[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