[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63175-63180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30148]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AZ062-OPP; FRL-7113-4]


Clean Air Act Full Approval of the Operating Permits Program; 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department, Pima County Department of 
Environmental Quality, AZ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to fully approve the operating 
permits programs submitted by the State of Arizona (collectively ``the 
Arizona programs'') on behalf of the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (``ADEQ'' or ``State''), Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department (``MCESD'' or ``Maricopa''), and Pima 
County Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona (``PDEQ'' or 
``Pima''). The Arizona programs were submitted in response to the 
directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that permitting 
authorities develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating 
permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources 
within the permitting authorities' jurisdiction. On October 30, 1996, 
EPA granted interim approval to the ADEQ, MCESD and PDEQ operating 
permits programs. These agencies revised their programs to satisfy the 
conditions of the interim approval, and EPA proposed full approval of 
the ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ programs in the Federal Register on October 
2, 2001, October 18, 2001, and September 10, 2001, respectively. EPA 
received three comments on our proposed full approval of the ADEQ 
program and one comment on the Maricopa program. EPA's responses are 
included in Section II of this action.
    This action promulgates final full approval of the ADEQ, MCESD and 
PDEQ operating permits programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ submittals and other 
supporting information used in developing this final full approval are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. You may also see copies of the 
submitted title V programs for each of the respective agencies at the 
following locations:


[[Page 63176]]


(1) ADEQ--Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3033 North 
central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2809.
(2) MCESD--Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Air 
Quality Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix, 
Arizona 85004.
(3) PDEQ--Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, 130 West 
Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emmanuelle Rapicavoli, EPA Region 9, 
at 415-972-3969 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section contains additional information 
about our final rulemaking, organized as follows:

I. Background on the ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ Operating permits 
programS
II. Comments received by EPA on our proposed rulemaking and EPA's 
responses
III. EPA's final action.

I. Background on the ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ Operating Permits 
Programs

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 required all state and 
local permitting authorities to develop operating permits programs that 
meet certain federal criteria. The ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ operating 
permits programs were submitted in response to this directive. Because 
the Arizona programs substantially, but not fully, met the requirements 
of part 70, EPA granted interim approval to the programs in a 
rulemaking published on October 30, 1996. See 61 FR 55910. The interim 
approval notice described the conditions that had to be met in order 
for the Arizona programs to receive full approval.
    The State, Maricopa and Pima revised their title V programs to 
address the conditions of the interim approval. EPA promulgated 
proposals to approve the ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ programs on October 2, 
2001 (66 FR 50136), October 18, 2001 (66 FR 52882), and September 10, 
2001 (66 FR 46972), respectively.

II. Comments Received by EPA on Our Proposed Rulemaking and EPA's 
Responses

    EPA received three comment letters on our proposed full approval of 
the ADEQ program and one comment letter on the Maricopa program. With 
one exception, all of the comment letters focused exclusively on the 
need to revise the major source definition in Part 70. EPA published a 
final rule addressing this issue on November 27, 2001 and therefore EPA 
is not responding to those comments. EPA's response to the remaining 
comments on the ADEQ program, submitted by The Arizona Center for Law 
in the Public Interest (ACLPI), is set out below.

1. Excess Emissions Provision

    ACLPI objects to language in R18-2-310 that establishes an 
affirmative defense for violations occurring during startup and 
shutdown. EPA has proposed to approve the removal of R18-2-310 from the 
title V program:
    In addition to proposing to approve the rules listed in Table 1, 
EPA is also proposing to approve the removal of R18-2-310, Excess 
Emissions, from the State's title V program.

See 66 FR 50138, October 2, 2001. Therefore, EPA construes ACLPI's 
comment as supporting its proposed action.

