# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 65 Fed. Reg. 36353 2000

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 18 16:36:53 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. ill/Thursday, June 8, 2000/Rules and Regulations

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. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S.EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

J. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPAmust prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed orfinal rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate; orto the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome alternative thatachieves the objectives ofthe 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

oruniquely impacted bythe rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate thatmay 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 orlocal 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 andthe 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 arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types ofrules: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management orpersonnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure,

orpractice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations ofnonagency parties. 5U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule ofparticular applicability. L. National Technology Transferand Advancement Act
Section 12 ofthe National Technology Transfer andAdvancement 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) ifavailable and applicable when developing programs andpolicies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPAbelieves that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use ofVCS.
M. Petitions forJudicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7, 2000. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extendthe time within which apetition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

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, ActingRegional Administrator, Region 5. Accordingly, title40 ofCFR part 52, Subpart YY, is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read asfollows:

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, issuedby the Wisconsin Department ofNatural 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 forCarbon Monoxide; State of Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA istaking 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 planthat will insure thatthe area remains in attainment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

onJuly 10, 2000. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe state submittal and other information are available for public inspection at EPA'sRegion IX office during normal business hours, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

The technical support document (TSD) and copies ofother documents relevant to this action can be found in the docket for this proposal. The docket

canbe reviewed or copied during normalbusiness hours atthe following locations between 8:00 a.m. and4:30 p.m. onweekdays. You may need to pay
a fee for copying. Copies ofthe 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. 36353

HeinOnline -- 65 Fed. Reg. 36353 2000

### Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. ill/Thursday, June 8, 2000/Rules and Regulations

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 arequest toredesignate the CO Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA) nonattainment area to attainment for the NAAQS and for approval of a maintenance plan. EPA found thatthe TAPA met all the redesignation requirements specified in section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe 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 EPAtherefore proposed approval ofthe request and the maintenance plan onJuly 22, 1998 (see 63 FR 39258) and provided for a 30-day public comment period.

For a full discussion ofEPA's evaluation ofthe TAPA redesignation request and the maintenance plan, the reader isreferred to the original EPA proposal (63 FR 39258, July 22, 1998) and to the Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying that proposal notice which maybe found in the docket onfile at the addresses noted above.

EPA received one set ofcomments duringthe 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 ofGovernments (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

'Memorandum entitled "Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CONonattainment Areas", from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 6,

1995. PAG dated June 18, 1999. EPA is responding to ACLPI's comments in section

### II below. On December 17, 1999 (see 64 FR 70660) EPAreproposed to approve the TAPA redesignation request in order toprovide the public with the opportunity to comment on the additional information provided byPAG and on additional issues thathad arisen since the original proposal. EPA received no public comments during the 30-day public comment period provided under the reproposal.

II. Public Comment andEPA Responses

EPA has considered all ofthe
comments received from ACLPI onthe original proposal and is providing the following responses. Comment:ACLPI expressed concern that one ofthe CAA's requirements for redesignation, namely that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions, would notbe 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 thatthe area, following redesignation, would no longer be subject to these control

measures and said thatunder 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 ofArea B to include CO maintenance areas. OnMay 18, 1999 Arizona Governor Hull signed into law House Bill 2189 which amended Arizona statutes41-796.01, 41-2121, 49-401.01, 49-402, 49-404, 49-454, 49-541 and 49-571 to ensure continued implementation ofcommitted SIP control measures in maintenance

areas.

All ofthese statutory amendments have been submitted as SIP revisions andEPA 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% ofexceedance 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 ofthe CAA's requirement for a 10 year maintenance demonstration and also the fact that under aLMP an emissions budget may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length ofthe 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 thatunder 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 isno exception for areas that are at orbelow 85% ofexceedance levels and EPA
cannot amend or repeal rules with a guidance document.

* There is no factual or scientific basis for presuming that a motorvehicle emissions budget willnot 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 ofCO standards.

