[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32783-32787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15293]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 063-0024; FRL-6998-4]


Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County 
Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a simultaneous limited approval and limited 
disapproval of revisions to the Pinal County Air Quality Control 
District (PCAQCD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) concerning particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from visible 
emissions, from open burning, and from industrial processes, and 
concerning carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from industrial processes.
    We are also proposing full approval of revisions to the PCAQCD 
portion of the Arizona State SIP concerning PM-10 emissions from 
visible emissions and from open burning.
    We are proposing action on local rules that regulate these emission 
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rule 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 rule 
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, 
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Pinal County Air Quality Control District, Building F, 31 North Pinal 
Street (P. O. Box 987), Florence, AZ 85232

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415)744-1135.

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. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What are the changes in the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules
    E. Proposed action and public comment
III. Background information
    A. 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 proposed for limited approval and limited 
disapproval with the dates that they were adopted by the local air 
agency and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
(ADEQ).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                      Rule #                 Rule title           Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD.............................  2-8-300                  Performance Standards        06/29/93     11/27/95
                                                               [Visible Emissions].
PCAQCD.............................  3-8-700                  General Provisions [Open     02/22/95     11/27/95
                                                               Burning].
PCAQCD.............................  5-24-1032                Federally Enforceable        02/22/95     11/27/95
                                                               Minimum Standard of
                                                               Performance--Process
                                                               Particulate Emissions.
PCAQCD.............................  5-24-1040                Carbon Monoxide              02/22/95     11/27/95
                                                               Emissions--Industrial
                                                               Processes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 2, 1996, we determined that the rule submittals in Table 1 
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V, which must 
be met before formal EPA review.
    Table 2 lists the rules proposed for full approval with the dates 
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 2.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                   Rule #              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD....................................    2-8-280  General [Visible Emissions]....     06/29/93     11/27/95
PCAQCD....................................    2-8-290  Definitions [Visible Emissions]     06/29/93     11/27/95
PCAQCD....................................    2-8-310  Exemptions [Visible Emissions].     06/29/93     11/27/95
PCAQCD....................................    2-8-320  Monitoring and Records [Visible     06/29/93     11/27/95
                                                        Emissions].
PCAQCD....................................    3-8-710  Permit Provisions and               02/22/95     11/27/95
                                                        Administration [Open Burning].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 32784]]

On February 2, 1996, we determined that the submittals for Rules 2-8-
280, 2-8-290, 2-8-310, 2-8-320, and 3-8-710 met the completeness 
criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved a version of Rules 2-8-280, 2-8-290, 2-8-300, 2-8-310, 
and 2-8-320 into the Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 
\1\ (PGCAQCD) portion of the SIP, as Rule 7-3-1.1, Visible Emissions: 
General, on April 12, 1982 (47 FR 15579).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 
originally had jurisdiction in Pinal County and Gila County. On 
April 1, 1988, Gila County gave jurisdiction for air quality control 
to ADEQ. On April 4, 1988, Gila County dissolved the PGCAQCD on 
behalf of Gila County. On August 15, 1988, Pinal County renamed the 
PGCAQCD the Pinal County Air Quality Control District, but continued 
to enforce the PGCAQCD rules. On November 23, 1992, Pinal County 
formally dissolved the PGCAQCD on behalf of Pinal County. In 1993 
and later, PCAQCD adopted PCAQCD replacement rules, many of which 
subsequently became SIP-approved PCAQCD rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We approved a version of Rules 3-8-700 and 3-8-710 into the PGCAQCD 
portion of the SIP, as Rule 7-3-1.3, Open Burning, on November 15, 1978 
(43 FR 53031).
    We approved a version of Rule 5-24-1032 into the PGCAQCD portion of 
the SIP, as Rule 7-3-1.8, Process Industries, on November 15, 1978 (43 
FR 53031).
    We approved a version of Rule 5-24-1040 into the PGCAQCD portion of 
the SIP, as Rule 7-3-4.1, Emission Standards--Carbon Monoxide from 
Stationary Sources, on November 15, 1978 (43 FR 53031).

