[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51869-51873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25549]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ105-0045; FRL-7063-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Maricopa Nonattainment Area; PM-10
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), as a
revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP), a general
permit rule that provides for the expeditious implementation of best
management practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate matter (PM-10) from
agricultural sources in the Maricopa County (Phoenix) PM-10
nonattainment area. EPA is approving the general permit rule as meeting
the ``reasonably available control measure'' (RACM) requirements of the
Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2001.
ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can
inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following
locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 N. Central
Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Division, U.S.
[[Page 51870]]
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street
(AIR2), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1286 or
[email protected]. This document is also available as an
electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/air.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
A. Air Quality Status
Portions of Maricopa County \1\ are designated nonattainment for
the PM-10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) \2\ and were
originally classified as ``moderate'' pursuant to section 188(a) of the
CAA. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). On May 10, 1996, EPA reclassified
the Maricopa County PM-10 nonattainment area to ``serious'' under CAA
section 188(b)(2). 61 FR 21372. Having been reclassified, Phoenix is
required to meet the serious area requirements in CAA section 189(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Maricopa,'' ``Maricopa County'' and ``Phoenix'' are used
interchangeably throughout this final rule to refer to the
nonattainment area.
\2\ There are two PM-10 NAAQS, a 24-hour standard and an annual
standard. 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area is currently classified
as serious, today's action relates only to the moderate area statutory
requirements for RACM. However, Arizona developed legislation and a
general permit rule applicable to agricultural sources of PM-10 when
the area had already been reclassified to serious. Therefore the
State's focus was on the serious area statutory requirements for ``best
available control measures'' (BACM). RACM is generally considered to be
a subset of BACM. As a result, in order to evaluate whether the general
permit rule meets the RACM requirements for the purpose of this
rulemaking, EPA referred to portions of the State's serious area SIP
submittal.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Submittal of State Implementation Plan revision for the
Agricultural Best Management program in the Maricopa County
PM10 Nonattainment Area'' from Jacqueline E. Schafer,
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), to Laura Yoshii,
EPA, June 13, 2001. See also the proposal for today's rulemaking at
66 FR 34598, 34599-34600 (June 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. CAA Planning Requirements and EPA Guidance
The air quality planning requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas
are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the Clean Air Act. Those
states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to submit, among other things, by November 15, 1991 provisions
to assure that RACM (including such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption,
at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall
be implemented no later than December 10, 1993. CAA sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(C). Since that deadline has passed, EPA has concluded
that the required RACM/RACT must be implemented ``as soon as
possible.'' Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has
interpreted this requirement to be ``as soon as practicable.'' See 55
FR 41204, 41210 (October 1, 1990) and 63 FR 28898, 28900 (May 27,
1998).
EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' \4\ describing EPA's
preliminary views on how the Agency intends to review SIPs and SIP
revisions submitted under title I of the Act, including those state
submittals containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP provisions.
The methodology for determining RACM/RACT is described in detail in the
General Preamble. 57 FR 13498, 13540-13541. In short and as pertinent
here, EPA suggests starting to define RACM with the list of available
control measures for fugitive dust in Appendix C1 to the General
Preamble and adding to this list any additional control measures
proposed and documented in public comments. Any measures that apply to
emission sources of PM-10 and that are de minimis and any measures that
are unreasonable for technology reasons or because of the cost of the
control in the area can then be culled from the list. In addition,
potential RACM may be culled from the list if a measure cannot be
implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attainment in
the area. 57 FR 13498, 13560; 57 FR 18070, 18072 (April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(General Preamble) 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 nonattainment areas reclassified as serious under section
188(b)(2) of the CAA are required to submit, within 18 months of the
area's reclassification, SIP revisions providing for, among other
things, the implementation of BACM no later than four years from the
date of reclassification. The SIP must also provide for attainment of
the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2001, unless EPA grants an extension of
that deadline. See CAA sections 188(c)(2) and (e); 189(b). On August
16, 1994, EPA issued an Addendum to the General Preamble that describes
the Agency's preliminary views on the CAA provisions for serious area
PM-10 nonattainment SIPs. 59 FR 41998. The Addendum provides that for
moderate PM-10 areas reclassified as serious, the RACM requirements are
carried over and elevated to a higher level of stringency, i.e., BACM.
