[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1046-1050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-221]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NV033-FON; FRL-6929-1]


Finding of Failure To Submit a Required State Implementation Plan 
for Particulate Matter, Nevada-Clark County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to find that Nevada failed to make 
particulate matter (PM-10) nonattainment area state implementation plan 
(SIP) submittals required for the Las Vegas Valley Planning Area under 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The Las Vegas Planning Area was 
originally classified as a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area, but was 
later reclassified as serious. Under certain provisions of the Act, 
states are required to submit SIPs providing for, among other things, 
reasonable further progress and attainment of the PM-10 national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in areas classified as moderate 
and serious. The State of Nevada submitted several plans intended to 
meet these requirements. On June 14, 2000, EPA proposed to disapprove 
these SIP submittals. On December 5, 2000, prior to any final action by 
EPA, the State of Nevada withdrew the submittals. As a result of the 
State's withdrawal of the moderate and serious area SIP submittals, EPA 
is today finding that Nevada failed to make the PM-10 nonattainment 
area SIP submittals required for the Las Vegas Valley Planning Area 
under the Act.
    This action triggers the 18-month time clock for mandatory 
application of sanctions and 2-year time clock for a federal 
implementation plan (FIP) under the Act. This action is consistent with 
the CAA mechanism for assuring SIP submissions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective as of December 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Israels, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 744-1194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Planning Requirements

    In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to address, among other 
things, continued nonattainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.\1\ Pub. L. 101-549, 
104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q (1991). On the date of 
enactment of the Amendments, PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of 
section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act were designated nonattainment 
by operation of law. These areas included all former Group I areas 
identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987) and clarified in 55 FR 45799 
(October 31, 1980), and any other areas violating the PM-10 NAAQS prior 
to January 1, 1989. The Las Vegas Valley Planning Area was identified 
in the August 7, 1987, Federal Register (52 FR 29384). A Federal 
Register action announcing all areas designated nonattainment for PM-10 
at enactment of the 1990 amendments was published on March 15, 1991 (56 
FR 11101). The boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area 
(Hydrographic Area 212) are codified at 40 CFR 81.329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA revised the NAAQS for PM-10 on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 
24672), replacing standards for total suspended particulates with 
new standards applying only to particulate matter up to 10 microns 
in diameter (PM-10). At that time, EPA established two PM-10 
standards. The annual PM-10 standard is attained when the expected 
annual arithmetic average of the 24-hour samples for a period of one 
year does not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m\3\). The 
24-hour PM-10 standard of 150 ug/m\3\ is attained if samples taken 
for 24-hour periods have no more than one expected exceedance per 
year, averaged over 3 years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix K.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA reaffirmed the annual PM-10 standard, and 
slightly revised the 24-hour PM-10 standard (62 FR 38651). The 
revised 24-hour PM-10 standard is attained if the 99th percentile of 
the distribution of the 24-hour results over 3 years does not exceed 
150 ug/m\3\ at each monitor within an area.
    This finding applies to the outstanding obligation of the State 
to submit plans for the Las Vegas Valley Planning Area addressing 
the 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards, as originally promulgated.
    Breathing particulate matter can cause significant health 
effects, including an increase in respiratory illness and premature 
death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 188 of the 
amended 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 PM-10 nonattainment areas, 
including Las Vegas Valley, were initially classified as moderate by 
operation of law. Section 188(b)(1) of the Act further provides that 
moderate areas can subsequently be reclassified as serious before the 
applicable moderate area attainment date if at any time EPA determines 
that the area cannot ``practicably'' attain the PM-10 NAAQS by that 
date.
    Air monitoring of the Las Vegas Valley during the past 18 years has 
measured some of the highest PM-10 pollution in the United States. 
Nevada submitted a moderate area PM-10 plan for the Las Vegas Valley on 
December 6, 1991. Based on this submittal, EPA determined on January 8, 
1993, that the Las Vegas Valley could not practicably attain both the 
annual and 24-hour standards by the applicable attainment deadline for 
moderate areas (December 31, 1994, per section 188(c)(1) of the Act), 
and reclassified the Las Vegas Valley as serious (58 FR 3334). In 
accordance with section 189(b)(2) of the Act, SIP revisions for the Las 
Vegas Valley addressing the requirements for serious PM-10 
nonattainment areas in section 189(b) and (c) of the Act were required 
to be submitted by August 8, 1994 and February 8, 1997.
    The moderate and serious area requirements, as they currently 
pertain to the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area, include: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA has concluded that certain moderate area PM-10 
requirements continue to apply after an area has been reclassified 
to serious. For a more detailed discussion of the planning 
requirements applicable to the Las Vegas Valley and the relationship 
between the moderate area and serious area requirements after the 
reclassification of the area to serious, see 65 FR 37324-37326 (June 
14, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan 
will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than December 31, 2001, or an alternative demonstration that 
attainment by that date would be impracticable and that the plan 
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date