C. What Are the Changes in the Submitted Rules?

    Rule 2-8-280 adds the limitation that visible emissions to the 
atmosphere are from any air contaminant.
    Rule 2-8-290 adds relevant definitions.
    Rule 2-8-300 has an equally stringent opacity standard for 
emissions of 40% opacity.
    Rule 2-8-310 adds the exemption for emissions where opacity results 
from uncombined water.
    Rule 2-8-320 adds an EPA-approved test method for determining 
opacity.
    Rule 3-8-700 has the following burning operation added to the 
exemptions for obtaining a permit:
    <bullet> (C.1) Fires used only for orchard heaters for frost 
protection.
    Rule 3-8-700 has the added burning operations allowed by permit 
from the Control Officer as follows:
    <bullet> (E.1.a) Fires for residential disposal of leaves, 
clippings, and tree trimmings.
    <bullet> (E.1.b) Fires for residential disposal of household trash 
in approved burners in remote areas with no refuse collection 
available.
    <bullet> (E.2) Fires for commercial disposal of leaves, clippings, 
and tree trimmings.
    <bullet> (E.4) Fires for building demolition, only after on-site 
inspection by the District.
    Rule 3-8-700 has added a prohibition against burning various listed 
hazardous materials or materials that evolve smoke or particulate 
matter when burned. The rule has added the requirement that fires may 
be extinguished at the discretion of the Control Officer in the case 
of:
    <bullet> Inadequate smoke dispersion.
    <bullet> Periods of excessive visibility impairment which could 
adversely affect public safety.
    <bullet> Periods when smoke blows into a populated area to create a 
public nuisance.
    Rule 3-8-710 adds to the SIP rule the provisions to be cited in the 
permit, the requirement of the District to keep copies, and the term of 
the permit.
    Rule 5-24-1032 is reformatted but equally as stringent as the SIP 
rule.
    Rule 5-24-1040 is renumbered.
    The TSDs have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    We evaluated these rules for enforceability and consistency with 
the CAA as amended in 1990, with 40 CFR 51, and with EPA's PM-10 
policy. Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM-10 
nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT) for 
stationary sources of PM-10. Section 189(b) requires that serious PM-10 
nonattainment areas, in addition to meeting the RACM/RACT requirements, 
implement best available control measures (BACM), including best 
available control technology (BACT). In the northern part of PCAQCD is 
the Apache Junction portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area, which is 
a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. In the northeastern part of PCAQCD 
is Hayden-Miami, which is a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. PCAQCD 
regulates certain sources of PM-10 within the nonattainment areas.
    EPA's preliminary guidance for both moderate and serious PM-10 
nonattainment areas provides that RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT are required 
to be implemented for all source categories unless the State 
demonstrates that a particular source category does not contribute 
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS. See General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum to 
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). The activities 
regulated by Rules 2-8-280, 2-8-290, 2-8-300, 2-8-310, and 2-8-320 
contribute a small but not insignificant amount of the total PM-10 
emissions in PCAQCD according to the August 1999 Apache Junction 
Portion of the Metropolitan Phoenix PM-10 Serious State Implementation 
Plan.\2\ Therefore, Rules 2-8-280, 2-8-290, 2-8-300, 2-8-310, and 2-8-
320 must meet the requirements of BACM/BACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If the PM-10 Plan should be modified in the future, the CAA 
could require additional control measures to meet RACM/RACT or BACM/
BACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The activities regulated by Rules 3-8-700 and 3-8-710 contribute an 
insignificant amount of the total PM-10 emissions in the Apache 
Junction area and in the Hayden-Miami area. The activities regulated by 
Rule 5-24-1032 contribute an insignificant amount of the total PM-10 
emissions in the Apache Junction area. The PM-10 sources in the Hayden-
Miami area are primarily copper smelters, which are regulated by 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality rules. EPA believes that 
the remaining sources regulated by this rule are insignificant sources 
of PM-10. Moreover, PCAQCD did not submit any of these rules as RACM/
RACT or BACM/BACT rules on which PM-10 attainment relies. Therefore, 
PCAQCD Rules 3-8-700, 3-8-710 and 5-24-1032 are not required to meet 
RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT control levels. We are evaluating these rules 
only to ensure that they do not relax the SIP in violation of CAA 
sections 110(l) and 193, and that they meet enforceability and other 
general SIP requirements of section 110.
    PCAQCD is a CO attainment area. Therefore, we are evaluating Rule 
5-24-1040 only to ensure that it does not relax the SIP in violation of 
CAA sections 110(l) and 193, and that it meets enforceability and other 
general SIP requirements of section 110. The TSDs have more information 
on how we evaluated the rules.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and SIP relaxation requirements include the following:
    <bullet> PM-10 Guideline Document, (EPA-452/R093-008).
    <bullet> Apache Junction Portion of the Metropolitan Phoenix PM-10 
Serious

[[Page 32785]]