59 FR 41998, 42009.
II. Proposed Action
In May 1998, Arizona Governor Hull signed into law Senate Bill 1427
(SB 1427) which revised title 49 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)
by adding section 49-457. This legislation established an Agricultural
Best Management Practices (BMP) Committee that was required to adopt by
rule by June 10, 2000, an agricultural general permit specifying BMPs
for regulated agricultural activities to reduce PM-10 emissions in the
Maricopa PM-10 nonattainment area. ARS 49-457.A-F. Subsection M of ARS
49-457 provided for the initiation of BMP implementation through the
commencement of an education program by June 10, 2000.
On September 4, 1998, the State submitted ARS 49-457 to EPA for
inclusion in the Arizona SIP as meeting the RACM requirements of CAA
section 189(a)(1)(C). On June 29, 1999, EPA approved ARS 49-457 as
meeting the RACM requirements of the CAA. 64 FR 34726.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For further information on this legislation and its
relationship to the history of PM-10 planning in the Phoenix area,
see EPA's proposed action. 66 FR 34598, 34599.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to ARS 49-457, the Agricultural BMP Committee adopted the
agricultural general permit and associated definitions, effective May
12, 2000, at Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-610, ``Definitions
for R18-2-611,'' and 611, ``Agricultural PM-10 General Permit; Maricopa
PM10 Nonattainment Area'' (collectively, general permit rule). On July
11, 2000, the State submitted AAC R18-2-610 and 611 to EPA as a
revision to the Arizona SIP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In evaluating this submittal, EPA relied on information
submitted on June 13, 2001 by the State as part of its serious area
PM-10 plan for Phoenix: ``Submittal of State Implementation Plan
revision for the Agricultural Best Management program in the
Maricopa County PM10 Nonattainment Area'' from Jacqueline
E. Schafer, ADEQ, to Laura Yoshii, EPA, June 13, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2001, EPA proposed to approve ACC R18-2-610 and 611
under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of
sections 110(a) and 189(a)(1)(C). EPA also concluded that its proposed
approval of ACC R18-2-610 and 611 meets the requirements of CAA section
110(l). 66 FR 34598.
[[Page 51871]]
III. Comments on Proposed Rule and EPA Responses
EPA received two comment letters on its proposed action. The
comments were submitted by Dan Thelander, Chairman, Governor's
Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee and Joy E. Herr-
Cardillo, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI). Mr.
Thelander expressed the BMP Committee's support for EPA's proposed
approval of the general permit and listed the factors and limitations
that the Committee addressed during the development of the general
permit. ACLPI, in a July 30, 2001 letter, opposes EPA's proposed
action. EPA responds to ACLPI's comments below.
Comment: ACLPI contends that the general permit rule fails to meet
the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(1) that SIPs for nonattainment
areas ``shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably
available control measures.'' ACLPI claims that the rule fails to meet
this requirement because the BMP Committee identified a variety of
clearly available and feasible control measures that are included in
the rule as BMPs, but only requires commercial farmers to implement one
BMP from each of three categories. As a result, ACLPI claims, the
farmer determines which BMP will be implemented without any limiting
parameters; and only one BMP is required under each category even where
the implementation of more than one would be technologically and
economically feasible, a result clearly prohibited by the CAA and EPA
policy.
