Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36353

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

J. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

K. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

L. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

M. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

appropriate circuit by August 7, 2000.

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, Incorporation by

reference, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Accordingly, title 40 of CFR part 52,

Subpart YY, is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart YY—Wisconsin

2. Section 52.2570 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(100) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(100) On October 30, 1998, Wisconsin

submitted a source-specific State

Implementation Plan revision for

Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc.,

located in Stoughton, Wisconsin. The

State supplemented the original

submittal with Consent Order Number

AM–99–900 on February 17, 2000. This

source-specific variance relaxes volatile

organic compound reasonably available

control technology requirements for

Uniroyal.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Consent Order Number AM–99–

900, issued by the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources to

Uniroyal Engineered Products on

February 17, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–14175 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ072–0085; FRL–6601–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan and Designation of

Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes

for Carbon Monoxide; State of Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

redesignate the Tucson Air Planning

Area (TAPA) to attainment for the

carbon monoxide (CO) National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

and to approve a maintenance plan that

will insure that the area remains in

attainment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal

and other information are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region IX

office during normal business hours, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901.

The technical support document

(TSD) and copies of other documents

relevant to this action can be found in

the docket for this proposal. The docket

can be reviewed or copied during

normal business hours at the following

locations between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m. on weekdays. You may need to pay

a fee for copying. Copies of the SIP

submittal are also available for

inspection at the following address:

Pima County Department of

Environmental Quality, 130 West

Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701, (520)

740–3340.

36354 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1Memorandum entitled ‘‘Limited Maintenance

Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment

Areas’’, from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader,

Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 6,

1995.

Electronic Availability

This document is also available as an

electronic file on EPA’s Region 9 Web

Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/

air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office

(AIR–2), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1159, email: kaplan.eleanor@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 6, 1997 Arizona

submitted a request to redesignate the

CO Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA)

nonattainment area to attainment for the

NAAQS and for approval of a

maintenance plan. EPA found that the

TAPA met all the redesignation

requirements specified in section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

and also that the TAPA was eligible to

use the Limited Maintenance Plan

(LMP) option provided for in EPA

guidance.1 EPA therefore proposed

approval of the request and the

maintenance plan on July 22, 1998 (see

63 FR 39258) and provided for a 30-day

public comment period.

For a full discussion of EPA’s

evaluation of the TAPA redesignation

request and the maintenance plan, the

reader is referred to the original EPA

proposal (63 FR 39258, July 22, 1998)

and to the Technical Support Document

(TSD) accompanying that proposal

notice which may be found in the

docket on file at the addresses noted

above.

EPA received one set of comments

during the 30-day comment period

provided under the original proposal.

Those comments came from the Arizona

Center for Law in the Public Interest

(ACLPI) in a letter dated August 21,

1998. To respond to the public

comments, EPA requested

supplementary information from the

Pima Association of Governments (PAG)

relating to CO emissions projections for

the area for the 10-year maintenance

period extending through 2010. EPA

received the information in a letter from

PAG dated June 18, 1999. EPA is

responding to ACLPI’s comments in

section II below. On December 17, 1999

(see 64 FR 70660) EPA reproposed to

approve the TAPA redesignation request

in order to provide the public with the

opportunity to comment on the

additional information provided by PAG

and on additional issues that had arisen

since the original proposal. EPA

received no public comments during the

30-day public comment period provided

under the reproposal.

II. Public Comment and EPA Responses

EPA has considered all of the

comments received from ACLPI on the

original proposal and is providing the

following responses.

Comment: ACLPI expressed concern

that one of the CAA’s requirements for

redesignation, namely that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions,

would not be met by the TAPA

following redesignation because several

Arizona statutes, including the state’s

auto emission inspection and

maintenance program, the oxygenated

fuels program and other control

measures defined Tucson as ‘‘Area B’’,

a carbon monoxide nonattainment area.

ACLPI expressed concern that the area,

following redesignation, would no

longer be subject to these control

measures and said that under the

circumstances EPA cannot conclude

that the emission reductions from these

programs are permanent and

enforceable.

Response: The Arizona legislature has

acted to amend various Arizona Statutes

to expand the definition of Area B to

include CO maintenance areas. On May

18, 1999 Arizona Governor Hull signed

into law House Bill 2189 which

amended Arizona statutes 41-796.01,

41–2121, 49–401.01, 49–402, 49–404,

49–454, 49–541 and 49–571 to ensure

continued implementation of committed

SIP control measures in maintenance

areas.

All of these statutory amendments

have been submitted as SIP revisions

and EPA in this notice is approving

those SIP revisions. On the basis of

these statutory amendments, EPA

believes that this comment has been

adequately addressed.