Response:The additional information providedby 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 forthe years 1990 through 1998. That information is contained in Tables 1 and 2below. The full text ofthe PAG letter and details on the sources usedfor these projections

are in the TSD accompanying the reproposal notice, which may be found in the docket for this document. 36354

HeinOnline -- 65 Fed. Reg. 36354 2000

### Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. ill/Thursday, June 8, 2000/Rules and Regulations

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

CO Mobile Year (Population) Emissions VMT Population (tpd)

1

9 90
............................................................................................................................................. 44

4.8 1 5,4 91,9 9 5 6 66,8 8 0 1

9 95
............................................................................................................................................. . ........................ 1

7,9 15,8 5

0 7 66,1 7 2 1999 (2000)
................................................................................................................................. 325.8 20,243,419 854,329 2003 (2005)
................................................................................................................................. 325.1 22,873,378 943,795 2010

............................................................................................................................................. 36

7.2 27,2 86,9 5

0 1,0 31,6 23 2020

............................................................................................................................................. 42

8.7 32,7 60,9 81 1,2 06,2 4 4

TABLE 2.-AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS-1 990-1998

Ambient air Year concentration

1

9 90
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.5 1

9 91
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.7 1

9 92
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 1

9 93
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.0 1994

......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.5 1

9 95
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.9 1

9 96
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.1 1

9 97
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 1

9 98
......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.0

EPA has reviewed the additional information provided byPAG and, based onthat data, has come to the following conclusions:

* Although there are projected increases in population andvehicle 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 aprojected 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

canbe attributed to existing control

measures and the impacts ofother programs that were not included in the Mobile model used by PAGin preparing these projections including the Pima Travel Reduction, Rideshare and Traffic Signal Coordination programs. In addition itmay 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 designvalue for the years 1996 through 1998 dropped to 5.1 or 57% ofCO NAAQS. EPAbelieves that these design values provide an ample margin of safety and time totake action in the event ofa possible violation ofthe CO NAAQS in the future. * EPA reviewed the projected CO mobile source emissions, VMT and population values andthe corresponding design values for the years 1990 through 1999 and concluded that itwould be reasonable to assume that the future relationship ofthese 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 arepermanent and enforceable. They include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control program, the State Inspection andMaintenance program andthe State Oxyfuels program. The Arizona legislature has amended the statutes that had defined Tucson as anonattainment area to

ensure continued implementation ofSIP 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 ofthe program through December 31, 2008. With regard
to the VEIP sunsetdate of2008, which is two years short ofthe ten-year maintenance period, in a letter to EPA dated August 23, 1998, the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ)states that Arizona Revised Statutes 41-2955 limits toten years the existence ofa program before it undergoes a sunsetreview 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 oflegislative changes to the VEIP, concluding that "The VEIP has consistently received support for necessary program updates fromthe Legislature." EPA therefore believes that on the basis ofthis legislative history, itis reasonable to

assume that the program willbe extended when itexpires in 2008. The full text ofthe letterfrom 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 ofthe CO NAAQS. Under the plan, a pre-violation action level would be reached when two verified 8-hour average concentrations in excess of85% ofthe CO NAAQS occurred at any one monitor site in any CO season. When this criterion is reached, itwould trigger field studies and technical evaluations and recommendations for implementation ofcontingency

measures.

* With regard to the ACLPI's
comments that: (1)The LMPpolicy 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 36355

HeinOnline -- 65 Fed. Reg. 36355 2000

### Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. ill/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 thatareas must meet budgets thatthe SIP identifies, but ifthe SIP adequately justifies that nobudget is necessary, then no regional emissions
test is necessary. Comment:ACLPI contends thatunder section 175(A)(a) ofthe CAA a maintenance plan must "provide for" and "ensure" maintenance for at least 10 years. ACLPI said that EPA's LMP is based onmere speculation and neither provides for, nor ensures, maintenance for ten years and istherefore contrary to the CAA.

