Revisions To the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air Quality Control District, 41896-41900 [E7-14555]

Download as PDF 41896 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. 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. 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. 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 Local agency 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 20, 2007. Jane Diamond, Acting 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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(345)(i)(B)(1 ) and (347)(i)(A)(1 ) to read as follows: I § 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (345) * * * (i) * * * (B) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. (1 ) Rule 411, adopted on October 27, 2005. * * * * * (347) December 29, 2006 (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (1 ) Rule 4354, adopted on August 17, 2006. [FR Doc. E7–14586 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Rule No. PCAQCD ...................................... PCAQCD ...................................... PCAQCD ...................................... VerDate Aug<31>2005 this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. 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).) Jkt 211001 4–2–020 4–2–030 4–2–040 PO 00000 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0729; FRL–8439–2] Revisions To the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air Quality Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 and concerns particulate matter (PM–10) emissions from fugitive dust. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves local rules that regulate these emission sources and directs Arizona to correct rule deficiencies. Effective Date: This rule is effective on August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0729 for this action. The index to the docket 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: ´˜ Francisco Donez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. DATES: I. Proposed Action On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 60934), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the Arizona SIP. Rule title Adopted General [Fugitive Dust] ..................................................... Definitions [Fugitive Dust] ................................................. Standards [Fugitive Dust] ................................................. Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 06/29/93 06/29/93 06/29/93 Submitted 11/27/95 11/27/95 11/27/95 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Local agency Rule No. PCAQCD ...................................... 4–2–050 We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions include the following: 1. The exemption of agricultural activities from fugitive dust rules without justification in Rules 4–2–020 and 4–2–030. 2. Expression of rule requirements in highly general terms, using the vaguely defined criterion of ‘‘reasonable precaution,’’ in Rules 4–2–030 and 4–2– 040. 3. The absence of recordkeeping provisions in Rule 4–2–050. Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES II. Public Comments and EPA Responses EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from the following parties. 1. Donald P. Gabrielson, Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD); letter dated November 16, 2006 and received November 16, 2006. 2. Susan Asmus, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB); letter dated November 15, 2006 and received November 16, 2006. The comments and our responses are summarized below. Comment #1: PCAQCD commented that EPA’s proposed rule incorrectly stated that there are no previous versions of Rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, 4– 2–040, and 4–2–050 in the SIP. The comment pointed out that EPA approved Pinal County Regulation 7–3– 1.2 (Fugitive Dust) into the SIP on November 15, 1978 (43 FR 53034). Regulation 7–3–1.2 contains provisions similar to those in the submitted version of 4–2–040. Response #1: EPA acknowledges that this correction to our proposed rule is accurate. However, this error does not have any substantive impact on our proposed action. Comment #2: PCAQCD commented that the effective agricultural exemption in Rules 4–2–020 and 4–2–030 was removed in a subsequent amendment of these rules, adopted on January 24, VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 Rule title Monitoring and Records [Fugitive Dust] ........................... 2003. However, these amended rules were not submitted as SIP elements. Response #2: EPA acknowledges the 2003 amendments to Rules 4–2–020 and 4–2–030. However, we can only act on rules that have been submitted by the state as SIP amendments. As this comment indicates, the 2003 revisions were never submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. If PCAQCD submits the 2003 version of these rules as a SIP amendment, our objection to the agricultural exemption will be resolved. Comment #3: PCAQCD disagreed that the definition and use of ‘‘reasonable precaution’’ in Rules 4–2–030 and 4–2– 040, respectively, is not sufficiently clear or enforceable. They commented that formulating specific requirements for every dust-generating activity would be impractical. Response #3: In our General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 we explain that procedures for determining compliance with a rule must be ‘‘sufficiently specific and nonsubjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result.’’ See 57 FR 13498, 13568 (April 16, 1992). A SIP must also include ‘‘clear, unambiguous, and measurable requirements’’ for ensuring that sources are in compliance with control measures (ibid). These rules do not meet EPA’s enforceability criteria because they do not establish any standards by which to gauge source compliance with implementation of reasonable precautions. Rules 4–2–030 and 4–2– 040 allow Executive Officer discretion in determining when measures have ‘‘effectively prevented’’ the emission of fugitive dust. EPA considers such Executive Officer discretion a violation of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(A). In contrast, analogous rules in other areas describe specific requirements for significant sources of PM–10 by source category. Examples of district rules containing specific source category requirements include: • Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Arizona (MCESD), Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust). • San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, California (SJVUAPCD), Regulation 8 (Fugitive PM–10 Prohibitions). Æ Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities) PO 00000 Adopted Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 05/14/97 41897 Submitted 10/07/98 Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials) Rule 8041 (Carryout and Trackout) Rule 8051 (Open Areas) Rule 8061 (Paved and Unpaved Roads) Æ Rule 8071 (Unpaved Vehicle/ Equipment Traffic Areas) Æ Rule 8081 (Agricultural Sources) • South Coast Air Quality Management District, California (SCAQMD), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). • Clark County, Nevada. Æ Section 90 (Fugitive Dust From Open Areas and Vacant Lots) Æ Section 91 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads) Æ Section 92 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling and Storage Yards, and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards) Æ Section 93 (Fugitive Dust From Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment) Æ Section 94 (Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities) It is PCAQCD’s obligation to consider their own inventory and establish specific BACM requirements for significant source categories. EPA will work with PCAQCD to identify measures that are appropriate in light of local circumstances. Comment #4: PCAQCD disagreed with EPA’s assertion in our proposed rule that the absence of recordkeeping provisions in Rule 4–2–050 constitutes a rule deficiency. They further commented that the ‘‘reasonable precaution’’ standard, combined with monitoring information, is sufficient to ascertain compliance with these rules. Response #4: Recordkeeping provisions in prohibitory rules provide the main instruments for effective enforcement of regulatory requirements. Recordkeeping is needed in order to verify compliance with the requirements or limits established by the rule. Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act requires the inclusion of recordkeeping measures in any submitted SIP rule. Though recordkeeping requirements for fugitive dust may not be as detailed as those in typical stationary source rules, some feasible recordkeeping provisions are nevertheless required. Examples of district rules containing recordkeeping requirements include: • Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Arizona (MCESD), Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust). Æ Æ Æ Æ E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 41898 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations • San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, California (SJVUAPCD), Regulation 8 (Fugitive PM–10 Prohibitions), Rule 8011 (General Requirements). • South Coast Air Quality Management District, California (SCAQMD), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). • Clark County, Nevada. Æ Section 90 (Fugitive Dust From Open Areas and Vacant Lots) Æ Section 91 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads) Æ Section 92 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling and Storage Yards, and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards) Æ Section 93 (Fugitive Dust From Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment) Æ Section 94 (Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities) Comment #5: PCAQCD commented that EPA has no basis to impose sanctions on the basis of the currently submitted rules. They noted that the currently approved SIP Rule R7–3–1.2 also applies a ‘‘reasonable precaution’’ standard with respect to agricultural activity, and that EPA is not justified in starting a sanctions clock for the current rules, in which the ‘‘reasonable precaution’’ requirement is repeated. Response #5: We approved Rule 7–3– 1.2 into the SIP in 1978. Since that time, national policy on particulate matter and fugitive dust requirements has evolved. Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT) for stationary sources of PM–10. Section 189(b) requires that serious PM–10 nonattainment areas, in addition to meeting the RACM/RACT requirements, implement best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT). In the northern part of PCAQCD is the Apache Junction portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area, which is a serious PM–10 nonattainment area. In the northeastern part of PCAQCD is Hayden-Miami, which is a moderate PM–10 nonattainment area. PCAQCD regulates certain sources of PM–10 within both nonattainment areas. EPA’s guidance for both moderate and serious PM–10 nonattainment areas requires that RACM/RACT and BACM/ BACT be implemented for all source categories unless the State demonstrates that a particular source category does not contribute significantly to PM–10 levels in excess of the NAAQS (i.e., de VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 minimis sources). See the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, 42011 (August 16, 1994). The potential to emit of the emission activities subject to PCAQCD Rules 4–2– 020, 4–2–030, 4–2–040, and 4–2–050 comprises a small but significant portion of the total PM–10 emissions in the Phoenix metropolitan area, according to the August 1999 Apache Junction Portion of the Metropolitan Phoenix PM–10 Serious State Implementation Plan (PM–10 Plan). Therefore, Rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, 4– 2–040, and 4–2–050 must meet BACM/ BACT control levels. Under this standard, Rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, 4–2– 040, and 4–2–050 are not wholly approvable for inclusion in the SIP, and per Clean Air Act Section 179, a sanctions clock must be started. We also note the following from the preamble to the recently promulgated PM standards: ‘‘The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been working with the agricultural community to develop conservation systems and activities to control coarse particle emissions. Based on current ambient monitoring information, these USDA-approved conservation systems and activities have proven to be effective in controlling these emissions in areas where coarse particles emitted from agricultural activities have been identified as a contributor to violation of the NAAQS. The EPA concludes that where USDA-approved conservation systems and activities have been implemented, these systems and activities have satisfied the Agency’s reasonable available control measure and best available control measure requirements. The EPA believes that in the future, when properly implemented, USDA-approved conservation systems and activities should satisfy the requirements for reasonably available control measures or best available control measures.’’ Comment #6: NAHB sent a comment supporting EPA’s proposed action. Response #6: EPA acknowledges this comment. III. EPA Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rules. This action PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 incorporates the submitted rule into the Arizona SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rules. 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 Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the PCAQCD, and EPA’s final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing them. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ B. Paperwork Reduction Act 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.) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under sections 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 the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 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 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 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 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 41899 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. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 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. I. 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. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. J. Congressional Review Act 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). This rule will be effective August 31, 2007. K. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 41900 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 25, 2007. 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 paragraphs (c)(84)(i)(L) and (107)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows: I § 52.120 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (84) * * * (i) * * * (L) Rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, and 4–2– 040, adopted on June 29, 1993. * * * * * (107) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * (2) Rule 4–2–050, adopted on May 14, 1997. * * * * * [FR Doc. E7–14555 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0477; FRL–8448–5] sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 submitted by the state of Iowa for maintenance of the sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Muscatine, Iowa. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 1, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 31, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2007–0477, by one of the following methods: 1. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: Hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2007– 0477. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through https:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https:// www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the https:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at (913) 551–7039 or by e-mail at hamilton.heather@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What are the criteria for approval of a maintenance plan? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is in the state’s plan to maintain the standard? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41896-41900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14555]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0729; FRL-8439-2]


