[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50762-50764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24433]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 086-0017c; FRL-6438-3]
Interim Final Determination that State Has Corrected the
Deficiency State of Arizona; Maricopa County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published a
direct final rulemaking fully approving the State of Arizona's
submittal of Maricopa County's Rule 336--Surface Coating Operations.
EPA has also published a proposed rulemaking to provide the public with
an opportunity to comment on EPA's action. If a person submits adverse
comments on EPA's final action, EPA will withdraw its direct final rule
and will consider any comments received before taking final action on
the State's submittal. Based on the full approval, EPA is making an
interim final determination by this action that the State has corrected
the deficiency for which a sanctions clock began on March 11, 1998.
This action will defer both the imposition of the offset sanction and
the imposition of the highway sanction. Although this action is
effective upon publication, EPA will take comment. If no comments are
received on EPA's approval of the State's submittal, the direct final
action published in today's Federal Register will also finalize EPA's
determination that the State has corrected the deficiency that started
the sanctions clock. If comments are received on EPA's proposed
approval and this interim final action, EPA will publish a final action
taking into consideration any comments received.
DATES: Effective date: September 20, 1999.
[[Page 50763]]
Comment date: Comments must be received by October 20, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Andrew Steckel at the
Region IX office listed below. The state submittal and EPA's analysis
for that submittal, which are the basis for this action, are available
at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the
submitted rule revisions are available for public review at the
following locations:
Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105;
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M''
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460;
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3003 North Central
Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012; and,
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 1001 North
Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office,
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 26, 1997, Arizona submitted Maricopa County Rule 336--
Surface Coating Operations, which EPA disapproved in part on February
9, 1998. (See 63 FR 6487.) Beginning on March 11, 1998, EPA's
disapproval action started an 18-month clock for the imposition of one
sanction (followed by a second sanction 6 months later) and a 24-month
clock for promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
The State submitted a revised rule on August 4, 1999. EPA has taken
direct final action on this submittal pursuant to its modified direct
final policy set forth at 59 FR 24054 (May 10, 1994). In the Rules
section of today's Federal Register, EPA has issued a direct final full
approval of Arizona's submittal of Maricopa County Rule 336. In
addition, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register,
EPA has proposed full approval of the State's submittal.
Based on the direct final full approval set forth in today's
Federal Register, EPA believes that it is more likely than not that
Maricopa County has corrected the original disapproval deficiency.
Therefore, EPA is taking this final rulemaking action, effective on
publication, finding that Maricopa County has corrected the deficiency.
However, EPA is also providing the public with an opportunity to
comment on this final action. If, based on any comments on this action
and any comments on EPA's proposed full approval of the State's
submittal, EPA determines that the State's submittal is not fully
approvable and this final action was inappropriate, EPA will either
propose or take final action finding that the State has not corrected
the original disapproval deficiency. As appropriate, EPA will also
issue an interim final determination or a final determination that the
deficiency has been corrected.
This action does not stop the sanctions clock that started for this
area on March 11, 1998. However, this action will defer the imposition
of the offsets sanction and will defer the imposition of the highway
sanction. See 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994). If EPA's direct final
action fully approving the State's submittal becomes effective, such
action will permanently stop the sanctions clock and will permanently
lift any imposed, stayed or deferred sanctions. If EPA must withdraw
the direct final action based on adverse comments and EPA subsequently
determines that the State, in fact, did not correct the disapproval
deficiency, EPA will also determine that the State did not correct the
deficiency and the sanctions consequences described in the sanctions
rule will apply. See 59 FR 39832, to be codified at 40 CFR 52.31.
II. EPA Action
EPA is taking interim final action finding that Maricopa County has
corrected the disapproval deficiency that started the sanctions clock.
Based on this action, imposition of the offset sanction will be
deferred and imposition of the highway sanction will be deferred until
EPA's direct final action fully approving the State's submittal becomes
effective or until EPA takes action proposing or finally disapproving
in whole or part the State submittal. If EPA's direct final action
fully approving the State submittal becomes effective, at that time any
sanctions clocks will be permanently stopped and any imposed, stayed or
deferred sanctions will be permanently lifted.
Because EPA has determined preliminarily that the State has an
approvable rule, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as
possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the
30-day notice requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act because
the purpose of this action is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1).
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
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.
[[Page 50764]]
D. 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 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, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 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 officials 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.
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 approve 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.
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
annual 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 annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. 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. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. 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 19, 1999. 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, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 3, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-24433 Filed 9-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P