[[Page 1047]]

practicable (CAA section 189(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii));
    (b) Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years 
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment by 
December 31, 2001 (CAA section 189(c)).
    (c) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control (RACM), 
including reasonably available control technology (RACT), measures 
shall be implemented as soon as practicable (CAA section 189(a)(1)(C)); 
and
    (d) Provisions to assure that the best available control measures 
(BACM), including best available control technology (BACT) shall be 
implemented no later than four years after the reclassification of the 
area to a serious nonattainment area (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B).

B. Nevada's PM-10 SIP Submittals for the Las Vegas Valley

    The State of Nevada submitted the following plans that were 
prepared by the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning 
(CCDCP) to address the CAA's moderate and serious area requirements for 
the Las Vegas Valley Planning Area:
    1. The PM-10 moderate area nonattainment plan titled ``PM-10 Air 
Quality Implementation Plan, Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada'' 
(1991 Moderate Plan), submitted to EPA on December 6, 1991;
    2. An ``Addendum to the `Moderate Area' PM-10 State Implementation 
Plan for the Las Vegas Valley'' (1995 RACM Addendum), submitted to EPA 
on February 15, 1995;
    3. A BACM analysis plan titled ``Providing for the Evaluation, 
Adoption and Implementation of Best Available Control Measures and Best 
Available Control Technology to Improve PM-10 Air Quality'' (1994 BACM 
Plan), submitted to EPA on December, 1994; and
    4. The PM-10 serious area nonattainment plan for the Las Vegas 
Valley nonattainment area titled ``Particulate Matter (PM-10) 
Attainment Demonstration Plan'' (1997 Serious Plan), submitted to EPA 
on August 25, 1997.
    The term ``Moderate Area SIP'' in this action refers collectively 
to the 1991 Moderate Plan and the 1995 RACM Addendum; ``Serious Area 
SIP'' refers collectively to the 1994 BACM Plan and the 1997 Serious 
Plan. These submittals became complete by operation of law.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, 
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Actions Relating to Nevada's PM-10 SIP Submittals for the Las 
Vegas Valley

