### 48087 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

supervision of the Indians in the Secretary of the Interior, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and 25 U.S.C. 13, which authorizes appropriations for ‘‘ Indian judges. ’’ The United States Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Secretary to promulgate regulations with respect to Courts of Indian Offenses in United States v. Clapox , 35 F. 575 (D. Ore. 1888). Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Solicitor analyzed and upheld the Department of the Interior ’ s authority to establish Courts of Indian Offenses in a memorandum dated February 28, 1935. The Solicitor found that authority to rest principally in the statutes placing supervision of the Indians in the Secretary of the Interior, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and 25 U.S.C. 13, which authorizes appropriations for ‘‘ Indian judges. ’’ The United States Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Secretary to promulgate regulations with respect to Courts of Indian Offenses in United States v. Clapox , 35 F. 575 (D. Ore. 1888). Part 11 also requires the establishment of an appeals court; hence, the judicial system defined in Executive Order 12988 does not involve this judicial process. Paperwork Reduction Act

This regulation does not require an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collection is not covered by an existing OMB approval. An OMB form 83

–I has not been prepared and has not been approved by the Office of Policy Analysis. No information is being collected as a result of the CFR court exercising its limited criminal misdemeanor jurisdiction over Indians within the exterior boundaries of the Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony. National Environmental Policy Act

We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 DM. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement/assessment is not required. The establishment of this Court of Indian Offenses on a temporary basis conveys personal jurisdiction over the criminal misdemeanor actions of Indians within the exterior boundaries of the Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony and does not have any impact on the environment.

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, ‘‘ Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, ’’ we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. The amendment to 25 CFR 11.100(a) does not apply to any of the 558 federallyrecognized tribes, except the PaiuteShoshone Indian Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony. The provisional Court of Indian Offenses is established until the Secretary determines that enforcement of the criminal offenses contained in Part 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations is no longer justified. The Department of the Interior, in establishing this provisional court, is fulfilling its trust responsibility and complying with the unique government-to-government relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 11

Courts, Indians

—Law, Law enforcement, Penalties.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending part 11, chapter I of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. This amendment is effective from September 18, 2001 to September 18,
2002.

PART 11

— LAW AND ORDER ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

Authority: R.S. 463; 25 U.S.C. 2, 38 Stat. 586; 25 U.S.C. 200, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 11.100 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(15) to read as follows:

§ 11.100 Listing of Courts of Indian Offenses.

(a) * * * (15) Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony (land in trust for the Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony).

* * * * * Dated: September 5, 2001. Neal A. McCaleb, Assistant Secretary

—

Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. 01

– 23198 Filed 9

– 17

– 01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310

–02

– P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 103

–0044; FRL

–7051

–4]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION : Final rule.

SUMMARY : EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on May 11, 2001 and concern affirmative defenses for excess emissions from sources regulated under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE : This rule is effective on October 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES : You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action at EPA ’ s Region IX office during normal business hours. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

– 3901. Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460. Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, Air Quality Division, 3033 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
85012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Ginger Vagenas, Permits Office (AIR

– 3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744

– 1252.

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

On May 11, 2001 (66 FR 24074), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Arizona SIP: R18

– 2

– 310, Affirmative Defenses for Excess Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown; and R18

– 2

– 310.01, Reporting Requirements.


### 48088 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements and EPA ’ s September 20, 1999 policy memo regarding excess emissions (State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown). Our proposed action and technical support document 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 comments from the following parties.

1. Newman Porter, Lewis and Roca, LLP, representing the Arizona Mining Association; letter dated May 22, 2001 and received May 30, 2001.

2. Joy E. Herr Cardillo, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest; letter dated June 11, 2001 and received June 11, 2001.

The comments and our responses are summarized below. Our response to comments document contains a more detailed analysis.

The Arizona Mining Association supports EPA ’ s proposal to approve R18

– 2

– 310 and 310.01 into the Arizona state implementation plan. The Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) acknowledged that the rule generally tracks EPA policy, but pointed out several cases where ADEQ does not incorporate verbatim into Rule R18

– 2

– 310 the criteria set out in EPA ’ s excess emissions policy. For example, they noted that under EPA ’ s policy a malfunction must be beyond the control of the operator to qualify for an affirmative defense, whereas Rule 310 requires that it must be beyond the reasonable control of the operator. (Emphasis added) ACLPI contends that, because of this and other deviations from EPA ’ s excess emissions policy, Rule 310 is significantly ‘‘ less stringent ’’ than the EPA policy.

The excess emissions policy does not constitute federal rulemaking. Rather, EPA issues policies to provide EPA staff, state regulators and the public with EPA ’ s general interpretation of the Act ’ s requirements. Unlike a regulation, EPA ’ s policy is not binding and each SIP submission must be reviewed on its own merits.

The commenter notes several instances in which the Arizona rules do not include the conditions from EPA policy verbatim. However, the commenter does not expand on why the Arizona provisions are inconsistent with the CAA, instead only making vague allegations that the State rules are less stringent than the sample language in EPA ’ s policy. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the variations in language used by Arizona modify the intent of EPA ’ s policy. We believe that Rules 310 and 310.01 meet the goals of the policy, are consistent with the Act, and will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards and are therefore approvable.

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. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘ significant regulatory action ’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111,

‘‘ Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104

–4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA ’ s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ‘‘ Attorney General ’ s Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings ’’ issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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 rule 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the


### 48089 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

appropriate circuit by November 19, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: August 30, 2001. Sally Seymour, Acting 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 paragraph (c)(97) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *

(c) * * * (97) New and amended rules for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality were submitted on March 26, 2001, by the Governor ’ s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Rules R18

– 2

– 310 and R18

– 2

– 310.01 effective on February 15, 2001. [FR Doc. 01

– 23001 Filed 9

– 17

– 01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560

–50

– P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180
[OPP

–301175; FRL

–6803

–2]

RIN 2070

–AB78
Bispyribac-Sodium; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION : Final rule. SUMMARY : This regulation establishes atolerance for residues of bispyribacsodium in or on rice. Valent U.S.A. Corporation (as agent for K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc.) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

DATES : This regulation is effective September 18, 2001. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP

– 301175, must be received by EPA on or before November 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES : Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit VI. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your objections and hearing requests must identify docket control number OPP

– 301175 in the subject line on the first page of your
response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : By mail: James A. Tompkins, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703

– 305

– 5697; and e-mail address: tompkins.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :
I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

Categories NAICS Codes Examples ofPotentially Affected Entities

Industry 111 Crop production112 Animal production311 Food manufacturing 32532 Pesticidemanufacturing
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically.You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the homepage select ‘‘ Laws and Regulations, ’’ ‘‘ Regulations and Proposed Rules, ’’ and then look up the entry for this document under the

‘‘ Federal Register

—Environmental Documents. ’’ You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/ opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm . A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ cfrhtml

_ 00/Title

_ 40/40cfr180

_ 00.html , a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP

– 301175. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305

– 5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of September 20, 2000 (65 FR 56901) (FRL

– 6742

– 7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104

– 170) announcing the filing of