Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 18624-18626 [06-3405]
Download as PDF
18624
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
This deviation is effective from
April 15, 2006 through April 29, 2006.
DATES:
Materials referred to in this
document are available for inspection or
copying at Commander (dpb) First Coast
Guard District, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is (617) 223–8364.
The Commander (dpb), First Coast
Guard District, maintains the public
docket for this temporary deviation.
ADDRESSES:
Joe
Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, at (212) 668–7069.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The AK
Railroad Bridge has a vertical clearance
in the closed position of 31 feet at mean
high water and 35 feet at mean low
water. The existing drawbridge
operating regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.747.
The owner of the bridge, New York
Economic Development Corporation,
requested a temporary deviation from
the drawbridge operating regulations to
facilitate the replacement of railroad ties
on the bridge lift span. The bridge will
not be able to open for vessel traffic
during the performance of this vital
maintenance. The Coast Guard is
approving this deviation to assure the
continued safe operation of the bridge
and to prevent an unscheduled closure
due to component failure that might
occur in the absence of these repairs.
Under this temporary deviation the
AK Railroad Bridge may remain in the
closed position as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On April 15, 2006, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
On April 22, 2006, 10:30 a.m. to 2:30
p.m.
On April 29, 2006, 10:42 a.m. to 2:44
p.m.
The bridge shall open on signal
during any of the bridge closure periods
upon a 30-minute notice from the U.S.
Coast Guard.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c),
this work will be performed with all due
speed in order to return the bridge to
normal operation as soon as possible.
This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR
117.35.
Dated: March 31, 2006.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 06–3513 Filed 4–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0227; FRL–8054–8]
Revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern procedures for the
calculation of sulfur emissions from
copper smelters. We are approving a
local rule that helps regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on June 12,
2006 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 12,
2006. If we receive such comments, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public
that this direct final rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0227, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov. and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al
Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
B. Are There Other Versions of the Rule?
C. What is the Purpose of the Submitted
Rule Amendments?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
B. Do the Rule Amendments Meet the
Evaluation Criteria?
C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
Table 1 lists the rule we are approving
with the date that the amended rule
became effective and was submitted by
the ADEQ.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE
Amended
effective
Agency
Rule No.
Rule title
ADEQ .....
R18–2–Appendix 8 ...................
Procedures for Utilizing the Sulfur Balance Method for Determining Sulfur Emissions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Apr 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
07/18/05
Submitted
03/01/06
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
ADEQ submitted this amended rule
(final but not yet codified) originally on
January 18, 2006 together with public
hearing and State rulemaking
documentation. On February 22, 2006,
this rule submittal was found to meet
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review. On March 1,
2006, ADEQ submitted the codified
version of this final rule as a
supplement to the original January 18,
2006 submittal.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
B. Are There Other Versions of the Rule?
We approved a version of ADEQ Rule
R18–2–Appendix 8 into the SIP on
November 1, 2004 (69 FR 63321).
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted
Rule Amendments?
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic
compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter, sulfur oxides, and other air
pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. This rule was
developed as part of the ADEQ’s
program to control sulfur oxides.
Rule R18–2–appendix 8 was granted a
limited approval and limited
disapproval on November 1, 2004. The
deficiencies in Rule R18–2–appendix 8
that conflict with section 110 and part
D of the CAA and prevented full
approval of the rule are summarized
below in the brackets, which are
followed by the amendments made to
correct the deficiencies:
• [Sections A.8.1.2 and A.8.2 contain
excessive Director’s discretion by
allowing the Director to approve an
equivalent method to calculate the
sulfur content without providing the
criteria that will be used to determine
approvability.] The amended rule
corrects the deficiency by requiring the
written approval by EPA in addition to
the Director of alternative methods of
obtaining sulfur content and removed
sulfur.
• [Sections A.8.1.2.1.1, A.8.1.2.1.2,
and A.8.1.2.1.3 should clarify how a
representative sample should be taken
from belt feeders, railcars, and trucks so
that the sampling process is not biased.