Response: As relevant to today's action, Arizona's obligation under
the CAA is to provide for the implementation of RACM for the
agricultural source category.\7\ In order to meet this obligation, the
State had to determine what requirement would be not only
technologically and economically feasible but also reasonable for
controlling this source category in the Phoenix area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Nevertheless, as EPA stated in the proposed rulemaking, EPA
believes that the general permit rule far exceeds the RACM
requirements of the CAA. See 66 FR 34598, 34603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This determination was particularly challenging given the variety,
complexity and practical realities of farming in the Phoenix area. In
its proposed action on the general permit rule and accompanying
technical support document (TSD), EPA explained the multi-year/multi-
party process for developing the BMPs ultimately adopted by the BMP
Committee. See 66 FR 34598, 34601. As a result of the diversity and
constraints of farming operations, the Committee concluded that farmers
need flexibility to tailor PM-10 controls to their particular
circumstances and that mandating a single, specific control for each
individual farm activity would be unreasonable. The Committee did,
however, determine that it could subdivide farming operations in
Maricopa into three distinct categories for the purposes of developing
the appropriate controls. As a result, the Committee created a menu of
control options from which the farmer must select a minimum of one for
each of the tillage and harvest, cropland and noncropland categories.
EPA concurs with the Committee's assessment and consequently
proposed that the requirement to implement at least one control from a
list of control options for each of three categories of operations
constitutes a reasonable control requirement for the agricultural
sector in the Phoenix area.
A requirement that an individual source select one control method
from a list, but allowing the source to select which is most
appropriate for its situation, is a common and accepted practice for
the control of dust. For example, in its PM-10 federal implementation
plan (FIP) for Phoenix, EPA promulgated a RACM rule applicable to,
among other things, unpaved parking lots, unpaved roads and vacant
lots. The rule allows owners and operators to choose one of several
listed control methods (pave, apply chemical stabilizers or apply
gravel). 40 CFR 52.128(d). In the case of the FIP, those subject to the
fugitive dust rule were given a choice of control methods in order to
accommodate their financial circumstances. See also South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (providing for
alternative compliance mechanisms for the control of fugitive dust from
earthmoving, disturbed surface areas, unpaved roads etc.); and SCAQMD
Rule 1186 (requiring owners/operators of certain unpaved roads the
option to pave, chemically stabilize, or install signage, speed bumps
or maintain roadways to inhibit speeds greater than 15 mph). EPA
proposed to approve these SCAQMD rules as meeting the RACM and/or BACM
requirements of the CAA on August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42786) and took final
action approving them on December 9, 1998 (63 FR 67784).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See also EPA's approval of Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department (MCESD) Rule 310 as meeting the RACM/BACM
requirements (62 FR 41856, August 4, 1997) and EPA's proposal to
approve updated Rule 310 and MCESD Rule 310.01 as meeting the same
requirements (65 FR 19964, April 13, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowing sources the discretion to choose from a range of specified
options is particularly important for the agricultural sector because
of the variable nature of farming. As a technical matter, neither EPA
nor the State is in a position to dictate what precise control method
is appropriate for a given farm activity at a given time in a given
locale. The decision as to which control method from an array of
methods is appropriate is best left to the individual farmer. Moreover,
the economic circumstances of farmers vary considerably. As a result,
it is imperative that flexibility be built into any PM-10 control
measure for the agricultural source category whether that measure is
required to meet the RACM or BACM requirements of the Act.
Comment: ACLPI states that the CAA expressly provides that all RACM
must be implemented by December 10, 1993, citing CAA sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(C). Citing Delaney v. EPA, 898 F. 2d 687, 691 (9th Cir.
1990), ACLPI contends that since that deadline has passed, RACM must be
implemented ``as soon as possible.'' ACLPI states that the general
permit rule does not require implementation of a single BMP until
December 31, 2001 and that this is clearly too little too late under
the CAA.
Response: EPA addressed this issue in its proposed approval of the
general permit rule by explaining that CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), as
interpreted by the Agency under the current circumstances, requires the
implementation of RACM as soon as practicable. EPA further explained
that the Agency addressed Arizona's requirements regarding the timing
of the implementation of the BMPs in its final approval of ARS 49-457.