Revisions To the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County 
Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval 
of revisions to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) 
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was 
proposed in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 and concerns 
particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust. Under 
authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), 
this action simultaneously approves local rules that regulate these 
emission sources and directs Arizona to correct rule deficiencies.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on August 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0729 for 
this action. The index to the docket 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: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA 
Region IX, (415) 972-3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov.

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

I. Proposed Action

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 60934), EPA proposed a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for 
incorporation into the Arizona SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD................................         4-2-020  General [Fugitive Dust].        06/29/93        11/27/95
PCAQCD................................         4-2-030  Definitions [Fugitive           06/29/93        11/27/95
                                                         Dust].
PCAQCD................................         4-2-040  Standards [Fugitive             06/29/93        11/27/95
                                                         Dust].

[[Page 41897]]

 
PCAQCD................................         4-2-050  Monitoring and Records          05/14/97        10/07/98
                                                         [Fugitive Dust].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these 
rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA 
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because 
some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. 
These provisions include the following:
    1. The exemption of agricultural activities from fugitive dust 
rules without justification in Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030.
    2. Expression of rule requirements in highly general terms, using 
the vaguely defined criterion of ``reasonable precaution,'' in Rules 4-
2-030 and 4-2-040.
    3. The absence of recordkeeping provisions in Rule 4-2-050.
    Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this 
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received comments from the following parties.
    1. Donald P. Gabrielson, Pinal County Air Quality Control District 
(PCAQCD); letter dated November 16, 2006 and received November 16, 
2006.
    2. Susan Asmus, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB); 
letter dated November 15, 2006 and received November 16, 2006.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: PCAQCD commented that EPA's proposed rule incorrectly 
stated that there are no previous versions of Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 
4-2-040, and 4-2-050 in the SIP. The comment pointed out that EPA 
approved Pinal County Regulation 7-3-1.2 (Fugitive Dust) into the SIP 
on November 15, 1978 (43 FR 53034). Regulation 7-3-1.2 contains 
provisions similar to those in the submitted version of 4-2-040.
    Response #1: EPA acknowledges that this correction to our proposed 
rule is accurate. However, this error does not have any substantive 
impact on our proposed action.
    Comment #2: PCAQCD commented that the effective agricultural 
exemption in Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030 was removed in a subsequent 
amendment of these rules, adopted on January 24, 2003. However, these 
amended rules were not submitted as SIP elements.
    Response #2: EPA acknowledges the 2003 amendments to Rules 4-2-020 
and 4-2-030. However, we can only act on rules that have been submitted 
by the state as SIP amendments. As this comment indicates, the 2003 
revisions were never submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. If 
PCAQCD submits the 2003 version of these rules as a SIP amendment, our 
objection to the agricultural exemption will be resolved.
    Comment #3: PCAQCD disagreed that the definition and use of 
``reasonable precaution'' in Rules 4-2-030 and 4-2-040, respectively, 
is not sufficiently clear or enforceable. They commented that 
formulating specific requirements for every dust-generating activity 
would be impractical.
    Response #3: In our General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 we explain that 
procedures for determining compliance with a rule must be 
``sufficiently specific and nonsubjective so that two independent 
entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result.'' See 57 
FR 13498, 13568 (April 16, 1992). A SIP must also include ``clear, 
unambiguous, and measurable requirements'' for ensuring that sources 
are in compliance with control measures (ibid).
    These rules do not meet EPA's enforceability criteria because they 
do not establish any standards by which to gauge source compliance with 
implementation of reasonable precautions. Rules 4-2-030 and 4-2-040 
allow Executive Officer discretion in determining when measures have 
``effectively prevented'' the emission of fugitive dust. EPA considers 
such Executive Officer discretion a violation of Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2)(A).
    In contrast, analogous rules in other areas describe specific 
requirements for significant sources of PM-10 by source category. 
Examples of district rules containing specific source category 
requirements include:
     Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Arizona 
(MCESD), Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust).
     San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 
California (SJVUAPCD), Regulation 8 (Fugitive PM-10 Prohibitions).
[cir] Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and 
Other Earthmoving Activities)
[cir] Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials)
[cir] Rule 8041 (Carryout and Trackout)
[cir] Rule 8051 (Open Areas)
[cir] Rule 8061 (Paved and Unpaved Roads)
[cir] Rule 8071 (Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas)
[cir] Rule 8081 (Agricultural Sources)
     South Coast Air Quality Management District, California 
(SCAQMD), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust).
     Clark County, Nevada.
[cir] Section 90 (Fugitive Dust From Open Areas and Vacant Lots)
[cir] Section 91 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and 
Unpaved Easement Roads)
[cir] Section 92 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Parking Lots, Material 
Handling and Storage Yards, and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards)
[cir] Section 93 (Fugitive Dust From Paved Roads and Street Sweeping 
Equipment)
[cir] Section 94 (Permitting and Dust Control for Construction 
Activities)
    It is PCAQCD's obligation to consider their own inventory and 
establish specific BACM requirements for significant source categories. 
EPA will work with PCAQCD to identify measures that are appropriate in 
light of local circumstances.
    Comment #4: PCAQCD disagreed with EPA's assertion in our proposed 
rule that the absence of recordkeeping provisions in Rule 4-2-050 
constitutes a rule deficiency. They further commented that the 
``reasonable precaution'' standard, combined with monitoring 
information, is sufficient to ascertain compliance with these rules.
    Response #4: Recordkeeping provisions in prohibitory rules provide 
the main instruments for effective enforcement of regulatory 
requirements. Recordkeeping is needed in order to verify compliance 
with the requirements or limits established by the rule. Section 110(a) 
of the Clean Air Act requires the inclusion of recordkeeping measures 
in any submitted SIP rule. Though recordkeeping requirements for 
fugitive dust may not be as detailed as those in typical stationary 
source rules, some feasible recordkeeping provisions are nevertheless 
required. Examples of district rules containing recordkeeping 
requirements include:
     Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Arizona 
(MCESD), Rule 310 (Fugitive Dust).

