Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58359

1Pinal County was a participant in a multicounty air quality control district known as the

Pinal-Gila Air Quality Control District. In 1988 the

respective Boards of Supervisors of Pinal County

and Gila County agreed to dissolve the Pinal-Gila

Counties Air Quality Control Districts. Gila County

terminated its participation in the air district and

gave jurisdiction for air quality control in Gila

County to the State of Arizona. PCAQCD was

formed to regulate air quality in Pinal County.

service and the applicable postage

rates.]

* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–25092 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 063–0029a; FRL–6866–1]

Revisions to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air

Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP)

which concern the control of sulfur

emissions within the Pinal County Air

Quality Control District (PCAQCD). We

are approving three local rules and

rescinding one local rule that regulate

these emissions under the Clean Air Act

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on

November 28, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comments by October 30, 2000. If we

receive such comment, we will publish

a timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register to notify the public that this

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoeniz, AZ 85012.

Pinal County Air Quality Control

District, Building F, 31 North Pinal

Street, Florence, AZ 85232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

B. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule revisions?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. Public comment and final action.

III. Background Information

Why were these rules submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rules we are

approving and the rule we are

rescinding with the dates that they were

adopted by the local air agency and

submitted by the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality.

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

PCAQCD .................................... 5–22–950 Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Standard Applicability ............ 02/22/95 11/27/95

PCAQCD .................................... 5–22–960 Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitation.02/22/95 11/27/95

PCAQCD .................................... 5–24–1024 Sulfite pulp mills—sulfur compound emissions .............................. 02/22/95 11/27/95

PCAQCD .................................... 7–3–2.5 Other Industries (repealed) ............................................................ 06/20/96 10/07/98

On February 2, 1996 and April 24,

1999, these rule submittals were found

to meet the completeness criteria in 40

CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be

met before formal EPA review.

B. What Is The Purpose of the Submitted

Rule Revisions?

The rules submitted by the PCAQCD

are intended to replace existing SIP

rules that apply to both Pinal and Gila

Counties formerly known as the PinalGila Counties Air Quality Control

District.1 Therefore, the submitted rule

revisions are applicable to the Pinal

County Air Quality Control District

only. The SIP rules as applicable to Gila

County will not change. TSD has more

information about these rules.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

In determining the approvability of

the SO2 rules, EPA must evaluate each

rule for consistency with the

requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and

40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

While the portion of PCAQCD

applicable to these submittals is in

attainment with the SO2 NAAQS, many

of the general SIP requirements

regarding enforceablity and SIP

relaxation (see 110(l)and 193 of the Act),

for example, are still appropriate for

these rules.

Guidance and policy documents that

we used to define specific enforceability

requirements include the following:

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;

Clarification to Appendix D of

November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Document,’’ (Blue Book), notice of

availability published in the May 25,

1988 Federal Register.

2. ‘‘SO2 Guideline Document,’’ EPA–

452/R–94–008.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

We believe these rules are consistent

with the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability and SIP

relaxations. The rule revisions are

primarily administrative, where

PCAQCD renumbers existing SIP

regulations to make them applicable to

Pinal County only and rescinds one rule

that is no longer applicable. The TSD

has more information on our evaluation.

58360 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of

the Act, EPA is fully approving the

submitted rules because we believe they

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do

not think anyone will object to this, so

we are finalizing the approval without

proposing it in advance. However, in

the Proposed Rules section of this

Federal Register, we are simultaneously

proposing approval of the same

submitted rules. If we receive adverse

comments by October 30, 2000, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that the direct final approval will not

take effect and we will address the

comments in a subsequent final action

based on the proposal. If we do not

receive timely adverse comments, the

direct final approval will be effective

without further notice on November 28,

2000. This will incorporate these rules

into the federally enforceable SIP and

remove the rescinded rule from the SIP

for Pinal County.

III. Background Information

Why Were These Rules Submitted?

40 CFR 81.303 provides the

attainment status designations for air

districts in Arizona. In Pinal County,

there are two clearly defined sulfur

dioxide nonattainment areas. One

surrounds the BHP copper smelter

located in San Manuel; the other

surrounds the ASARCO Hayden copper

smelter complex. Since Arizona statutes

have exclusive jurisdiction over copper

smelters, the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality prepares and

executes the implementation plans for

those sulfur dioxide nonattainment

areas. The rules submitted by the

PCAQCD applies to sources in the

portion of the county designated

‘‘attainment’’ for sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide is formed by the

combustion of fuels containing sulfur

compounds. High concentrations of SO2

affect breathing and may aggravate

existing respiratory and cardiovascular

disease.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB,

in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

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, because it

merely acts on 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. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply act on requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58361

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 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 private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

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 acts

on 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.

G. 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.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today’s action because it

does not require the public to perform

activities conducive to the use of VCS.

H. 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. 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 rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

I. 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 November 28,

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, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur Oxides.

Dated: August 18, 2000.

Nora McGee,

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. 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)(18)(iv)(C) and

(c)(84)(i)(E) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(18) * * *

(iv) * * *

(C) Previously approved on December

17, 1979 and now deleted without

replacement Rule 7–3–2.5.

* * * * *

(84) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Rules 5–22–950, 5–22–960, and 5–

24–1045 codified on February 22, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–24568 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NY43a–212, FRL–

6873–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New York State

Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a

revision to the New York State

Implementation Plan for ozone

concerning the control of volatile

organic compounds and oxides of

nitrogen. This revision was submitted to

comply with provisions of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) relating to the adoption of

vehicle refueling controls or comparable

measure(s) in the upstate portion of

New York State. The intended effect of

this action is to approve a program

required by the CAA which will result

in emission reductions that will help

achieve attainment of the national

ambient air quality standard for ozone.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on November 28, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by October 30, 2000. If EPA

receives such comment, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866.

Copies of the state submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road,

Albany, New York 12233.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.