Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Arizona SIP in the
We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation. Our proposed approval of these rules responded to a June 1, 2012 request from the State to parallel process versions of these rules. Our proposal explained that the above rules had not previously been submitted to us or had been adopted locally but had not been adopted specifically for purposes of approval into the federally enforceable SIP under CAA section 110.
On August 24, 2012, ADEQ submitted to EPA the versions of ADEQ 18-2-313 and 18-2-327 that were adopted locally on February 15, 2001 and December 7, 1995 respectively. On June 19, 2012, ADEQ submitted to EPA the version of Maricopa Rule 100, Section 500 that was adopted locally on March 15, 2006. On September 5, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal for ADEQ Rules 18-2-313 and 18-2-327, and MCAQD Rule 100, Section 500 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. We have reviewed these versions of the rules, and they are unchanged from the versions we proposed for approval on June 27, 2012.
On June 27, 2012, we also proposed approval of PCDEQ Rules 17.12.040 and 17.24.040 contingent upon EPA's receipt of fully adopted rules that satisfy state and local procedural requirements for SIP submittals. PCDEQ Rule 17.12.040 was not submitted to EPA and while PCDEQ Rule 17.24.040 was submitted on August 24, 2012, it did not include evidence of public notice as required by 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. As such, we are not finalizing our action on these rules at this time. If these rules are subsequently submitted to EPA, we may finalize their approval in a future rulemaking contingent upon the rules being substantially identical to the rules in our June 27, 2012 proposed action, and that the adopted rules satisfy relevant requirements for SIP submittals.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving Maricopa Rule 100, Section 500, ADEQ Rule 18-2-313 and ADEQ Rule 18-2-327 into the Arizona SIP.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
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 January 4, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(152) The following plan was submitted August 24, 2012, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporated by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(B) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.