Comment: ACLPI questioned whether

the assumption in the LMP option that

an area beginning the maintenance

period at or below 85% of exceedance

levels will continue to meet the

standard for another ten years is

applicable to the TAPA, given the

growth that is projected for the area.

ACLPI also questioned the LMP

guidance waiver of the CAA’s

requirement for a 10 year maintenance

demonstration and also the fact that

under a LMP an emissions budget may

be treated as essentially not constraining

for the length of the maintenance

period. ACLPI made the following

arguments:

• With regard to the LMP’s waiver of

the maintenance demonstration, the

mere fact that air quality and CO

emissions are at or below 85% of

exceedance levels does not assure that

they will not increase to above

exceedance levels in less than 10 years.

• The fact that under the LMP there

is no emissions budget test for

conformity purposes flagrantly violates

EPA’s own conformity rules which

explicitly apply the emission budget test

to all maintenance areas. There is no

exception for areas that are at or below

85% of exceedance levels and EPA

cannot amend or repeal rules with a

guidance document.

• There is no factual or scientific

basis for presuming that a motor vehicle

emissions budget will not be

constraining in a limited maintenance

area. The potential for emissions growth

has nothing to do with existing CO

levels, but is driven by factors such as

growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT),

increases in vehicle trips and increased

congestion. In the Tucson area, VMT is

almost doubling every 20 years, and

congestion is expected to significantly

worsen. Continued application of

conformity rules is vital to ensuring that

transportation plans, programs and

projects, and federal activities, are

consistent with maintenance of CO

standards.

Response: The additional information

provided by PAG included projections

extending to 2010 and 2020 for CO

mobile source emissions, vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) and population growth,

as well as information on ambient air

CO concentrations for the years 1990

through 1998. That information is

contained in Tables 1 and 2 below. The

full text of the PAG letter and details on

the sources used for these projections

are in the TSD accompanying the

reproposal notice, which may be found

in the docket for this document.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36355

TABLE 1.—PAG PROJECTIONS FOR CO MOBILE EMISSIONS AND VMT

Year (Population)

CO Mobile

Emissions

(tpd)

VMT Population

1990 ............................................................................................................................................. 444.8 15,491,995 666,880

1995 ............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 17,915,850 766,172

1999 (2000) ................................................................................................................................. 325.8 20,243,419 854,329

2003 (2005) ................................................................................................................................. 325.1 22,873,378 943,795

2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 367.2 27,286,950 1,031,623

2020 ............................................................................................................................................. 428.7 32,760,981 1,206,244

TABLE 2.—AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS—1990–1998

Year

Ambient air

concentration

1990 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.5

1991 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.7

1992 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.8

1993 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.0

1994 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.5

1995 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.9

1996 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.1

1997 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.4

1998 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.0

EPA has reviewed the additional

information provided by PAG and,

based on that data, has come to the

following conclusions:

• Although there are projected

increases in population and vehicle

miles traveled (VMT), the data indicates

that CO emissions will drop from 444.8

tons per day in 1990 to 367.2 in 2010,

rising again to a projected 428.7 tons per

day in 2020 which is still below 1990

levels. In summary, despite the

projected growth in population and

VMT, CO mobile source emissions in

the TAPA will continue to decrease.

The decrease in projected CO emissions

can be attributed to existing control

measures and the impacts of other

programs that were not included in the

Mobile model used by PAG in preparing

these projections including the Pima

Travel Reduction, Rideshare and Traffic

Signal Coordination programs. In

addition it may be anticipated that

national mobile source control programs

that will take effect in the future will

play a role in reducing CO emissions

from mobile sources.

• According to data contained in

Table 2, the design value for the Tucson

area for 1993–1995 was 6.0 or 67% of

the NAAQs standard for CO. The design

value is the second highest eight-hour

concentration observed at any site in the

area. The data also indicated that the

design value for the years 1996 through

1998 dropped to 5.1 or 57% of CO

NAAQS. EPA believes that these design

values provide an ample margin of

safety and time to take action in the

event of a possible violation of the CO

NAAQS in the future.

• EPA reviewed the projected CO

mobile source emissions, VMT and

population values and the

corresponding design values for the

years 1990 through 1999 and concluded

that it would be reasonable to assume

that the future relationship of these four

elements would be comparable through

2010.

