[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60681-60683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28882]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 086-0018c; FRL-6468-8]


Interim Final Determination That State Has Corrected 
Deficiencies; 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 revisions to the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA has also published a proposed rulemaking 
on the same subject. If a person submits adverse comments on EPA's 
direct final action, EPA will withdraw its direct final rule and will 
consider any comments received before taking final action on the 
State's SIP revisions. Based on the full approval, EPA is making an 
interim final determination by this action that the State has corrected 
the deficiencies for which a sanctions clock began on April 30, 1998. 
This action will stay 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 SIP revisions, 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 approval 
EPA with publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule. If 
comments are received on this interim final action, EPA will publish a 
final determination taking into consideration any comments received.

DATES: Effective Date: November 8, 1999.
Comments: Comments must be received by December 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the 
Region IX office listed below. Copies of the SIP revisions and EPA's 
evaluation report are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 
IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted 
revisions are also available for inspection at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20460
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, 3033 
North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012
Maricopa County Environmental Services Division, Air Quality Division, 
1001 North Central Avenue #201, Phoenix, AZ 85004

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Bowlin, Rulemaking Office, 
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 31, 1995, the State of Arizona submitted Maricopa County 
Rule 318, Approval of Residential Woodburning Devices, and the Maricopa 
County Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance which EPA 
disapproved in part on March 31, 1998. 63 FR 15303. 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 
subsequently submitted revised rules 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 the State of Arizona's SIP revision. In addition, in the 
Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA has proposed 
full approval of the State's revision.
    Based on the direct final full approval set forth in today's 
Federal Register, EPA believes that it is more likely than not that the 
State has corrected the original disapproval deficiencies. Therefore, 
EPA is taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, 
finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies. 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 direct final 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 withdraw the direct final rule 
and either propose or take final action finding that the State has not 
corrected the original disapproval deficiencies. As appropriate, EPA 
will also issue an interim final determination or a final determination 
that the deficiencies have been corrected.
    This action does not stop the sanctions clock that started for this 
area on April 30, 1998. However, this action will stay the imposition 
of the offset sanction and will stay the imposition of the highway 
sanction. See 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 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 deficiencies, 
EPA will also determine that the State did not correct the deficiencies 
and the sanctions consequences described in the sanctions rule will 
apply. See 59 FR 39832, codified at 40 CFR 52.31.

II. EPA Action

    EPA is taking interim final action finding that the State has 
corrected the disapproval deficiencies that started the sanctions 
clock. Based on this action, imposition of the offset sanction will be 
stayed and imposition of the highway sanction will be stayed 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

[[Page 60682]]

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 preliminarily determined that the State has an 
approvable plan, 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 document 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 (E.O.) 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 E.O. 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 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 is 
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

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 
E.O. 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

[[Page 60683]]

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 January 7, 2000. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 27, 1999.
Debbie Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-28882 Filed 11-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P