[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59456-59460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23986]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 078-0036; FRL-7380-9]


Revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a full disapproval of a revision to the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the 
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in 
the Federal Register on December 18, 2000 and concerns visible emission 
sources. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA 
or the Act), this action directs Arizona to correct the deficiencies in 
Rule R18-2-702.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Today's final rule is effective on October 23, 2002.

[[Page 59457]]


ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this 
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can 
inspect a copy of the submitted rule revisions at the following 
locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 West Washington 
Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415)947-4118.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

    On December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79037), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a full disapproval of the rule 
that was submitted for incorporation into the Arizona SIP.

                                            TABLE 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency                 Rule               Rule title            Amended      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ............................  R18-2-702                 General Provisions......     11/15/93      07/15/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPRM contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We 
extended this comment period on March 16, 2001 (66 FR 15212) to receive 
comments by April 16, 2001 and received comments from the following 
parties:
    Chuck Shipley, Arizona Mining Association (AMA); letter dated 
February 16, 2001 and received February 16, 2001.
    Scott Davis, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PWCC); letter dated 
February 15, 2001 and received February 16, 2001.
    Nancy Wrona, ADEQ; letter dated April 16, 2001 and received April 
16, 2001.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment I: AMA disagrees with EPA's position that the Rule R18-2-
702 procedure for an alternative opacity standard (AOS) is a SIP 
relaxation and is unacceptable. AMA states that a less rigorous ADEQ 
AOS procedure was previously approved into the SIP by EPA in old ADEQ 
Rule R9-3-501.
    AMA also states that 40 CFR 60.11(e)(6)-(8) in the General 
Provisions of EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) establishes 
a similar procedure for sources to receive a new opacity standard. AMA 
asserts that the ADEQ AOS procedure in Rule R18-2-702 is ``nearly 
identical'' to the federal NSPS procedure.
    Response: AMA appears to argue that the AOS procedure is not a 
relaxation because it is at least as stringent as the AOS procedure 
already approved in the SIP in Rule R9-3-501. This, however, is not 
relevant to the basis for EPA's disapproval. As explained in the NPRM, 
Rule R18-2-702 is deficient because it allows for a potential 
relaxation of the opacity standard to an AOS less than the ``RACM/
RACT'' that should be prescribed by the Rule. See CAA Sec. Sec.  
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) (requiring reasonably available control 
measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology 
(RACT), in moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas). The fact that EPA 
previously approved in error the ADEQ AOS procedure in Rule R9-3-501 is 
not a legal justification to reinforce this error in our action on Rule 
R18-2-702.
    EPA also cited as a deficiency the effect on federal 
enforceablility of the ADEQ Director's discretion to establish an AOS. 
The procedure does not ensure that the AOS will be adequately 
enforceable by EPA because it fails to require approval by EPA. EPA 
notes, however, that ADEQ may be able to revise the AOS procedure to 
include an opportunity for public comment and to require any AOS to be 
submitted to EPA for approval. This could reasonably ensure that RACM/
RACT requirements were fulfilled for the AOS and that the AOS is 
adequately enforceable by EPA.
    AMA's reference to the NSPS is not persuasive. The two rules are 
significantly different for the simple reason that the federal NSPS 
regulations require EPA review of any petition to adjust the opacity 
standards. EPA also notes that the NSPS procedure differs from the ADEQ 
AOS procedure in that the NSPS procedure allows for public review and 
comment. The ADEQ AOS procedure requires publication of the AOS, but 
does not allow for public comment. Thus, under Rule R18-2-702, EPA has 
no reasonable means to assure that the AOS will comply with RACM/RACT 
and be adequately enforceable by EPA.
    EPA concludes that Rule R18-2-702 is deficient because it allows 
for the potential relaxation of opacity standards below levels that are 
considered RACM/RACT and does not provide an opportunity for EPA to 
review such changes and ensure enforceability.
    Comment II: AMA disagrees with EPA's position that the revision 
limiting the applicability of the opacity standard to ``existing 
sources'' is a SIP relaxation. AMA notes that the term ``existing 
sources'' in Rule R18-2-101(41) includes any source (including a new 
source) that is not subject to an applicable NSPS. As a result, AMA 
asserts, all sources are covered by an opacity standard contained in at 
least one of the following citations:
    [sbull] ADEQ new source performance standards in ADEQ article 9 
[R18-2-9xx series rules].
    [sbull] ADEQ article 7 for existing specific sources [R18-2-7xx 
series rules].
    [sbull] ADEQ 40% opacity standard for existing general sources 
[submitted Rule R18-2-702].
    Response: Not all NSPSs contain opacity standards. Thus, the 
following new sources of PM-10 would be subject to an applicable NSPS 
but would not be covered by an opacity standard in any of the above 
citations:
    [sbull] Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators for Which Construction 
Is Commenced after August 17, 1971. Rule R18-2-901, subpart D.
    [sbull] Electric Utility Steam Generating Units for Which 
Construction Is Commenced after September 18, 1978. Rule R18-2-901, 
subpart Da.
    [sbull] Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units. 
Rule R18-2-901, subpart Db.
    [sbull] Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating 
Units. Rule R18-2-901, subpart Dc.
    [sbull] Incinerators. Rule R18-2-904.
    [sbull] Nitric Acid Plants. Rule R18-2-901, subpart G.
    [sbull] Primary Copper Smelters. Rule R18-2-901, subpart P.
    Therefore, by limiting Rule R18-2-702 to only ``existing sources,'' 
the