• The control measures contained in

the TAPA maintenance plan are

currently mandated by federal and state

statutes and are permanent and

enforceable. They include the Federal

Motor Vehicle Control program, the

State Inspection and Maintenance

program and the State Oxyfuels

program. The Arizona legislature has

amended the statutes that had defined

Tucson as a nonattainment area to

ensure continued implementation of SIP

control measures following

redesignation to attainment. In addition,

the Arizona legislature has amended the

statutes pertaining to the State’s Vehicle

Emission and Inspection Program (VEIP)

to assure continuation of the program

through December 31, 2008. With regard

to the VEIP sunset date of 2008, which

is two years short of the ten-year

maintenance period, in a letter to EPA

dated August 23, 1998, the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) states that Arizona Revised

Statutes 41–2955 limits to ten years the

existence of a program before it

undergoes a sunset review and therefore

the VEIP has been extended for the

maximum time allowed under this

statute, i.e., ten years. The letter

supplies a recent history of legislative

changes to the VEIP, concluding that

‘‘The VEIP has consistently received

support for necessary program updates

from the Legislature.’’ EPA therefore

believes that on the basis of this

legislative history, it is reasonable to

assume that the program will be

extended when it expires in 2008. The

full text of the letter from ADEQ is

attached to the TSD accompanying the

reproposal.

• The maintenance plan for the TAPA

contains a pre-violation action level

trigger which would set in motion a

process designed to forestall a future

violation of the CO NAAQS. Under the

plan, a pre-violation action level would

be reached when two verified 8-hour

average concentrations in excess of 85%

of the CO NAAQS occurred at any one

monitor site in any CO season. When

this criterion is reached, it would trigger

field studies and technical evaluations

and recommendations for

implementation of contingency

measures.

• With regard to the ACLPI’s

comments that: (1) The LMP policy

flagrantly violates EPA’s own

conformity rules which explicitly apply

the emission budget test to all

maintenance areas; and (2) that the rule

does not provide an exception for areas

that are at or below 85% of exceedance

levels, EPA’s conformity policy has

clearly provided for opportunities for a

SIP to demonstrate that no budget is

36356 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

needed (see Transportation Conformity

Rule, 61 FR 36118, July 9, 1996,

paragraph B, finalized on August 15,

1997, 62 FR 43780). This section

addresses this question and mentions

limited maintenance plans specifically.

The policy states that areas must meet

budgets that the SIP identifies, but if the

SIP adequately justifies that no budget

is necessary, then no regional emissions

test is necessary.

Comment: ACLPI contends that under

section 175(A)(a) of the CAA a

maintenance plan must ‘‘provide for’’

and ‘‘ensure’’ maintenance for at least

10 years. ACLPI said that EPA’s LMP is

based on mere speculation and neither

provides for, nor ensures, maintenance

for ten years and is therefore contrary to

the CAA.

Response: The LMP guidance

provides the rationale for the policy. It

states that ‘‘EPA believes it is justifiable

and appropriate to apply a different set

of maintenance plan requirements to

nonclassifiable CO nonattainment areas

whose monitored air quality is equal to

or less than 85% of exceedance levels of

the CO NAAQs. The EPA does not

believe that the full maintenance plan

requirements need be applied to these

areas because they have achieved air

quality levels well below the standard

without the application of control

measures required by the Act for

moderate and serious nonattainment

areas. Also, these areas do not have

either a recent history of monitored

violations of the CO NAAQS or a long

prior history of monitored air quality

problems. EPA believes that the

continued applicability of prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD)

requirements, any control measures

already in the SIP, and Federal

measures (such as the Federal motor

vehicle control program) should provide

adequate assurance of maintenance for

these areas.’’

EPA therefore believes that the LMP

guidance considered the requirements

of 175(A)(a) of the CAA, and interpreted

those requirements in a manner

consistent with the Act.

Comment: ACLPI expressed concern

over the lack of clear commitments to

address actual violations of the CO

standards. According to ACLPI, the plan

notes that state law gives ADEQ the

option of reducing fuel volatility levels

and raising fuel oxygen content, but

there is no clear commitment from the

state to take either of these steps if a

violation occurs. The plan also lists

various potential control measures that

might be adopted to address future CO

violations, but does not commit to any

of them.

ACLPI asked EPA to seek clarification

from the state and PAG that they are

committed to adopt whatever additional

controls are necessary to correct an

actual violation, and to implement such

controls by the start of the next CO

season after the violation occurs. ACLPI

claimed that without such clarification

the plan will not satisfy the

requirements of section 175A(d) to

assure that any CO violation will be

promptly corrected.

Response: As requested, EPA sought

clarification from PAG as to whether

they are committed to adopt whatever

additional controls are necessary to

correct an actual violation of the CO

NAAQS, and to implement such

controls by the start of the next CO

season after the violation occurs. The

following is a summary of the points

made in the PAG response, dated

November 19, 1998. The full text is

contained in the TSD accompanying the

reproposal notice.

