 Fugitive Dust From Dust-Generating Operations ............................. 01/27/10 04/12/10 MCAPCD ...................................... 310.01 Fugitive Dust From Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust ......... 01/27/1004/12/10 MCAPCD ...................................... Appendix C–Fugitive Dust Test Methods ......................................... 03/26/08 07/10/08

We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into the Arizona SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a ‘‘ significant regulatory action ’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health orenvironmental effects on minority, lowincome or Tribal populations because it maintains or increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population as described in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register

. This action is not a ‘‘major rule ’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 3, 2010. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

**PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

**Subpart D—Arizona**

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(146) and (c)(147) to read as follows:

**§ 52.120 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (146) The following plan was submitted on April 12, 2010 by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.

( 1 ) Rule 310, ‘‘ Fugitive Dust From Dust-Generating Operations, ’’ adopted on January 27, 2010.

( 2 ) Rule 310.01, ‘‘ Fugitive Dust From Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust, ’’ adopted on January 27, 2010.

(147) The following plan was submitted on July 10, 2008 by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.

( 1 ) Appendix C—‘‘ Fugitive Dust Test Methods, ’’ adopted on March 26, 2008.

[FR Doc. 2010–31331 Filed 12–14–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**