[[Page 59458]]

revisions to the rule amount to a relaxation compared to SIP Rule R9-3-
501, which applies to all sources.
    Because this revision would amount to a relaxation of a rule 
approved into the SIP before the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and 
applicable in nonattainment areas, the revision is precluded under 
section 193 of the Act.
    Comment III: AMA and PWCC assert that EPA is not determining a 
RACM/RACT 20% opacity standard consistent with EPA's PM-10 Guideline 
Document, EPA-452/R093-008. Specifically, they argue that RACM/RACT 
must not be a blanket, nationwide determination, and EPA or ADEQ must 
evaluate available control measures for reasonableness, considering the 
technological feasibility and the cost of control in the applicable 
area. AMA and PWCC point to an EPA statement in the Fort Hall PM-10 
federal implementation plan (FIP) (64 FR 7308, 7335 (Feb. 12, 1999)) 
for the proposition that while the ``general trend'' in State opacity 
limits is to a 20% standard and higher limits ``are rare,'' less 
stringent State limits theoretically could be considered RACT in 
certain circumstances. AMA and PWCC thus argue that ADEQ should be 
given the opportunity to do a RACM/RACT evaluation and that until ADEQ 
has performed that evaluation EPA has no basis to disapprove the 40% 
opacity standard of Rule R18-2-702.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the assertion that we have no basis to 
disapprove the 40% opacity standard pending a RACM/RACT evaluation by 
the State. To the contrary, it would be difficult to provide a rational 
basis for approving the proposed changes without a demonstration by the 
State that the rule meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
    The ADEQ opacity rule applies to major sources located in PM-10 
nonattainment areas of the State. Clean Air Act sections 172(c)(1) and 
189(a)(1)(C) together require SIPs for PM-10 moderate nonattainment 
areas to provide for RACM as expeditiously as practicable. In our April 
16, 1992, General Preamble for the Implementation of title I (``General 
Preamble''), we outlined our expectations for how States would comply 
with the requirement for RACM/RACT in PM-10 nonattainment area SIPs. 57 
FR 13498, 13540-41. We explained, sbull I11``The EPA believes it is 
reasonable for all available control measures that are technologically 
and economically feasible to be adopted for areas that do not 
demonstrate attainment.'' Id. at 13544. We added, ``EPA expects States 
to prepare a reasoned justification for rejection of any available 
control measure.'' Id. at 13540.
    One way a State can reject a control measure is to demonstrate that 
emissions from the sources affected by the measure are insignificant 
and, therefore, controls on these sources would not be reasonable. Id. 
In general, however, unless the State has made this demonstration, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to disapprove control measures, including 
substantive revisions to such measures, that do not ensure the 
application of RACM/RACT. See Ober v. EPA, 243 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th 
Cir. 2001) (noting that Agency has authority to exempt de minimis 
sources from RACM requirements but only where Agency ``cite[s] 
information to explain why it exempted certain sources as de minimis * 
* *''). Without an explanation from ADEQ as to why this control measure 
represents RACT or why the sources subject to this rule are not 
significant, we believe it is reasonable to disapprove the SIP revision 
before us.
    Commenters do not try to argue that the 40% opacity standard is in 
fact RACM/RACT. Commenters acknowledge that 20% opacity standards are 
in place in many parts of the country, and do not dispute that the 
technology to achieve these standards is generally available. Table 2 
lists some of the states and local agencies with a 20% opacity 
standard, or its equivalent of No. 1 Ringlemann, in their SIP rules.

                             Table 2.--State or District Opacity Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Per cent     Ringlemann No.
               State                     Local agency          opacity         opacity          SIP rule No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan..........................  .....................              20  ..............  R336.1301
New Mexico........................  .....................              20  ..............  20-2-61
Texas.............................  .....................              20  ..............  111.111
Washington........................  .....................              20  ..............  173-400-040
California........................  Bay Area AQMD........              20               1  Reg 6
California........................  Imperial County APCD.  ..............               1  401
California........................  Mojave Desert AQMD...  ..............               1  401
California........................  Sacramento             ..............               1  401
                                     Metropolitan AQMD
California........................  San Diego APCD.......  ..............               1  50
California........................  San Joaquin Valley     ..............               1  4101
                                     Unified APCD.
California........................  South Coast AQMD.....  ..............               1  401
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters' reference to the Fort Hall FIP only supports EPA's 
general expectation that an opacity standard should require 20% in 
order to be considered RACM/RACT. Commenters try to make an argument 
out of EPA's acknowledgment that higher limits, though ``rare,'' might 
be approved as RACM/RACT. Commenters, however, do not attempt to argue 
that this particular control measure fits within that ``rare'' 
exception. Without a demonstration by ADEQ, no such finding can 
reasonably be supported.
    At bottom, commenters appear to misconstrue EPA's finding in the 
NPRM. EPA is not promulgating a national RACM/RACT opacity standard by 
today's action. However, we believe that the widespread application of 
the 20% opacity standard, or its equivalent No. 1 Ringlemann, across 
the country is generally achievable and reasonably available unless the 
State demonstrates otherwise given particular local circumstances. 
Based on the significant information before the Agency showing that a 
more stringent opacity standard is generally considered RACM/RACT and 
lacking a demonstration from the State to rebut this significant 
information, it is reasonable for EPA to conclude the 40% opacity limit 
of Rule R18-2-702 fails to fulfill RACM/RACT. See National Steel Corp. 
v. Gorsuch, 700 F.2d 314, 323 (6th Cir. 1983) (``Where a state fails to 
supply the information necessary for a proper [RACT] evaluation by the 
EPA, the EPA must be free to use its own acquired knowledge.''). After 
this final disapproval action, the ADEQ will have