2. Reference Test Methods and Credible Evidence

    ACLPI contends that ADEQ's title V permits routinely require only 
specific test methods and do not allow for additional credible evidence 
to be presented to prove, or disprove, an alleged violation. They state 
that the State's operating permit program does not appear to include 
EPA's credible evidence rule. ACLPI concludes that, before Arizona's 
title V program is fully approved, ADEQ must make the necessary changes 
to include the Credible Evidence Rule.
    EPA agrees with the commenter's point that state implementation 
plans and permits should not bar the use of credible evidence for 
determining whether a source is in compliance. We disagree, however, 
with the commenter's suggestion that a permit condition that requires a 
source to monitor in accordance with a specific method bars the use of 
additional credible evidence in determining compliance.
    The preamble to EPA's Credible Evidence Revisions states that the 
``regulation merely removes [from 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60 and 61] what 
some have construed to be a regulatory bar to the admission of non-
reference test data to prove a violation of an emission standard.'' See 
62 FR 8315, February 24, 1997. One aspect of EPA's review of title V 
programs and permits includes a determination that no bars to 
enforcement are included. For example, EPA would consider language such 
as ``compliance shall be determined by test method X'' as problematic. 
Contrary to ACLPI's position, neither the CAA nor EPA's regulations 
require part 70 programs or permits to include specific references to 
credible evidence. The presumption is that, absent language precluding 
its use, credible evidence can be used. ACLPI argues, for example, that 
the North Star Steel draft permit requires that the permittee shall 
perform initial and annual performance tests to determine opacity using 
EPA Method 9. ACLPI suggests that this condition bars the use of 
credible evidence to prove or disprove an alleged violation. EPA 
disagrees. Permits must impose monitoring requirements on sources and, 
in order to be effective, must specify the type of monitoring a source 
must undertake. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3). The language in the draft North 
Star Steel permit does not bar the use of other credible evidence. It 
merely sets out the source's monitoring obligations.EPA understands 
that ADEQ shares our interpretation.

3. Arizona's Confidentiality Provision

    ACLPI commented that Arizona's operating permits program is not 
approvable because it does not adequately satisfy federal standards and 
that A.R.S. 49-432 must be amended to accommodate the public's right to 
have access to information. The opportunity for public comment on EPA's 
proposed action to grant full approval of the ADEQ program was limited 
to the issue of whether ADEQ corrected the items EPA had identified as 
program deficiencies during the interim approval process. Thus, EPA's 
proposal to grant full approval did not include ADEQ's confidentiality 
provisions, which EPA had previously approved as part of ADEQ's 
program. See 61 FR 55915, October 30, 1996. The comment is therefore 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, EPA will be responding to 
this same comment, which was also raised by ACLPI during the 90-day 
public comment period, under separate cover by December 14, 2001.

4. Definition of Major Source

    ACLPI comments that EPA cannot lawfully approve Arizona's major 
source definition unless EPA completes the rulemaking process that will 
change the definition in part 70. EPA agrees with ACLPI and in fact 
took that position in the notice proposing full approval of ADEQ's 
program. We stated that our full approval of the ADEQ program was 
contingent on EPA finalizing changes to the major source definition 
that would result in ADEQ's major source definition being consistent 
with part 70. See 66 FR 50138, October 2, 2001. EPA finalized these 
changes in a rule signed by the Administrator on November 19, 2001, and 
published in the Federal

[[Page 63177]]

Register on November 27, 2001 (See 66 FR 59161).

5. Fugitive Emissions From Agricultural Equipment

    ACLPI states that there is no legitimate reason to exclude 
agricultural equipment from regulation under title V and therefore, EPA 
cannot fully approve Arizona's title V program until A.R.S. Sec. 49-
426(B) is amended to require that agricultural sources count fugitive 
emissions.
    Arizona's program does not exclude agricultural equipment from 
regulation under title V. As noted in EPA's notice granting interim 
approval of ADEQ's title V program, the Arizona Attorney General 
submitted an opinion that the legislature in no way sought to exempt 
any major sources when it granted an exemption to agricultural 
equipment used in normal farm operations. The opinion went on to state 
that this was clarified by AAC R18-2-302(c)(3), which provides that 
agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations does not include 
equipment that requires a permit under title V or is subject to a 
standard under 40 CFR parts 60 or 61. EPA deferred to that opinion, but 
noted that if there is a successful legal challenge to the ADEQ's 
regulation, we would revisit this portion of the program approval. See 
61 FR 55915, October 30, 1996.
    Part 70 currently requires that fugitive emissions generated by 
sources that are subject to a standard promulgated under section 111 or 
112 of the Clean Air Act must be included when determining whether a 
source is major. Sources are also required to count all fugitive 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Under part 70, fugitive 
emissions from any agricultural equipment regulated by such standards 
or that emits hazardous air pollutants must count towards the major 
source threshold. ADEQ's rules are consistent with this approach.
    After carefully reviewing and considering the issues raised by the 
commenter, EPA is taking final action to give full approval to the 
Arizona operating permits program.