[[Page 41898]]

     San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 
California (SJVUAPCD), Regulation 8 (Fugitive PM-10 Prohibitions), Rule 
8011 (General Requirements).
     South Coast Air Quality Management District, California 
(SCAQMD), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust).
     Clark County, Nevada.
[cir] Section 90 (Fugitive Dust From Open Areas and Vacant Lots)
[cir] Section 91 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and 
Unpaved Easement Roads)
[cir] Section 92 (Fugitive Dust From Unpaved Parking Lots, Material 
Handling and Storage Yards, and Vehicle and Equipment Storage Yards)
[cir] Section 93 (Fugitive Dust From Paved Roads and Street Sweeping 
Equipment)
[cir] Section 94 (Permitting and Dust Control for Construction 
Activities)
    Comment #5: PCAQCD commented that EPA has no basis to impose 
sanctions on the basis of the currently submitted rules. They noted 
that the currently approved SIP Rule R7-3-1.2 also applies a 
``reasonable precaution'' standard with respect to agricultural 
activity, and that EPA is not justified in starting a sanctions clock 
for the current rules, in which the ``reasonable precaution'' 
requirement is repeated.
    Response #5: We approved Rule 7-3-1.2 into the SIP in 1978. Since 
that time, national policy on particulate matter and fugitive dust 
requirements has evolved. Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA 
require moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas to implement reasonably 
available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) for stationary sources of PM-10. Section 
189(b) requires that serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, in addition to 
meeting the RACM/RACT requirements, implement best available control 
measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT). In 
the northern part of PCAQCD is the Apache Junction portion of the 
Phoenix metropolitan area, which is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. 
In the northeastern part of PCAQCD is Hayden-Miami, which is a moderate 
PM-10 nonattainment area. PCAQCD regulates certain sources of PM-10 
within both nonattainment areas.
    EPA's guidance for both moderate and serious PM-10 nonattainment 
areas requires that RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT be implemented for all 
source categories unless the State demonstrates that a particular 
source category does not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in 
excess of the NAAQS (i.e., de minimis sources). See the General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum to 
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, 42011 (August 16, 1994).
    The potential to emit of the emission activities subject to PCAQCD 
Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 comprises a small but 
significant portion of the total PM-10 emissions in the Phoenix 
metropolitan area, according to the August 1999 Apache Junction Portion 
of the Metropolitan Phoenix PM-10 Serious State Implementation Plan 
(PM-10 Plan). Therefore, Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 
must meet BACM/BACT control levels. Under this standard, Rules 4-2-020, 
4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 are not wholly approvable for inclusion 
in the SIP, and per Clean Air Act Section 179, a sanctions clock must 
be started.
    We also note the following from the preamble to the recently 
promulgated PM standards: ``The United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) has been working with the agricultural community to develop 
conservation systems and activities to control coarse particle 
emissions. Based on current ambient monitoring information, these USDA-
approved conservation systems and activities have proven to be 
effective in controlling these emissions in areas where coarse 
particles emitted from agricultural activities have been identified as 
a contributor to violation of the NAAQS. The EPA concludes that where 
USDA-approved conservation systems and activities have been 
implemented, these systems and activities have satisfied the Agency's 
reasonable available control measure and best available control measure 
requirements. The EPA believes that in the future, when properly 
implemented, USDA-approved conservation systems and activities should 
satisfy the requirements for reasonably available control measures or 
best available control measures.''
    Comment #6: NAHB sent a comment supporting EPA's proposed action.
    Response #6: EPA acknowledges this comment.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules 
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in 
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited 
approval of the submitted rules. This action incorporates the submitted 
rule into the Arizona SIP, including those provisions identified as 
deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously 
finalizing a limited disapproval of the rules. 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 
Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a 
federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we 
approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies 
within 24 months. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by 
the PCAQCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the 
local agency from enforcing them.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    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.)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal

[[Page 41899]]

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air 
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 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 
the 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 approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
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. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    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.

I. 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.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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). This rule will be effective August 31, 2007.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by

[[Page 41900]]

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, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 25, 2007.
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 paragraphs (c)(84)(i)(L) and 
(107)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (84) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (L) Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, and 4-2-040, adopted on June 29, 1993.
* * * * *
    (107) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 4-2-050, adopted on May 14, 1997.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E7-14555 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.