• The TAPA CO LMP was designed to

set evaluation triggers at a point where

any violation of the CO NAAQS could

be anticipated at least 5 years ahead of

time. This would give enough time to

fully evaluate the risk of violation and

the best control measures to address any

projected violations of the standard.

• The TAPA CO LMP provides that in

the event of an exceedance (which must

always precede a violation) the

evaluation and implementation process

described in the Plan will be triggered.

The most likely control measure for

immediate response is high oxygen

requirement in the oxyfuels program

that can be implemented no later than

the following CO season.

• The TAPA plan provides that if the

PAG finding indicates a probable

violation of the CO NAAQS within 5

years, the recommended control

measures to fully mitigate the projected

violation must be initiated by the start

of the next CO season after the violation

occurs. EPA believes that the

clarification of this issue provided by

PAG is an adequate response to the

ACLPI comment.

In summary, EPA considered the

population growth and CO emissions

projections provided by the PAG and

the summary of the area’s design values

over the past few years and believes that

the data, in conjunction with the previolation action triggers and the

contingency measures provided for in

the TAPA maintenance plan, provide

reasonable assurance that the area will

not violate the CO NAAQS during the

maintenance period. EPA is therefore

taking final action to approve the

redesignation of the TAPA to attainment

for the CO NAAQS and for approval of

the maintenance plan on the grounds

that the area meets the requirements for

redesignation specified under the Clean

Air Act, and that the TAPA is qualified

to utilize the LMP option.

III. Summary of Final Actions

In this action EPA is approving the

following SIP revisions relating to

changes that were made in various

Arizona statutes:

Amendments to A.R.S. 41–2083, 41–

2122 and 41–2125 relating to the State’s

oxyfuels program in the Tucson area

both as SIP revisions and as control

measures in the maintenance plan to be

implemented in the event of a probable

or actual violation of the CO NAAQS in

the TAPA. The SIP revision for these

statutory amendments were submitted

to EPA as part of the TAPA maintenance

plan on October 6, 1997 and were found

complete by operation of law on April

6, 1998.

Amendments to A.R.S. 49–401 and

49–406 which expand the authority of

State and local certified metropolitan

planning organizations to develop plans

and to implement and enforce control

measures for attainment as well as

maintenance areas as required by

section 110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA.

Previous to those statutory amendments,

those statutes referred only to

nonattainment areas. These

amendments were signed into law on

May 29, 1998. They were submitted as

a SIP revision on August 20, 1998 and

were found complete by operation of

law on February 20, 1999.

Amendments to A.R.S. 41–796.01,

41–2121, 49–401.01, 49–402, 49–404,

49–454, 49–541 and 49–571 revised the

definition of the TAPA nonattainment

area’’ to reflect continued application of

all pertinent control measures in the

TAPA following redesignation to

attainment. Prior to these amendments,

these statutes referred to the TAPA as

Area B, a ‘‘carbon monoxide

nonattainment area’’. These

amendments were signed into law on

May 18, 1999. SIP revisions containing

these statutory amendments were

submitted to EPA on September 1, 1999

and were found to be complete on

October 20, 1999.

Amendments to A.R.S. 41–3009.01,

49–541.01, 49–542, 49–545, 49–557, 49–

573, 41–803, and 41–401.01 which were

signed into law on May 18, 1999 relate

to the continued implementation of the

State’s Vehicle Emissions Inspection

Program (VEIP) through December 31,

2008. The SIP revisions containing these

statutory amendments were submitted

to EPA on September 1, 1999 and were

found to be complete on October 20,

1999.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 36357

EPA is approving the Emissions

Inventory for the base year 1994

contained in the LMP as meeting the

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the

CAA.

EPA is approving the TAPA CO

maintenance plan because it meets the

requirements set forth in section 175A

of the CAA and the requirements of the

LMP option contained in EPA guidance

of October 6, 1995.

EPA is taking final action to remove

the Agency’s disapprovals (56 FR 5459,

February 11, 1991) of the attainment

demonstration and contingency

measures that were contained in the

1988 Arizona CO SIP revision for Pima

County. Those disapprovals were based

on the finding of the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals on March 1, 1990 in Delaney

vs. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, that the Arizona

CO plans for Maricopa and Pima

Counties did not fully comply with the

Clean Air Act as amended in 1977, and

with EPA guidance issued pursuant to

that law. (See 46 FR 7182, January 21,

1981). In vacating EPA’s 1988 approval

of the Arizona plans, the court

determined that they did not contain

sufficient control measures to attain the

CO ambient air quality standard as soon

as possible. The Court did not say that

the measures submitted by the State

were unworthy of approval for their

effect in strengthening the SIP.