III. EPA's Final Action

A. Full Approval of Operating Permit Programs

    EPA is granting full approval to the operating permits programs 
submitted by ADEQ, MCESD, and, Pima based on the revisions submitted 
for ADEQ on August 11, 1998, May 9, 2001, and September 7, 2001, for 
MCESD on September 7, 2001, and for PDEQ on May 28, 1998 and November 
9, 2001, which satisfactorily address the program deficiencies 
identified in EPA's October 30, 1996 interim approval (61 FR 55910). 
EPA is also approving, as title V operating permits program revisions, 
additional changes made to the Arizona programs. These deficiency 
corrections and additional program revisions are described in detail in 
the Federal Register notices proposing full approval of the Arizona 
programs and their accompanying technical support documents.
    In our proposed approvals of the Arizona programs, we noted that 
ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ had revised their major source definition in 
anticipation of EPA finalizing a previously proposed change (59 FR 
44460; August 29, 1994) to the major source definition in part 70. 
Paragraph (c) of Arizona programs' definition of major source lists 
source categories that must count fugitives. Subparagraph (xxvii) has 
been modified to read: ``All other stationary source categories 
regulated by a standard promulgated as of August 7, 1980 under section 
111 or 112 of the Act, but only with respect to those air pollutants 
that have been regulated for that category.'' Emphasis added. The 
addition of this 1980 cutoff date restricts the types of sources that 
are required to count fugitives towards the major source threshold. At 
the time of our proposed full approvals this change was inconsistent 
with part 70. Because EPA's proposed revision to the major source 
definition would incorporate the 1980 cutoff date we proposed to 
approve the ADEQ, MCESD, and PDEQ definition of major source contingent 
on EPA finalizing our proposed change to part 70.
    On November 19, 2001, the Administrator signed a rulemaking package 
that finalized EPA's change to paragraph (2)(xvii) of the part 70 
definition of major source. The revised paragraph now reads, ``(xvii) 
Any other stationary source category, which as of August 7, 1980 is 
being regulated by a standard promulgated under section 111 or 112 of 
the Act.'' This change means that part 70 no longer requires states to 
provide that sources in categories subject to standards under sections 
111 or 112 promulgated after August 7, 1980 must include fugitive 
emissions in determining major source status under section 302 or part 
D of title I of the Clean Air Act. As a consequence of this change to 
part 70, the definition of major source in the Arizona programs is no 
longer inconsistent with part 70 and is now fully approvable.
    In addition to the above described change, EPA has deleted the 
phrase ``but only with respect to those air pollutants that have been 
regulated for that category'' from paragraph (c)(xvii) of the part 70 
definition of major source. EPA proposed to delete this phrase in its 
1995 supplemental proposal to revise part 70. See 60 FR 45530, August 
31, 1995. States, including the Arizona agencies, must revise their 
part 70 programs accordingly, and submit the revision to EPA within 12 
months of the date of publication of the final rule. If a state can 
demonstrate that additional legal authority is needed, the deadline for 
submittal of a revised program can be extended to 24 months after EPA's 
rule is published.
    For more details on these changes to the part 70 major source 
definition, please see the notice signed by the Administrator on 
November 19, 2001 and published in the Federal Register on November 27, 
2001 (See 66 FR 59161). Interested parties can download the final rule 
from EPA's website on the Internet under recent actions at the 
following address: http//www.epa.gov/ttn.oarpg/ramain.html.
    The rules for which we are granting full approval are listed in the 
tables below.

                              Table 1.--Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Rule title and specific sections
                 Rule No.                           being approved            Effective    Submitted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R18-2-101 (61)...........................  Definitions--definition of             6/4/98      8/11/98
                                            ``Major source'' only.
R18-2-304................................  Permit application processing        12/20/99       5/9/01
                                            procedures.
R18-2-306................................  Permit contents.................       6/4/98      8/11/98
R18-2-320................................  Significant Permit Revisions....     12/20/99       5/9/01
R18-2-331................................  Material Permit Conditions......       6/4/98      8/11/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to proposing to approving the rules listed in Table 1, EPA 
is also removing R18-2-310, Excess Emissions, from the State's title V 
program.