[[Page 59459]]

the opportunity to perform any appropriate RACM/RACT demonstration in a 
revised submittal of Rule R18-2-702.
    Comment IV: AMA and PWCC disagree with the EPA statement that ``the 
area regulated by the rule contains five counties that are PM-10 
moderate nonattainment areas'' and asserts that the nonattainment areas 
are small parts of these counties. PWCC argues that, at a minimum, EPA 
should approve this rule for all areas of the State except the small 
PM-10 nonattainment areas.
    Response: EPA agrees that only portions of the counties mentioned 
in the proposal are nonattainment for PM-10. In addition, some portions 
of these counties have been redesignated from nonattainment to 
maintenance and some portions of other Arizona counties are also 
nonattainment for PM-10 and subject to this rule. None of this, 
however, changes the nature of our review. Because the rule applies to 
sources in PM-10 nonattainment areas, we review the SIP revision 
against the requirements of CAA section 110 and part D, subparts 1 and 
4. For the reasons discussed above, Rule R18-2-702 does not meet these 
requirements for PM-10 nonattainment area SIPs.
    EPA's disapproval of the rule means that it will not be 
incorporated into the SIP for any portion of the State. EPA declines to 
follow PWCC's recommendation to approve the rule for the attainment 
areas of the State. First, the rule was not presented to EPA in a form 
that would allow EPA to approve a separable portion of the rule that 
applies only in the attainment areas. Thus, EPA has no mechanism to 
approve the rule in one part of a state and to disapprove it in 
another. Moreover, limited approval/disapproval of the rule would not 
be reasonable because the rule does not, as a whole, strengthen the SIP 
and is deficient not only with respect to the nonattainment 
requirements for RACT but also with respect to the more general 
requirements regarding enforceability. Finally, EPA notes that full 
disapproval should not create a problem for protecting air quality in 
attainment areas because the current SIP-approved version contains the 
same 40% opacity standard as provided in the disapproved rule.
    Comment V: AMA notes that it is not clear whether EPA's reference 
to ``PCAQCD Rule R18-2-702'' is referring to ADEQ, Pima County, or 
Pinal County Rule R18-2-702.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the typographical error where ``PCAQCD 
Rule R18-2-702'' should have been ``ADEQ Rule R18-2-702.'' However, we 
believe our intention was clear from the context.
    Comment VI: ADEQ comments that the State does not necessarily 
agree, as a matter of State policy, that the rule is contrary to 
federal requirements, but believes that the rule should be reexamined 
and commits to do so.
    Response: No response is required.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that would cause us to change from our 
proposed action on the rule. Therefore, as authorized in sections 
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a full disapproval 
of the submitted rule. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless 
EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule 
deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. 
These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the CAA as 
described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994). In addition, EPA must 
promulgate a FIP under section 110(c) unless we approve a subsequent 
SIP revision that corrects the rule deficiencies within 24 months of 
the effective date of today's final rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not subject to 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.

C. 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 and is not economically significant.

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 ldquo;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 
merely acts on a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of

[[Page 59460]]

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

F. 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.
    EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and title 
I, part D of the CAA does not affect any existing requirements 
applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements 
remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the 
state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's 
disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal 
requirements. Therefore, 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 CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
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).

G. 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 the approval action promulgated 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. This Federal action acts on 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.

H. 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.

I. 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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

J. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 22, 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 52

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

    Dated: August 25, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

    2. Section 52.133 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.133  Rules and regulations.

* * * * *
    (e) Rule R18-2-702 of the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality Rules and Regulations sets an opacity standard for emissions 
from stationary sources of PM-10. The standard does not fulfill the 
RACM/RACT requirements of section 189(a) of the CAA. The rule also does 
not comply with enforceability requirements of section 110(a) and SIP 
relaxation requirements of sections 110(l) and 193. Therefore, Rule 
R18-2-702 submitted on July 15, 1998 is disapproved.

[FR Doc. 02-23986 Filed 9-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P