64 FR 34726 (June 29, 1999). It is that enabling legislation that
dictates the December 31, 2001 deadline. The general permit rule simply
carries out its mandate by reiterating the statutory deadline. 66 FR
34598, 34600. Therefore, ACLPI, if it wished to contest the issue of
whether the December 31, 2001 deadline meets the Delaney test, should
have challenged that rule on that basis. Nevertheless, EPA briefly
explains the reasoning for its conclusion below.
In 1996, the State of Arizona conducted a field study (known as the
microscale study) of PM-10 sources at various monitoring sites in
Phoenix. Following the study, the results were modeled and formed the
basis for the State's ``Plan for Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10
Standard-Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,'' May 1997 (microscale
plan). It was at that time that the State first discovered that
[[Page 51872]]
agricultural activities did in fact constitute significant sources of
PM-10 in Phoenix, and thus required measures to control them. Because
it did not provide for the expeditious implementation of reasonably and
best available control measures for these agricultural sources, EPA
disapproved the microscale plan for that purpose. 62 FR 41856 (August
4, 1997).
One year after disapproving the microscale plan, EPA issued a final
FIP that addressed, among other things, PM-10 emissions from
agricultural sources in Phoenix. In the FIP, EPA promulgated an
enforceable commitment, codified at 40 CFR 52.127, to adopt, and begin
implementing RACM for agricultural fields and aprons by June 2000. 63
FR 41326, 41350 (August 3, 1998).
In developing the FIP, EPA initially evaluated rules in the South
Coast Air Basin, the only existing agricultural control measures for
PM-10 in the country. However, agricultural sources, unlike many
stationary sources which can have many common design features, whether
located in California or New Jersey, vary by factors such as regional
climate, soil type, growing season, crop type, water availability, and
relation to urban centers. Therefore each PM-10 agricultural strategy
is necessarily based on local circumstances. With respect to Phoenix
and the South Coast, EPA determined that the two areas differ in a
number of key characteristics. Based on this initial screening, EPA
decided that it would not be responsible to propose the SCAQMD rules at
that time because the Agency could not reasonably conclude that their
implementation would in fact result in air quality benefits for the
Maricopa nonattainment area.
As a result of this conclusion, EPA initiated a stakeholder process
to develop RACM in the form of BMPs for Phoenix that eventually
included ADEQ, MCESD, the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Maricopa Association of
Governments, the Maricopa Farm Bureau, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation,
the University of Arizona and others. Following numerous meetings and
discussions, EPA concluded that the most feasible approach for the FIP
would be the Agency's commitment to develop and implement the BMPs on
an expeditious schedule. For a more detailed discussion of EPA's
efforts to develop RACM for agricultural sources in Phoenix, see EPA's
FIP proposal at 15920, 15936 (April 1, 1998) and the accompanying
technical support document.
As discussed above, on June 29, 1999, EPA withdrew the FIP
commitment and approved in its place ARS 49-457 which embodies a
commitment to adopt by rule by June 10, 2000 a general permit
specifying BMPs. The statute also provides for the initiation of a
public education program by June 10, 2000 and sets a final deadline of
December 31, 2001 for farmers to comply with the BMPs. In its proposed
approval of ARS 49-457, EPA reiterated its reasons for concluding that
the implementation schedule was as expeditious as practicable:
In general, EPA believes that because agricultural sources in
the United States vary by factors such as regional climate, soil
type, growing season, crop type, water availability, and relation to
urban centers, each PM-10 agricultural strategy is uniquely based on
local circumstances. Furthermore, EPA determined that the goal of
attaining the PM-10 standards in Maricopa County with respect to
agricultural sources would be best served by engaging all interested
stakeholders in a joint comprehensive process on the appropriate mix
of agricultural controls to implement in Maricopa County. EPA stated
its belief that this process, despite the additional time needed to
work through it, will ultimately result in the best and most cost-
effective controls on agricultural sources in the County.