[[Page 63178]]



                           Table 2.--Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Rule title and specific sections
                   Rule No.                              proposed for approval            Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation I, Rule 100........................  General Provisions and Definitions....      8/22/01       9/7/01
                                                 The following provisions from
                                                 Sec.  200, Definitions: Sec.  200.26
                                                 ``Building, Structure, Facility, or
                                                 Installation'' Sec.  200.58
                                                 ``Insignificant Activity'' Sec.
                                                 200.60 ``Major Source'' Sec.  200.107
                                                 ``Trade Secret'' Sec.  200.108
                                                 ``Trivial Activity''.
                                                 Sec.  402, Confidentiality of
                                                 Information.
                                                 Sec.  500 Monitoring of
                                                 Records.
Regulation I, Rule 130........................  Emergency Provisions..................      7/26/00       9/7/01
Regulation II, Rule 200.......................  Permit Requirements...................      8/22/01       9/7/01
                                                 Sec.  308--Standards for
                                                 Applications.
                                                 Sec.  312--Transition from
                                                 Installation and Operating Permit
                                                 Program to Unitary Permit Program.
Regulation II, Rule 210.......................  Title V Permit Provisions.............       2/7/01       9/7/01
                                                 Sec.  301.4(h)...............
                                                 Sec.  302.1(j)...............
                                                 Sec.  302.1(n)...............
                                                 Sec.  404--Administrative
                                                 Permit Amendments.
                                                 Sec.  405.1..................
                                                 Sec.  408--Public
                                                 Participation.
Appendix D....................................  List of Insignificant Activities......      8/22/01       9/7/01
Appendix E....................................  List of Trivial Activities............      8/22/01       9/7/01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table 3.--Pima Department of Environmental Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Rule title and specific sections being
                   Rule No.                                    approved                   Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.04.340.A. (122)............................  Words, phrases, and terms--definition       9/11/01      11/9/01
                                                 of ``Major source'' only.
17.04.340.A. (109)............................  Words, phrases, and terms--definition        4/7/98      5/28/98
                                                 of ``Insignificant activity'' only.
17.12.150.....................................  Transition from installation and            9/11/01      11/9/01
                                                 operating permit program to unitary
                                                 permit program.
17.12.160.....................................  Permit application processing                4/7/98      5/28/98
                                                 procedures.
17.12.180.....................................  Permit contents.......................       4/7/98      5/28/98
17.12.345.....................................  Public notification...................       4/7/98      5/28/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Effective Date of Full Approval

    EPA is using the good cause exception under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) to make the full approval of the Arizona programs 
effective on November 30, 2001. In relevant part, the APA provides that 
publication of ``a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days 
before its effective date, except--* * * (3) as otherwise provided by 
the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3). Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA provides that good cause may 
be supported by an agency determination that a delay in the effective 
date is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 
EPA finds that it is necessary and in the public interest to make this 
action effective sooner than 30 days following publication. In this 
case, EPA believes that it is in the public interest for the Arizona 
programs to take effect before December 1, 2001. EPA's interim approval 
of the Arizona programs expires on December 1, 2001. In the absence of 
this full approval of Arizona's amended programs taking effect on 
November 30, the federal program under 40 CFR part 71 would 
automatically take effect in Arizona and would remain in place until 
the effective date of the fully-approved state program. EPA believes it 
is in the public interest for sources, the public, ADEQ, MCESD, and 
PCDEQ to avoid any gap in coverage of the Arizona program, as such a 
gap could cause confusion regarding permitting obligations. 
Furthermore, a delay in the effective date is unnecessary because ADEQ, 
MCESD, and PCDEQ have been administering the title V permit program for 
5 years under an interim approval. Through this action, EPA is 
approving a few revisions to the existing and currently operational 
program. The change from the interim approved program which 
substantially met the part 70 requirements, to the fully approved 
program is relatively minor, in particular if compared to the changes 
between a state-established and administered program and the federal 
program.