ADEQ may wish to investigate possible
ASTM methods or other industry
sampling methods.] This
recommendation by EPA for further
clarification was optional, and the
methods as stated along with the sample
preparation methods in section A8.1.2.2
will be accepted.
• [Sections A.8.1.2.3.1 and
A.8.1.2.3.2 should provide specific test
methods for the ‘‘barium sulfate’’ and
‘‘potassium iodine’’ procedures.] The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Apr 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
amended rule corrects the deficiency by
requiring specific test methods for
barium sulfate and potassium iodide in
section A8.4.3.
• [Section A.8.2.5.5 should provide a
specific test method for ‘‘chemical
gravimetric means.’’ Apparently it is
intended to be the ‘‘barium sulfate’’
method from section A.8.1.2.3.1. Also
the accuracy is stated as +50%, but it
should be a ± number. The accuracy of
a gravimetric procedure is normally
about ±1%, not ±50%.] The amended
rule corrects the deficiency by requiring
the barium sulfate gravimetric method
in section A8.4.3 and states the required
accuracy to be +/¥50% instead of
+50%. The actual accuracy is normally
much better than +/¥50%, but the
lesser accuracy required is not cause to
disapprove the rule.
• [The reference in A8.3.1 should be
changed from R18–2–715(C)(4) to R18–
2–715.01(K)–(O). Also, the reference in
A.8.3.2 should be changed from R18–2–
715(c)(7)(v) to R18–2–715.01(Q).] The
amended rule changes these references
appropriately.
EPA’s technical support document
(TSD) has more information about this
rule.
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
Generally, SIP rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(1) and
193). There are no specific reasonably
available control measures (RACM) or
best available control measures (BACM)
for administrative rules.
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to help evaluate specific
enforceability and RACT requirements
consistently include the following:
• Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40
CFR part 51.
• Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, EPA Region IX (August 21,
2001). (The Little Bluebook)
B. Do the Rule Amendments Meet the
Evaluation Criteria?
We believe the rule is consistent with
the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations,
BACM, and RACM. We also believe that
the submitted rule adequately addresses
the deficiencies identified in our
November 1, 2004 limited disapproval.
The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18625
C. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the CAA, EPA is fully approving the
submitted ADEQ Rule R18–2–Appendix
8 because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think
anyone will object to this approval, so
we are finalizing it without proposing it
in advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register,
we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submitted rule. If
we receive adverse comments by May
12, 2006, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that the direct final
approval will not take effect and we will
address the comments in a subsequent
final action based on the proposal. If we
do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will
be effective without further notice on
June 12, 2006. This will incorporate this
rule into he federally enforceable SIP
and permanently terminate all sanctions
and FIP implications of our 2004
limited disapproval.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
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
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
18626
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have federalism
implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices provided
that they meet the criteria of the Clean
Air Act. 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 SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,
when it reviews a SIP submission, to
use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. This, 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. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 June 12, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Apr 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 22, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(130) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(130) An amended regulation was
submitted on March 1, 2006, by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
(1) Rule R18–2–Appendix 8, adopted
on December 22, 1976 and amended
effective on July 18, 2005.
[FR Doc. 06–3405 Filed 4–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0227, FRL–8054–9]
Interim Final Determination To Stay
and/or Defer Sanctions, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim
final determination to stay and/or defer
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
imposition of sanctions based on a
direct final approval of a revision to the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
published elsewhere in today’s Federal
Register. The revisions concern ADEQ
Rule R18–2–Appendix 8.
DATES: This interim final determination
is effective on April 12, 2006. However,
comments will be accepted until May
12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0227, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al
Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18624-18626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3405]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0227; FRL-8054-8]
Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
procedures for the calculation of sulfur emissions from copper
smelters. We are approving a local rule that helps regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on June 12, 2006 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 12, 2006. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0227, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
B. Are There Other Versions of the Rule?
C. What is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Amendments?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
B. Do the Rule Amendments Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date that the
amended rule became effective and was submitted by the ADEQ.
Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended
Agency Rule No. Rule title effective Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ.................... R18-2-Appendix 8.......... Procedures for Utilizing 07/18/05 03/01/06
the Sulfur Balance Method
for Determining Sulfur
Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18625]]
ADEQ submitted this amended rule (final but not yet codified)
originally on January 18, 2006 together with public hearing and State
rulemaking documentation. On February 22, 2006, this rule submittal was
found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review. On March 1, 2006, ADEQ
submitted the codified version of this final rule as a supplement to
the original January 18, 2006 submittal.
B. Are There Other Versions of the Rule?
We approved a version of ADEQ Rule R18-2-Appendix 8 into the SIP on
November 1, 2004 (69 FR 63321).
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Amendments?
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, sulfur oxides, and other air pollutants which harm
human health and the environment. This rule was developed as part of
the ADEQ's program to control sulfur oxides.
Rule R18-2-appendix 8 was granted a limited approval and limited
disapproval on November 1, 2004. The deficiencies in Rule R18-2-
appendix 8 that conflict with section 110 and part D of the CAA and
prevented full approval of the rule are summarized below in the
brackets, which are followed by the amendments made to correct the
deficiencies:
[Sections A.8.1.2 and A.8.2 contain excessive Director's
discretion by allowing the Director to approve an equivalent method to
calculate the sulfur content without providing the criteria that will
be used to determine approvability.] The amended rule corrects the
deficiency by requiring the written approval by EPA in addition to the
Director of alternative methods of obtaining sulfur content and removed
sulfur.
[Sections A.8.1.2.1.1, A.8.1.2.1.2, and A.8.1.2.1.3 should
clarify how a representative sample should be taken from belt feeders,
railcars, and trucks so that the sampling process is not biased. ADEQ
may wish to investigate possible ASTM methods or other industry
sampling methods.] This recommendation by EPA for further clarification
was optional, and the methods as stated along with the sample
preparation methods in section A8.1.2.2 will be accepted.
[Sections A.8.1.2.3.1 and A.8.1.2.3.2 should provide
specific test methods for the ``barium sulfate'' and ``potassium
iodine'' procedures.] The amended rule corrects the deficiency by
requiring specific test methods for barium sulfate and potassium iodide
in section A8.4.3.
[Section A.8.2.5.5 should provide a specific test method
for ``chemical gravimetric means.'' Apparently it is intended to be the
``barium sulfate'' method from section A.8.1.2.3.1. Also the accuracy
is stated as +50%, but it should be a number. The accuracy
of a gravimetric procedure is normally about 1%, not 50%.] The amended rule corrects the deficiency by requiring the
barium sulfate gravimetric method in section A8.4.3 and states the
required accuracy to be +/-50% instead of +50%. The actual accuracy is
normally much better than +/-50%, but the lesser accuracy required is
not cause to disapprove the rule.
[The reference in A8.3.1 should be changed from R18-2-
715(C)(4) to R18-2-715.01(K)-(O). Also, the reference in A.8.3.2 should
be changed from R18-2-715(c)(7)(v) to R18-2-715.01(Q).] The amended
rule changes these references appropriately.
EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
this rule.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(1) and
193). There are no specific reasonably available control measures
(RACM) or best available control measures (BACM) for administrative
rules.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate
specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001). (The Little Bluebook)
B. Do the Rule Amendments Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
We believe the rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, BACM, and RACM. We
also believe that the submitted rule adequately addresses the
deficiencies identified in our November 1, 2004 limited disapproval.
The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully
approving the submitted ADEQ Rule R18-2-Appendix 8 because we believe
it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will
object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it
in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same
submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by May 12, 2006, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the
public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will
address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the
proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct
final approval will be effective without further notice on June 12,
2006. This will incorporate this rule into he federally enforceable SIP
and permanently terminate all sanctions and FIP implications of our
2004 limited disapproval.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
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
[[Page 18626]]
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have
federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
in-consistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. This, 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. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 June 12, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 22, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(130) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(130) An amended regulation was submitted on March 1, 2006, by the
Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(1) Rule R18-2-Appendix 8, adopted on December 22, 1976 and amended
effective on July 18, 2005.
[FR Doc. 06-3405 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M