EPA is taking final action to remove

the attainment demonstration

disapproval because the TAPA has not

had an exceedance of the CO NAAQS

from 1988 to the present, and, therefore,

the original reason for the disapproval,

namely that the plan did not contain

sufficient control measures to attain the

CO ambient air quality standard as soon

as possible, is no longer applicable.

EPA is also taking final action to

remove the disapproval of the 1988 CO

plan contingency measures. That

disapproval was based on noncompliance with the EPA guidance of

January 21, 1981. (46 FR 7182, January

21, 1981) That guidance has since been

superseded by new guidance,

specifically the section on the

contingency provisions for notclassified CO nonattainment areas

contained in the General Preamble (See

57 FR 13535, April 16, 1992). The

contingency provisions contained in the

TAPA Limited Maintenance Plan are in

compliance with the guidance provided

both in the General Preamble and in the

Limited Maintenance Plan Policy

Guidance.

Finally, EPA is approving Arizona’s

request for the redesignation to

attainment of the CO NAAQS for the

Tucson Air Planning Area.

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. 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 preexisting 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).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (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

appropriate circuit by August 7, 2000.

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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control.

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

36358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: April 24, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Parts 52 and 81, Chapter I, Title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

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)(91), (c)(95), and

(c)(96) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(91) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted on October 6, 1997

by the Governor’s designee.

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(1) Senate Bill 1002, Sections 26, 27

and 28: ARS 41–2083 (amended), 41–

2122 (amended), 41–2125 (amended),

adopted on July 18, 1996.

* * * * *

(95) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted on August 11, 1998

by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes.

(1) Senate Bill 1427, Section 14: ARS

49–401.01 (amended) and Section 15:

49–406 (amended), approved on May

29, 1998.

* * * * *

(96) The following amendments to the

plan were submitted on September 1,

1999 by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes.

(1) House Bill 2254, Section 1: ARS

41–3009.01 (amended); Section 2: 49–

541.01 (amended); Section 3: 49–542

(amended); Section 4: 49–545

(amended); Section 5: 49–557

(amended); Section 6: 49–573

(amended), approved by the Governor

on May 18, 1999.

(2) House Bill 2189, Section 3: ARS

41–796.01 (amended); Section 9: 41–

2121 (amended); Section 40: 49–401.01

(amended), Section 41: 49–402

(amended); Section 42: 49–404

(amended): Section 43:49–454

(amended); Section 44: 49–541

(amended); and Section 46: 49–571

(amended), adopted on May 18, 1999

* * * * *

3. Section 52.123 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)

and by adding paragraph (i) to read as

follows:

§ 52.123 Approval Status.

* * * * *

(i) The Administrator approves the

Maintenance Plan for the Tucson Air

Planning Area submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

on October 6, 1997 as meeting the

requirements of section 175(A) of the

Clean Air Act and the requirements of

EPA’s Limited Maintenance Plan

option. The Administrator approves the

Emissions Inventory contained in the

Maintenance Plan as meeting the

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the

Clean Air Act.

§ 52.124 [Amended]

4. Section 52.124 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2).

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 et seq.

2. In § 81.303, the table for ArizonaCarbon Monoxide is amended by

revising the entry for ‘‘Tucson Area’’ to

read as follows:

§ 81.303 Arizona.

* * * * *

ARIZONA—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

*******

Tucson Area:

Pima County (part) ........................................................................ July 10, 2000 .... Attainment.

Township and Ranges as follows: T–11–12S, R12–14E; Salt

River Baseline and Meridian excluding portions of the

Saguaro National Monument and the Coronado National Forest

* * * * * **

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 00–13978 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[GA–T5–2000–01a; FRL–6711–2]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of

Operating Permit Program; Georgia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

fully approve the operating permit

program of the State of Georgia.

Georgia’s operating permit program was

submitted in response to the directive in

the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments that States develop, and

submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources

within the States’ jurisdiction. EPA

granted interim approval to Georgia’s

operating permit program on November

22, 1995. Georgia revised its program to

satisfy the conditions of the interim

approval and this action approves those

revisions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 7, 2000 without further

notice unless EPA receives adverse

comments in writing by July 10, 2000.

If adverse comment is received, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of this

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kim

Pierce, Regional Title V Program

Manager, Operating Source Section, Air

& Radiation Technology Branch, EPA,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of the State’s submittals

and other supporting documentation