Response:The LMP guidance provides the rationale for the policy. It states that "EPA believes itis justifiable and appropriate to apply a different set ofmaintenance plan requirements to nonclassifiable CO nonattainment areas whose monitored air quality is equal to

orless than 85% ofexceedance levels of the CO NAAQs. The EPA does not believe that the full maintenance plan requirements need be applied tothese

areasbecause they have achieved air quality levels wellbelow the standard without the application ofcontrol

measures required bythe Act for moderate and serious nonattainment

areas. Also, these areas do not have either a recent history ofmonitored violations ofthe CO NAAQS or a long prior history ofmonitored air quality problems. EPAbelieves that the continued applicability ofprevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal

measures (suchas the Federal motor vehicle control program) should provide adequate assurance ofmaintenance for these areas."

EPA therefore believes that the LMP guidance considered the requirements of175(A)(a) ofthe CAA, and interpreted those requirements in a manner consistent with the Act.

Comment:ACLPI expressed concern
over the lack ofclear commitments to address actual violations ofthe CO standards. According to ACLPI, the plan
notes that state law gives ADEQthe option ofreducing fuel volatility levels andraising fuel oxygen content, but there isno clear commitment from the state totake either ofthese steps ifa 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 ofthem. ACLPI asked EPAto seek clarification from the state andPAG thatthey are committed to adopt whatever additional controls are necessary to correct an actual violation, and to implement such controls by the start ofthe next CO

season after the violation occurs. ACLPI claimed that without such clarification the plan will not satisfy the requirements ofsection 175A(d) to

assure that any CO violation willbe 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 ofthe CO NAAQS, and to implement such controls by the start ofthe next CO

season after the violation occurs. The following is a summary ofthe points made in the PAGresponse, 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 apoint where any violation ofthe CO NAAQS could be anticipated atleast 5years ahead of time. This would give enough time to fully evaluate the risk ofviolation and the best control measures to address any projected violations ofthe standard. * The TAPA CO LMPprovides thatin the event of an exceedance (which must always precede aviolation) the evaluation andimplementation process described in the Plan will be triggered. The mostlikely control measure for immediate response is high oxygen requirement inthe oxyfuels program that can be implemented no later than the following CO season. * The TAPA plan provides that ifthe PAG finding indicates aprobable violation ofthe CO NAAQS within 5 years, the recommended control

measures to fully mitigate the projected violation must be initiated by the start ofthe next CO season after the violation

occurs. EPA believes that the clarification ofthis issue providedby PAG is an adequate response to the ACLPI comment.

In summary, EPA considered the population growth and CO emissions projections provided bythe PAG and the summary ofthe 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 thatthe area will
not violate the CO NAAQS during the maintenance period. EPAis therefore taking final action to approve the redesignation ofthe TAPA to attainment for the CO NAAQS andfor approval of the maintenance plan onthe grounds thatthe area meets the requirements for redesignation specified under the Clean AirAct, and thatthe TAPA is qualified
to utilize the LMP option.
III.Summary ofFinalActions

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 inthe maintenance plan to be implemented in the event ofa probable

or actual violation ofthe CO NAAQS in the TAPA. The SIP revision for these statutory amendments were submitted to EPA as part ofthe TAPA maintenance plan on October 6, 1997 and were found complete by operation oflaw onApril 6, 1998.

Amendments toA.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) ofthe 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 toA.R.S.41-796.01, 41-2121, 49-401.01, 49-402, 49-404, 49-454, 49-541 and 49-571 revised the definition ofthe TAPA nonattainment area" to reflect continued application of all pertinent control measures in the TAPAfollowing redesignation to attainment. Prior to these amendments, these statutes referred to the TAPA as AreaB, a "carbon monoxide nonattainment area". These amendments were signed into law on May 18, 1999. SIP revisions containing these statutory amendments were submitted toEPA on September 1, 1999 and were found to be complete on October 20,1999.

Amendments toA.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 ofthe 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 andwere foundto be complete on October 20, 1999. 