    On June 14, 2000, EPA proposed to disapprove both the Moderate Area 
SIP and the Serious Area SIP for the Las Vegas Valley Planning Area. 
See 65 FR 37324. Two comments supporting our proposed action were 
received.
    On December 5, 2000, prior to EPA's taking final action on its 
proposed disapproval, the State of Nevada withdrew the Moderate Area 
SIP and the Serious Area SIP. See letter dated December 5, 2000 from 
Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Division of Environmental 
Protection, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to 
Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    The CAA establishes specific consequences if EPA finds that a State 
has failed to meet certain requirements of the CAA. Of particular 
relevance here is CAA section 179(a)(1), the mandatory sanctions 
provision. Section 179(a) sets forth four findings that form the basis 
for application of a sanction. The first finding, that a State has 
failed to submit a plan required under the CAA, is the finding relevant 
to this rulemaking because withdrawal of a plan is tantamount to 
failing to submit it.
    If Nevada has not made the required complete submittal (in this 
case resubmittal) within 18 months of the effective date of today's 
rulemaking, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset 
sanction identified in CAA section 179(b) will be applied in the 
affected area. If the State has still not made a complete submission 6 
months after the offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding 
sanction will apply in the affected area, in accordance with 40 CFR 
52.31.\4\ The 18-month clock will stop and the sanctions will not take 
effect if, within 18 months after the date of the finding, EPA finds 
that the State has made a complete submittal of a plan addressing the 
applicable moderate area and the serious area PM-10 requirements for 
the Las Vegas Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In a 1994 rulemaking, EPA established the Agency's selection 
of the sequence of these two sanctions: the offset sanction under 
section 179(b)(2) shall apply at 18 months, followed 6 months later 
by the highway sanction under section 179(b)(1) of the Act. EPA does 
not choose to deviate from this presumptive sequence in this 
instance. For more details on the timing and implementation of the 
sanctions, see 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994), promulgating 40 CFR 
52.31, ``Selection of sequence of mandatory sanctions for findings 
made pusuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) no later than 2 years 
after a finding under section 179(a) unless EPA takes final action to 
approve the submittal within 2 years of EPA's finding.
    EPA encourages the responsible parties to work together on a 
solution in a broad, open public process which can result in the 
avoidance of the sanctions and FIP.

D. Recent Developments in Nevada

    Since November, 1998, we have been working with CCDCP to develop an 
approvable SIP that would replace those we proposed to disapprove in 
June 2000. On October 30, 2000, EPA received a 60-day notice of intent 
to sue under section 304(a)(2) of the CAA from the Sierra Club alleging 
that we had failed to take final action on the 1997 Serious Plan by the 
CAA deadline. While in the midst of finalizing our disapproval action, 
the State of Nevada withdrew both the Moderate Area SIP and Serious 
Area SIP from EPA consideration. As noted above, the withdrawal means 
that EPA cannot finalize the proposed disapproval action and the Agency 
is compelled to find that the State of Nevada has failed to make the 
required SIP submissions for the Las Vegas Valley PM-10 nonattainment 
area.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that the sanctions for failing to submit these 
plans are identical to those which would have been imposed had we 
finalized our disapproval action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is hopeful that in addition to withdrawing these plans, CCDCP 
intends to consult more broadly and openly with stakeholders concerned 
with the planning process; EPA urges them to do so. EPA is encouraged 
by recent efforts by CCDCP to develop an approvable PM-10 SIP that 
would replace the ones which have been withdrawn.
    EPA believes that some of the work found in the most recent CCDCP 
draft plan \6\ will contribute towards attaining the 24-hour and annual 
PM-10 standards. For instance, they have:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This plan, which was informally submitted to EPA on 
September 11, 2000, is entitled ``PM-10 State Implementation Plan 
for Clark County--September 2000 Draft.'' Some of this work is being 
currently implemented by the Clark County Health District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Adopted several new fugitive dust rules for significant 
sources, as well as some of the most advanced and stringent Best 
Management Practices for construction sites among PM-10 nonattainment 
areas,
     Conducted studies to identify vacant land in the Las Vegas 
Valley and they are engaging in public outreach efforts to vacant land 
owners regarding compliance with new requirements,

[[Page 1048]]