State Implementation Plan (August 1999).
    <bullet> General Preamble Appendix C3--Prescribed Burning Control 
Measures, 57 FR 18072 (April 28, 1992).
    <bullet> Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 
16, 1994).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    These rules improve the SIP by replacing defunct PGCAQCD rules. 
These rules are largely consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions 
which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and 
discussed further in the TSDs.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    Rule 2-8-300 contains the following deficiency:
    <bullet> The 40% opacity standard does not meet the requirements of 
BACM/BACT. Analogous generic 20% opacity standards meet the 
requirements of RACM/RACT in other parts of the country, and we believe 
BACM/BACT in PCAQCD should be at least as stringent.
    Rule 3-8-700 contains the following deficiencies:
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because of the 
discretion of a public officer to grant permission to burn for certain 
types of burning that are exempt from obtaining a permit. These types 
of burning could be scheduled on a day when conditions are favorable 
for open burning and smoke dispersion. The discretion should be removed 
by using criteria based on quantitative data, such as reasonably 
available meteorological data, to determine days on which conditions 
are favorable for open burning and smoke dispersion.
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because of the 
discretion of the Control Officer to determine qualitative conditions 
of ``inadequate'' smoke dispersion, ``excessive'' visibility 
impairment, and ``creating'' a public nuisance for extinguishing 
certain types of burning with a permit. The qualitative criteria could 
be replaced by using criteria based on quantitative data, such as 
reasonably available meteorological data, to determine days on which 
conditions are favorable for open burning and smoke dispersion.
    <bullet> The new exemption from permitting for orchard heaters 
could become a SIP relaxation if any were put in use. The exemption 
should be removed, because there are no orchard heaters in PCAQCD.
    Rule 5-24-1032 contains the following deficiencies:
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
contain periodic monitoring requirements. If the rule were revised to 
reference Rule 3-1-150, Monitoring, it would continue to be deficient, 
because Rule 3-1-150 allows for monitoring at the discretion of the 
Control Officer.
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
state the test method for PM. If the rule were revised to reference 
Rule 3-1-160, Test Methods and Procedures, it would continue to be 
deficient, because Rule 3-1-160 allows for approval of an alternate 
test method at the discretion of the Control Officer.
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because of the 
discretion of the Control Officer to determine whether the manner of 
control of fugitive emissions is satisfactory.
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
require recordkeeping for at least two years.
    Rule 5-24-1040 contains the following deficiencies:
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
contain a numerical standard for the emission of CO. A 400 ppmv CO 
standard in exhaust gases has been in effect in other parts of the 
country for many years.
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
contain periodic monitoring requirements. If the rule were revised to 
reference Rule 3-1-150, Monitoring, it would continue to be deficient, 
because Rule 3-1-150 allows for monitoring at the discretion of the 
Control Officer.
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
state the test method for CO. If the rule were revised to reference 
Rule 3-1-160, Test Methods and Procedures, it would continue to be 
deficient, because Rule 3-1-160 allows for approval of an alternate 
test method at the discretion of the Control Officer.
    <bullet> The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
require recordkeeping for two years.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect our 
current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency 
modifies the rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, we are 
proposing a limited approval of the submitted Rule 2-8-300 to improve 
the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule 
into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. We 
are simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of this rule under 
section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be 
imposed under section 179 of the CAA unless EPA approves subsequent SIP 
revisions that corrects the rule deficiency within 18 months. These 
sanctions would be imposed as described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 
1994). A final disapproval would also trigger the federal 
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). Note that 
the submitted rule has been adopted by the PCAQCD, and our final 
limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing 
it.
    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, we are 
proposing a limited approval of the submitted Rules 3-8-700, 5-24-1032, 
and 5-24-1040 to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would 
incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP, including those 
provisions identified as deficient. We are simultaneously proposing a 
limited disapproval of these rules under section 110(k)(3). If this 
disapproval is finalized, sanctions will not be imposed under section 
179 of the CAA. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the 
PCAQCD, and our final limited approval would not prevent the local 
agency from enforcing them.
    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing a 
full approval of the submitted Rules 2-8-280, 2-8-290, 2-8-310, 2-8-320 
and 3-8-710 to improve the SIP.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed proposed 
limited approval/limited disapprovals and the proposed full approvals 
for the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    PM-10 and CO harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) 
of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 and 
CO emissions. Table 3 lists some of the national milestones leading to 
the submittal of local agency PM-10 and CO rules.

[[Page 32786]]



             Table 3.--PM-10 and CO Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                                 Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978.....................  EPA promulgated a list of CO and
                                     total suspended particulate (TSP)
                                     nonattainment areas under the Clean
                                     Air Act, as amended in 1977. 43 FR
                                     8964; 40 CFR 81.305.
July 1, 1987......................  EPA replaced the TSP standards with
                                     new PM standards applying only up
                                     to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10).
                                     52 FR 24672.
November 15, 1990.................  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
                                     were enacted, Pub. L. 101-549, 104
                                     Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.
                                     7401-7671q.
November 15, 1990.................  CO and PM-10 areas meeting the
                                     qualifications of section
                                     107(d)(4)(A) and (B) of the CAA
                                     were designated nonattainment by
                                     operation of law and classified as
                                     moderate or serious pursuant to
                                     section 186(a) and 189(a). States
                                     are required by section 110(a) to
                                     submit rules regulating CO and PM-
                                     10 emissions in order to achieve
                                     the attainment dates specified in
                                     section 186(a)(1) and 188(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

C. 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. E.O. 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 E.O. 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 proposed 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 E.O. 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 
proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit 
of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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 proposed 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 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state 
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does

[[Page 32787]]

not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would 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).

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 proposed action 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 proposed 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 proposed action 
because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive 
to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-15293 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P