### 36356

HeinOnline -- 65 Fed. Reg. 36356 2000

### Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. ill/Thursday, June 8, 2000/Rules and Regulations

EPA is approving the Emissions Inventory for the base year 1994 contained in the LMP as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) ofthe CAA.

EPA is approving the TAPA CO maintenance planbecause itmeets the requirements set forth in section 175A ofthe CAA and the requirements ofthe LMP option contained in EPA guidance ofOctober 6, 1995.

EPA is taking final action to remove the Agency's disapprovals (56 FR 5459, February 11, 1991) ofthe attainment demonstration and contingency

measures that were contained in the 1988 Arizona CO SIP revision for Pima County. Those disapprovals were based

onthe finding ofthe Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals on March 1, 1990 in Delaney

vs. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, thatthe 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 ofthe Arizona plans, the court determined that they did not contain sufficient control measures to attain the CO ambient air quality standard as soon
aspossible. The Court did not say that the measures submittedby the State

were unworthy ofapproval 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 ofthe 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
aspossible, is no longer applicable.

EPA is also taking final action to

remove the disapproval ofthe 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 bynew 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, EPAis approving Arizona's request for the redesignation to attainment ofthe 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 isnot subject toreview bythe Office ofManagement 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 (5U.S.C. 601
etseq.).Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired 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 oruniquely affect the communities oftribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects onthe States, on the relationship between the national government andthe States, or
onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment, 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 ofpower andresponsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also isnot subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that theymeet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State touse voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply. As required by section 3ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPAhas taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPAhas complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications ofthe rule in accordance with the "Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation ofRisk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe 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 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7, 2000. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects

40 CFRPart52

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

40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. 

### 36357

HeinOnline -- 65 Fed. Reg. 36357 2000

### Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. ill/Thursday, June 8, 2000/Rules and Regulations

Dated: April 24, 2000. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIX. Parts 52 and 81, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code ofFederal 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 amendedby adding paragraphs (c)(91), (c)(95), and (c)(96) to read as follows:
§52.120 Identification ofplan.

(c) * * * (91) The following amendments tothe plan were submitted on October 6, 1997 by the Governor's designee. (A)Arizona Revised Statutes. (i) Incorporation byreference. (1)Senate Bill 1002, Sections 26, 27 and 28: ARS 41-2083 (amended), 41- 2122 (amended), 41-2125 (amended), adopted onJuly 18, 1996.

(95) The following amendments tothe plan were submitted on August 11, 1998 by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A)Arizona Revised Statutes. (1)Senate Bill 1427, Section 14: ARS 49-401.01 (amended) and Section 15: 49-406 (amended), approved onMay 29, 1998.

(96) The following amendments to the plan were submitted on September 1, 1999 bythe Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (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 bythe Governor

onMay 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 onMay 18, 1999

3. Section 52.123 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2) andby 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 bythe Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality

on October 6, 1997 as meeting the requirements ofsection 175(A) ofthe Clean Air Act andthe requirements of EPA'sLimited Maintenance Plan option. The Administrator approves the Emissions Inventory contained in the Maintenance Plan as meeting the requirements ofsection 172(c)(3) ofthe 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 etseq. 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

Designation Classification Designated area 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 AirAct Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; Georgia AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final actionto fully approve the operating permit program ofthe State ofGeorgia. Georgia's operating permit program was submitted in response to the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that States develop, and submitto EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to allmajor 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 ofthe interim approval andthis 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 byJuly 10, 2000. Ifadverse comment is received, EPA will publish atimely withdrawal ofthis direct final rule inthe FederalRegister and inform the public that the rule will
nottake effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action shouldbe addressed to Kim Pierce, Regional Title VProgram Manager, Operating Source Section, Air &Radiation Technology Branch, EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies ofthe State's submittals and other supporting documentation 36358

HeinOnline -- 65 Fed. Reg. 36358 2000