[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54972-54975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26574]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ-036-1-0008; FRL-5632-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Phoenix Nonattainment Area; PM10

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA today proposes to restore its approval of portions of the 
State implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Arizona for 
the purpose of bringing about the attainment in the Phoenix Planning 
Area (PPA) of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for 
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 
nominal 10 micrometers (PM10).
    In April 1995, EPA approved the State's ``moderate'' area SIP as 
satisfying Federal requirements in the Clean Air Act for an approvable 
nonattainment area PM10 plan for the PPA. In May 1996, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Ober v. EPA vacated 
EPA's approval and directed the Agency to provide an opportunity for 
comment on issues related to the reasonably available control measure 
(RACM) and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations in the SIP. 
The intent of this proposed action is to comply with the Court's 
opinion by providing such an opportunity.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
December 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Frances Wicher, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Copies of the State's submittal and other 
information are contained in the docket for this rulemaking. The docket 
is available for inspection during normal business hours at the above 
Region 9 address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher (A-2-1) U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air and Toxics Division, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

    On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 
PM10 areas, including the Phoenix Planning Area (PPA), meeting the 
conditions of section 107(d) of the Act were designated nonattainment 
by operation of law. Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 
188 of the Act outlines the process for classification of the area and 
establishes the area's attainment date. In accordance with section 
188(a), at the time of designation, all PM10 nonattainment areas 
were initially classified as ``moderate'' by operation of law. See 56 
FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). A moderate area may subsequently be 
reclassified as ``serious'' under section 188(b)(1) of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) if at any time EPA determines that the area cannot 
practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
date for moderate areas, December 31, 1994. Moreover, a moderate area 
must be reclassified if EPA determines within six months after the 
applicable attainment date that, based on actual air quality data, the 
area is not in attainment after that date. See section 188(b)(2) of the 
CAA.1
    The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the 
Act. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' 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 PM10 nonattainment area SIP provisions. See 
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On May 10, 1996, EPA published a final reclassification of 
the PPA as a serious PM10 nonattainment area based on actual 
air quality data. See 61 FR 21372. Having been reclassified, the 
area is required to meet the serious area requirements in the CAA, 
including a demonstration that the area will attain the PM10 
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 
2001. See sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those states containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment 
areas were required to submit, among other things, the following 
provisions by November 15, 1991:
    1. Pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA, provisions to 
assure that reasonably available control measures (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;
    2. Pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), either a demonstration 
(including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 
31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that date is 
impracticable;
    3. Pursuant to section 189(c), for plan revisions demonstrating 
attainment, quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994; 2 and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As will be seen below, the PM10 plan for the PPA did 
not demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1994, but rather included 
the alternative demonstration that attainment by that date is 
impracticable. Therefore, section 189(c) does not apply and is not 
discussed further in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Pursuant to sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1), for plan revisions 
demonstrating impracticability, such annual incremental reductions in 
PM10 emissions as are required by part D of the Act or may 
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring 
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

B. EPA Approval of Arizona's Moderate Area PM10 Plan

    On July 28, 1994, EPA proposed to approve The State of Arizona's 
moderate area PM10 implementation plan revision for the PPA. 59 FR 
38402. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA proposed to 
approve, among other elements in the plan, the State's RFP and RACM 
demonstrations as meeting the requirements of sections 172(c)(2), 
171(1), 172(c)(1), and 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Based on its

[[Page 54973]]

