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

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 federally

recognized 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

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

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 a

tolerance 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 of

Potentially Affected Entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide

manufacturing

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

theFederal 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