     Committed to hire additional staff to conduct inspections 
of fugitive dust sources to ensure rule compliance, and
     Funded near-term research on standards/test methods for 
fugitive dust sources.
    However, EPA notes that while we are encouraged by the work of 
CCDCP in developing an approvable PM-10 replacement SIP, we have also 
identified significant concerns with the draft plan that we have 
reviewed so far. Specifically, EPA is concerned about: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This list is not exhaustive. See letter from Kenneth F. 
Bigos, EPA to John Schlegel, CCDCP, dated November 15, 2000 for 
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The underlying data (including whether or not all emission 
sources are included) which ultimately must result in an accurate 
emissions inventory,
    (2) How the use of the locally-implemented paved road offset 
program may affect attainment and conformity,
    (3) The plan's treatment of mobile source emissions growth,
    (4) The plan's incomplete or inadequate process for determining 
appropriate controls for the area and measurement standards/techniques 
for certain sources (RACM/BACM and the most stringent measures analysis 
under CAA section 188(e)),
    (5) The plan's inaccurate determination that BACT application is 
unnecessary at sources which are clearly subject to such federal 
requirements,
    (6) An overall strategy to attain which inappropriately assumes 
future construction occurring on all vacant land within the 
nonattainment area,\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA notes that this is consistent with concerns that the 
Sierra Club raised both in its comment letter on the June 14, 2000 
proposed disapproval action and in its October 30, 2000 notice of 
intent to sue EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Failure to integrate the conformity budget into the plan so 
that the budget and the plan can be shown to be working together 
towards attainment, and
    (8) Failure to address significant elements necessary to justify an 
extension of time to achieve attainment of PM-10 standards.
    We are hopeful that by CCDCP working with the local agencies and 
business, environmental, and other stakeholders, our concerns will be 
addressed with the submittal of an approvable PM-10 SIP for the Las 
Vegas Valley area. Further, it is our understanding that CCDCP intends 
to adopt a plan which addresses our concerns on the following schedule:
     January 5, 2001--CCDCP will send a second draft of their 
draft plan to EPA for comment,
     March 20, 2001--CCDCP presents the draft plan to their 
Board and opens the public comment period on the plan,
     April 20, 2001--CCDCP will close the public comment 
period,
     June 2001--CCDCP's Board will approve the plan, and
     Late June 2001--State of Nevada will submit the plan to 
EPA for action.

II. Final Action

A. Rule

    EPA is today making a finding that the State of Nevada failed to 
submit SIP revisions addressing the CAA's moderate and serious area PM-
10 requirements to attain the 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS for the 
Las Vegas Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.

B. Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedures Act

    Today's action will be effective on December 20, 2000. Under the 
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency 
rulemaking may take effect before 30 days after the date of publication 
in the Federal Register if an agency has good cause to mandate an 
earlier effective date. Today's action concerns a SIP submission that 
is already overdue and the State has been aware of applicable 
provisions of the CAA relating to overdue SIPs. In addition, today's 
action simply starts a ``clock'' that will not result in sanctions for 
18 months, and that the State may ``turn off'' through the submission 
of a complete SIP submittal. These reasons support an effective date 
prior to 30 days after the date of publication.

C. Notice-and-Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act

    This final agency action is not subject to the notice-and-comment 
requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 533(b). EPA believes that because of 
the limited time provided to make findings of failure to submit 
regarding SIP submissions, Congress did not intend such findings to be 
subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent such 
findings are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA invokes the 
good cause exception pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Notice 
and comment are unnecessary because no EPA judgment is involved in 
making a nonsubstantive finding of failure to submit SIPs required by 
the CAA. Furthermore, providing notice and comment would be 
impracticable because of the limited time provided under the statute 
for making such determinations. Finally, notice and comment would be 
contrary to the public interest because it would divert Agency 
resources from the critical substantive review of submitted SIPs. See 
58 FR 51270, 51272, note 17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 
(August 4, 1994).

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.

C. 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 affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to OMB, 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 and 
other representatives of Indian tribal

[[Page 1049]]

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.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not 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, because it 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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 findings of failure to submit required 
SIP revisions do not by themselves create any new requirements. 
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 
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 today's action does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. The CAA provision discussed in this notice requires 
states to submit SIPs. This notice merely provides a finding that 
Nevada has not met that requirement. Accordingly, no additional costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of VCS.

H. 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. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which 
the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding 
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) that notice and 
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to 
the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency 
promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated 
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the 
reasons therefore, and established an effective date of December 20, 
2000. 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).

I. 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 March 6, 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 section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate 
matter, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


[[Page 1050]]


    Dated: December 20, 2000.
Amy Zimpfer,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-221 Filed 1-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P