approval of the RACM demonstration, EPA also proposed to approve, as 
meeting the requirements of section 189(a)(1)(B), the State's 
demonstration that even with the implementation of all RACM by December 
10, 1993, it was impracticable for the PPA to attain the PM10 
NAAQS by December 31, 1994.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The reader should refer to both the NPRM, 59 FR 38402, and 
the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFRM), 60 FR 18010 (April 10, 1995), 
for EPA's interpretation of the certain moderate area PM10 
requirements of the CAA and the Agency's application of these 
interpretations to the State's moderate area PM10 plan. Those 
notices should also be consulted for the history of the State's 
PM10 plan submittals and EPA's actions concerning them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 30 day public comment period on the NPRM, the Arizona 
Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) submitted lengthy 
comments on many aspects of EPA's proposed approval of the State's 
moderate area PM10 plan. Among ACLPI's comments was a claim that 
the State had failed to submit adequate, or in some instances any, 
justifications, as required by the CAA and EPA policy guidance, for 
rejecting certain measures as RACM. In preparing a response to this 
comment, EPA requested that the State submit additional detail and 
elaboration on the State's reasoning regarding its RACM determination. 
The State submitted this information in December 1994 after the close 
of the public comment period on the NPRM in a document entitled 
``Summary of Local Government Commitments to Implement Measures and 
Reasoned Justification for Nonimplementation for the MAG 1991 
Particulate Plan for PM10 and Select Measures from the Clean Air 
Act Section 108(f)'' (MAG Supplementary document). This document is 
included in the docket for EPA's final action approving the moderate 
area plan. 60 FR 18010.
    ACLPI also disputed EPA's proposed approval of the State's moderate 
area PM10 plan as meeting the CAA's RFP requirements. ACLPI 
claimed that the State failed to demonstrate any incremental progress 
in the PPA because under the plan PM10 emissions would actually 
increase from the 1989 base year to 1994, the attainment year.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ During the Ninth Circuit litigation on EPA's approval of the 
plan, discussed in section I.C. of this notice, ACLPI elaborated on 
this claim. ACLPI maintained that EPA had erroneously and improperly 
recalculated the emission reduction credit assigned by the State to 
Maricopa County rule 310 (fugitive dust). ACLPI asserted that EPA 
was not entitled to calculate the control effectiveness of the rule 
based on the entire nonattainment area (rather than just the urban 
portion as the State had done). ACLPI claimed that without EPA's 
unwarranted inflation of the credit assigned to the rule, PM10 
emissions in the PPA would increase in violation of the CAA's RFP 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 1995, having considered ACLPI's comments, EPA 
published a NFRM in the Federal Register approving the State's moderate 
area PM10 SIP for the PPA. 60 FR 18010. In its final action, EPA 
approved, among other elements of the plan, the State's RACM and RFP 
demonstrations, and the State's demonstration that even with the 
implementation of all RACM by December 10, 1993, it was not practicable 
for the PPA to attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.

C. Ninth Circuit Litigation

    On May 1, 1995, ACLPI filed, on behalf of two Phoenix residents, a 
petition for review, Ober v. EPA, No. 95-70352, of EPA's approval of 
Arizona's moderate area PM10 plan for the PPA in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 14, 1996, the Court 
issued its opinion in the Ober case vacating EPA's approval of the 
State's plan.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The reader is referred to the text of the opinion for the 
Court's disposition of the range of issues raised by ACLPI in its 
petition. See 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996). Today's notice addresses 
only a portion of that disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the Court concluded that the State was 
required to address in its SIP the moderate area requirements regarding 
RFP, RACM and attainment or impracticability for both the 24-hour and 
the annual PM10 NAAQS. The Court found that the State's moderate 
area SIP improperly addressed the required demonstrations only for the 
annual standard.6 The Court then considered EPA's approval of the 
following annual standard demonstrations in the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In order to remedy the failure of the State to address the 
required demonstrations for the 24-hour standard, the Court required 
EPA to in turn require the State to submit those demonstrations. 
Today's notice, however, addresses only those aspects of the Court's 
findings and conclusions with respect to the RACM, RFP and 
impracticability demonstrations for the annual standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to EPA's approval of the State's RACM demonstration, 
the Court concluded that EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act 
and the CAA by not providing an opportunity for public comment on the 
justifications for rejecting certain control measures as RACM that the 
State provided to EPA after the close of the public comment period on 
the Agency's proposed SIP approval action. See MAG Supplementary 
document.
    In addition, with regard to EPA's approval of the RFP 
demonstration, the Court did not reach the merits of ACLPI's challenge 
to EPA's interpretation of RFP for moderate PM10 areas 
demonstrating that it was impracticable to attain the PM10 NAAQS 
by the statutory deadline. Instead, the Court found that the Agency 
improperly substituted its own recalculation of the emission reduction 
credit attributed to rule 310 without providing the required 
opportunity for public comment.
    Having made the above findings, the Court remanded the case to EPA 
with instructions to provide an opportunity for public comment on the 
post-comment period justifications for rejecting certain control 
measures as RACM and on the RFP demonstration.