C. Scope of the Full Approval

    In their program submissions, neither ADEQ, Maricopa County nor 
Pima Country asserted jurisdiction over Indian country. To date, no 
tribal government in Arizona has applied to EPA for approval to 
administer a title V program in Indian country within the state. EPA 
regulations at 40 CFR part 49 govern how eligible Indian tribes may be 
approved by EPA to implement a title V program on Indian reservations 
and in non-reservation areas over which the tribe has jurisdiction. 
EPA's part 71 regulations govern the issuance of federal operating 
permits in Indian country. EPA's authority to issue permits in Indian 
country was challenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. No. 99-1151). On 
October 30, 2001, the court issued its decision in the case, vacating a 
provision that would have allowed EPA to treat areas over which EPA 
determines there is a question regarding the area's status as if it is 
Indian country, and remanding to EPA for further proceedings. EPA will 
respond to the court's remand and explain EPA's approach for further 
implementation of part 71 in Indian country in a future action.

D. Public Comment Letters

    On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a rulemaking that extended the 
interim approval period of 86 operating permits programs until December 
1, 2001. (65 FR 32035) The action was subsequently

[[Page 63179]]

challenged by the Sierra Club and the New York Public Interest Research 
Group (NYPIRG). In settling the litigation, EPA agreed to publish a 
notice in the Federal Register that would alert the public that they 
may identify and bring to EPA's attention alleged programmatic and/or 
implementation deficiencies in Title V programs and that EPA would 
respond to their allegations within specified time periods if the 
comments were made within 90 days of publication of the Federal 
Register notice.
    Two groups submitted comments on what they believe to be 
deficiencies with respect to the Arizona, Maricopa County and Pima 
County Title V programs. As stated in the Federal Register notice 
published on October 2, 2001 (66 FR 50136), October 18, 2001 (66 FR 
52882), and September 10, 2001 (66 FR 46972) proposing to fully approve 
Arizona, Maricopa County and Pima County operating permit programs 
respectively, EPA takes no action on those comments in today's action. 
Rather, EPA expects to respond by December 14, 2001 to timely public 
comments on programs that have obtained interim approval, and by April 
1, 2002 to timely comments on fully approved programs. We will publish 
a notice of deficiency (NOD) when we determine that a deficiency 
exists, or we will notify the commenter in writing to explain our 
reasons for not making a finding of deficiency. In addition, we will 
publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register notifying the 
public that we have responded in writing to these comments and how the 
public may obtain a copy of our response. An NOD will not necessarily 
be limited to deficiencies identified by citizens and may include any 
deficiencies that we have identified through our program oversight. 
Furthermore, in the future, EPA may issue an additional NOD if EPA or a 
citizen identifies other deficiencies.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final approval is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the Administrator certifies that this final 
approval will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because it merely approves state law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. This rule does not contain any 
unfunded mandates and does not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4) because it approves pre-existing requirements under 
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duties beyond 
that required by state law. This rule also does not have tribal 
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as 
specified by Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 
rule also does not have Federalism implications because it 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, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999). This rule merely approves existing requirements under 
state law, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the State and the Federal government 
established in the Clean Air Act. This final approval also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) or Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. This action will not impose any collection of 
information subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than those previously approved and 
assigned OMB control number 2060-0243. For additional information 
concerning these requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.
    In reviewing State operating permit programs submitted pursuant to 
title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve State programs provided 
that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's 
regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence 
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State 
operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating 
permit program , to use VCS in place of a State program that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2). This rule will be effective on November 30, 2001.
    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 February 4, 2002. 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 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 28, 2001.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.


    40 CFR part 70, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:

[[Page 63180]]

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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


    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(b), and adding paragraph (c)(3) under Arizona to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Arizona

    (a) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality:
    (1) Submitted on November 15, 1993 and amended on March 14, 
1994; May 17, 1994; March 20, 1995; May 4, 1995; July 22, 1996; and 
August 12, 1996; interim approval effective on November 29, 1996; 
interim approval expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on August 11, 1998, May 9, 2001 and 
September 7, 2001. Full approval is effective on November 30, 2001.
    (b) Maricopa County Environmental Services Department:
    (1) Submitted on November 15, 1993 and amended on December 15, 
1993; January 13, 1994; March 9, 1994; and March 21, 1995; July 22, 
1996; and August 12, 1996; interim approval effective on November 
29, 1996; interim approval expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on September 7, 2001. Full approval is 
effective on November 30, 2001.
    (c) * * *
    (3) Revisions submitted on May 30, 1998 and November 9, 2001. 
Full approval is effective on November 30, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-30148 Filed 12-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P