In the FIP notices, EPA also explained its intention to meet its
RACM commitment by developing and promulgating BMPs. Given the
number of potential BMPs, the variety of crops types, the need for
stakeholder input, and the time necessary to develop the BMPs into
effective control measures, EPA believes that the adoption and
implementation schedule in the FIP is as expeditious as practicable
and meets the Act's 189(a)(1)(C) requirement.
63 FR 71815, 71817 (December 30, 1998). EPA concluded that the
commitment in ARS 49-457 was superior to that in the FIP because it
contains more substance and greater procedural detail, and provides a
final implementation deadline. Id.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In its final approval of ARS 49-457, EPA also responded to
ACLPI's comment claiming that the implementation schedule is not
sufficiently expeditious. 64 FR 34726, 34729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BMPs have now been adopted and EPA is today approving the
general permit rule into the Arizona PM-10 SIP for Phoenix. Thus the
December 31, 2001 final implementation deadline will shortly be
federally enforceable. Given that (1) agricultural sources had never
been regulated anywhere in the country except southern California; (2)
agricultural sources vary considerably based on a number of factors;
and (3) EPA and ADEQ lacked expertise in farming conditions and
practices, EPA believes that under five years from ground zero to final
implementation is a considerable accomplishment and meets the Delaney
test.
Comment: ACLPI, quoting from the ``Technical Support Document for
Quantification of Agricultural Best Management Practices,'' Final
Draft, URS Corporation and Eastern Research Group, Inc., November 1,
2000, charges that because the general permit rule fails to require any
specific control measures, and leaves it entirely to the permittee to
determine which BMPs will be implemented, there is no way that the
State can know or meaningfully predict what the effect of the rule will
be. ACLPI claims that, as a result, any estimated emissions reduction
is entirely speculative and, thus, inadequate under the CAA.
Response: The PM-10 emission reductions attributable to the BMPs
are not at issue in this rulemaking. Here, EPA is merely determining
whether the general permit rule meets the general SIP requirements of
CAA section 110(a) and whether that rule represents, pursuant to CAA
section 189(a)(1)(C) a ``reasonably available'' level of control and is
scheduled to be implemented as expeditiously as practicable. EPA will
consider the quantification of the emission reductions from the general
permit rule in its forthcoming actions on the State's reasonable
further progress and attainment demonstrations in its serious area plan
submittals.
Comment: ACLPI comments that the State has proposed to revise the
SIP to include the general permit rule as both a control and a
contingency measure. Citing CAA section 172(c)(9) and a proposed EPA
action on a Washington SIP, ACLPI states that it makes no sense to
denominate the rule as a contingency measure.
Response: This comment is also beyond the scope of today's
rulemaking because EPA is not acting on the general permit rule as
meeting the Act's contingency measure requirements. EPA will address
this issue in its forthcoming actions on the State's serious area PM-10
plan for the Phoenix area.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons discussed above and in the proposed rulemaking, EPA
is approving, under CAA section 110(k)(3), ACC R18-2-610 and 611, the
general permit rule, as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)
and 189(a)(1)(C). Moreover, EPA has concluded that its approval of ACC
R18-2-610 and 611 meets the requirements of section 110(l) because the
general permit rule strengthens the Arizona PM-10 SIP for the Maricopa
County nonattainment
[[Page 51873]]
area by providing specific BMPs in place of the commitment to adopt
BMPs in ARS 49-457. The general permit rule is also consistent with the
development of an overall plan capable of meeting the CAA's PM-10
attainment requirements.
V. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the United States Senate, the United States
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).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 10, 2001. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 10, 2001.
Mike Schulz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(98) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(98) Plan revisions were submitted on July 11, 2000 by the
Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-610 and R18-2-611 effective
May 12, 2000.
* * * * *
(B) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 01-25549 Filed 10-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50X-P