II. Today's Actions

A. RACM Demonstration

    In today's action, EPA is taking comment on the expanded 
justifications for rejecting certain control measures as RACM that the 
State submitted to EPA in December 1994, following the close of the 
public comment period on EPA's July 1994 proposed approval of the 
State's moderate area PM10 plan. See MAG Supplementary document.
    EPA is today reaffirming its analysis of the RACM demonstration in 
the State's moderate area PM10 plan as discussed in the NPRM and 
the NFRM for the Agency's approval action, and therefore proposes to 
restore its approval of these elements of the State's plan.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA intends in a future rulemaking to restore its final 
approval of several Maricopa County rules in the moderate area 
PM10 plan that were not challenged in the Ninth Circuit, the 
approval of which were nevertheless vacated by the Court's opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. RFP Demonstration

    As stated above, the Ober Court directed EPA to take comment on the 
appropriate emission reduction credit attributed to Maricopa County 
rule 310 as it relates to the RFP demonstration in the State's moderate 
area PM10 plan. In preparing to comply with the Court's directive, 
the Agency reviewed both the emission reduction credits originally 
assigned by the State to the control measures in the plan, including 
rule 310, and EPA's recalculation of those credits as described in the 
NFRM. See 60 FR 18018. In that recalculation EPA had assumed the 
measures in the plan would yield emission reductions over a greater 
geographic area than the State had claimed. EPA has, however, concluded 
from its current review that the emission reduction potential of the 
measures cited in the NFRM was in error, and that the State's original 
calculation was appropriate. EPA's review and conclusions are discussed 
in detail in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this notice.
    In conducting the above review, it also came to the Agency's 
attention that

[[Page 54974]]

its statements in the NFRM regarding the scope of the emission 
reductions required to demonstrate RFP under sections 172(c)(2) and 
171(1) of the Act for plans demonstrating impracticability may be 
ambiguous. In order to eliminate any confusion that may have resulted 
from these statements, EPA is today clarifying its interpretation of 
the RFP requirements for such plans.
    In response to ACLPI's comment on the NPRM that the plan did not 
demonstrate RFP from the 1989 base year to 1994 because emissions 
actually increased during that period, EPA in the NFRM noted the 1989 
base year inventory and the projected 1994 inventory numbers. EPA then 
stated that ``* * * the total 1994 projected inventory after 
application of RACM * * * shows, consistent with EPA's guidance on 
demonstrating RFP, which is described in greater detail earlier in this 
notice [at p. 18013] * * * that the area has indeed made progress in 
reducing emissions from the base year total, and thus has demonstrated 
it has met the requirements of section 172(c)(2) for the period 1990-
1994.'' 60 FR 18018, col. 2.
    Elsewhere in the NFRM, in its general discussion of the issue, the 
Agency stated that plans demonstrating impracticability ``should show 
that even though the emission reductions achieved through the 
implementation of all RACM may not be enough to enable the area to 
demonstrate attainment by the moderate area deadline of December 31, 
1994, such implementation has resulted in `incremental reductions' in 
emissions of PM10 as the RFP definition in section 171(1) 
specifies.'' 60 FR 18013, col. 2.
    EPA intended in the above NFRM discussions to interpret the RFP 
requirement for areas demonstrating impracticability as being met by a 
showing that the implementation of all RACM has resulted in incremental 
emission reductions below pre-implementation levels.8 That EPA 
intended this interpretation is demonstrated by the discussion of the 
RFP issue in the Agency's brief in the Ober litigation. See Brief for 
Respondents, pp. 7-8 and 42.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA did not intend to suggest, as might be inferred from its 
response to ACLPI's comment, that a showing in such plans of 
emission reductions from 1989 (or 1990) to 1994 would be necessary 
to meet the RFP requirements. As stated in the quoted passage from 
EPA's response to ACLPI's comment, the Agency simply meant that such 
a showing would be consistent with EPA's guidance as set forth at 60 
FR 18013. Having concluded that the State's original calculation of 
the emission reduction potential of the control measures in the plan 
is appropriate, EPA agrees with ACLPI that PM10 emissions 
increased from 1989 to 1994. EPA does not, however, agree that 
emissions must decrease during that period in order for the plan to 
meet the section 172(c)(2) RFP requirement.
    \9\ See also Brief for Respondents at pp. 43-44:
      What the Act requires is the implementation of RACM by 
December 10, 1993. 42 U.S.C. 7513a(a)(1)(C). For that reason * * * 
EPA has stated that the incremental reductions compelled for 
moderate areas are those that resulted from the implementation of 
RACM. 60 Fed. Reg. 18013 * * *. The definition of RFP, 42 U.S.C. 
7501(1), does not mandate that EPA require any additional reductions 
beyond what RACM itself would achieve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes the interpretation presented in the Agency's Ober 
brief is consistent with the statutory term ``reasonable further 
progress.'' RFP is defined in section 171(1) as either annual 
incremental reductions as are required under part D, or such reductions 
as the Administrator may reasonably require ``for the purpose of 
ensuring attainment of the [NAAQS] by the applicable date.'' However, 
as mentioned above, the PPA did not demonstrate attainment, but instead 
demonstrated that it was impracticable to attain the PM10 standard 
by the December 31, 1994 moderate area PM10 attainment deadline, 
even after implementation of RACM. Once EPA has determined that such an 
area has implemented all reasonable control measures that are 
available, and that the area still would not timely attain, there are 
no further reductions that would be reasonable to require ``for the 
purpose of ensuring attainment'' by the moderate area attainment 
deadline. Thus, the emissions reductions achieved by such an area 
through implementation of all RACM, by definition, would satisfy the 
requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress in the period 
before the State must submit the additional measures needed to produce 
the net emissions reductions required to bring about attainment.
    As discussed in the TSD for this notice, EPA has concluded that the 
State's original calculation of the emission reduction potential of the 
control measures in its moderate area PM10 plan demonstrates 
incremental PM10 emission reductions from the implementation of 
all RACM over pre-implementation levels. Therefore, EPA believes that 
the State has met the RFP requirements, as clarified in today's notice, 
of section 172(c)(2) for plans demonstrating impracticability. As a 
result, EPA is today proposing to restore its approval of the RFP 
demonstration in the State's moderate area PM10 plan. EPA is also 
today reaffirming, with the above clarification, its analysis of the 
RFP requirements for moderate area PM10 plans demonstrating 
impracticability as discussed in the NFRM at 60 FR 18012-13.

C. Impracticability Demonstration

    The Ober Court did not specifically address EPA's approval of the 
State's moderate area demonstration that it was impracticable for the 
PPA to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the statutory deadline. Nor did 
the Court direct EPA to take any action with respect to that 
demonstration. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, EPA is 
today proposing to restore its approval of the State's moderate area 
impracticability demonstration.
    As stated previously, the Ninth Circuit vacated EPA's approval of 
the State's moderate area PM10 plan in its entirety, including the 
State's demonstration that it was impracticable for the PPA to attain 
the annual PM10 NAAQS by the end of 1994 even with the 
implementation of all RACM. Clearly the validity of EPA's approval of 
this impracticability demonstration is dependent on an approved RACM 
demonstration. The approvability of the RACM demonstration depends in 
turn on the appropriateness of the State's justification for rejecting 
certain control measures as RACM. As stated above, EPA is providing an 
opportunity for comment on a number of these justifications and 
proposing to restore its approval of the RACM demonstration in today's 
notice.
    EPA believes that because the PPA was reclassified from a moderate 
to a serious nonattainment area in 1996, the moderate area attainment 
requirements (demonstration of impracticability or attainment by no 
later than December 31, 1994) have been superseded by the serious area 
attainment requirement (attainment by no later than December 31, 2001) 
and are therefore now moot. Having reviewed the CAA's moderate and 
serious area PM10 attainment provisions, EPA has concluded that 
when a moderate PM10 area has been reclassified after the moderate 
area attainment deadline has passed and been replaced with a new 
deadline, the moderate area deadline no longer has any logical, 
practical or legal significance. Similarly, once such a 
reclassification has occurred, the approval status of the SIP 
provisions addressing the previous attainment requirements is no longer 
of any consequence. Thus, under this interpretation, there would be no 
need to restore the Agency's approval of the State's moderate area 
impracticability demonstration for the PPA.
    However, in addition to the Ninth Circuit's remedy, addressed in 
today's notice, for deficiencies related to EPA's approval of the 
moderate area RFP and RACM demonstrations for the annual

[[Page 54975]]

PM10 standard, the Court directed EPA to require the State to 
address the moderate area attainment requirements for the 24-hour 
standard. See footnote 6. By analogy, EPA assumes that the Court 
expects that the moderate area attainment requirements for the annual 
standard must also be met.
    When the Court fashioned its remedy requiring the State to address 
the moderate area attainment requirements for the 24-hour standard, it 
did so in the context of a pending proposed reclassification of the PPA 
to serious.\10\ However, the Court believed that EPA was proposing the 
reclassification under section 188(b)(1) of the CAA based on the 
State's impracticability demonstration. 304 F.3d at 309. In fact, EPA 
had proposed to reclassify the area either under section 188(b)(1) or, 
in the alternative, under section 188(b)(2) (after the attainment 
deadline based on actual air quality data indicating that the area has 
failed to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the statutory deadline). See 60 
FR 30046 (June 7, 1995). The area's final reclassification was based on 
a finding under section 188(b)(2) that the area had failed to attain 
the PM10 NAAQS because of violations of both the annual and 24-
hour standards. See 61 FR 21372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While neither the reclassification nor its effect on 
moderate area planning requirements was before the Ober Court, the 
Court was aware of the proposed reclassification when the case was 
briefed and argued. And it is clear from the opinion that the Court 
believed EPA was required to promulgate a final reclassification. 
304 F.3d at 309-311. EPA published its final reclassification of the 
PPA to a serious nonattainment area on May 10, 1996, four days 
before the Ninth Circuit issued its Ober opinion. 61 FR 21372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA believes that, to the extent the Court concluded in 
fashioning its remedy that an area must continue to meet the moderate 
area attainment requirements after it has been reclassified to serious, 
the Court could not have made this judgment based on a consideration of 
the legal effect of a final reclassification under section 188(b)(2) on 
the area's pre-existing moderate area attainment requirements. 
Consequently, EPA believes that it is not precluded by the Court's 
decision from concluding that, under these circumstances, the moderate 
area attainment requirements for both the annual and 24 hour NAAQS have 
been legally superseded by the serious area attainment requirements and 
therefore are now moot and need not be addressed after the area's 
reclassification.
    While EPA could have sought clarification from the Ninth Circuit in 
order to apply this conclusion in the context of compliance with the 
Court's remedies in Ober, the Agency does not believe that it would 
have been in the public interest to do so. Such a review would 
necessarily have occurred without benefit of a thorough briefing on the 
issue and in the absence of an administrative record. Thus EPA has 
chosen to comply with the Court's remedies regarding the moderate area 
attainment requirements in spite of the Agency's view that the 
reclassification of the PPA based on air quality rendered those 
requirements legally ineffective.\11\ The Agency does, however, reserve 
its right to assert its interpretation in any challenge to EPA's 
implementation of the Court's remedies or in the context of other 
reclassifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Because EPA is not applying this interpretation in today's 
rulemaking, it does not constitute final agency action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small business, small not-for-profit enterprises and 
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act, do 
not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that a 
state is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval 
does not impose any new requirements, the Administrator certifies that 
it does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
CAA, preparation of a 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.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. 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 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves that 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 this rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a federal mandate that may result in estimate 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, imposes no new federal 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, results from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate 
matter, Intergovernmental relations.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: September 26, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-26574 Filed 10-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P