[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64415-64417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29820]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[AZ-001-BU; FRL-6183-7]
Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment
Area; Ozone; Extension of Plan Submittal Deadline
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 6, 1997, EPA published a rule announcing our
finding that the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area had failed to
attain the 1-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone as
required by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). This finding
resulted in the area being reclassified by operation of law from a
``moderate'' to a ``serious'' ozone nonattainment area. In the rule, we
also set a deadline of December 8, 1998 for Arizona to submit the
revisions to its implementation plan that are needed to meet the Act's
requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas. In this action, we
are extending the submittal deadline to March 22, 1999.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 4, 1999 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 7, 1998. If
EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal Federal
Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Please address comment to Frances Wicher, Office of Air
Planning (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. We have also placed
a copy of this document in the air programs section of our website at
www.epa.gov/region09/air.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher at (415) 744-1248 or
wicher.frances@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
What Action Is EPA Taking in This Rule?
EPA is extending by three and one-half months, until March 22,
1999, the
[[Page 64416]]
date by which the State of Arizona must submit the revisions to the
Phoenix metropolitan area's state implementation plan (SIP) that are
needed to meet the Clean Air Act's requirements for serious ozone
nonattainment areas. These revisions include a demonstration that the
area will meet the 1-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than November 15, 1999; a demonstration that
the plan provides for at least a 9 percent reduction in ozone
precusors; a current, comprehensive, and accurate emissions inventory;
an enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program; and contingency
measures.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This extension of the submittal deadline does not affect the
submittal dates for the enhanced ozone monitoring program elements
that are required for serious ozone nonattainment areas by CAA
section 182(c)(1). These dates are already required by regulations
at 40 CFR part 58. The extension also does not affect the submittal
date for the clean fuel vehicle program required by section
182(c)(4) which is established in section 246(a)(3) of the Act as 1
year from the effective date of the reclassification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous submittal deadline for the serious area plan was
December 8, 1998. We set this date at the same time we found the
Phoenix moderate ozone nonattainment area had failed to attain the
ozone standard by its required deadline of November 15, 1996. See 62 FR
60001 (November 6, 1997).
What Is EPA's Authority To Set Submittal Dates?
When an area is reclassified, we have the authority under section
182(i) of the Act to adjust the Act's submittal deadlines for any new
SIP revisions that are required as a result of the reclassification. If
a State fails to submit a complete plan by the required deadline, the
area is potentially subject to sanctions and a federally-imposed
implementation plan under sections 179(a) and 110(c) of the Act.
Why Did EPA Originally Set the Submittal Deadline at December 8, 1998?
The Phoenix reclassification was proposed on September 2, 1997. See
62 FR 46229. At that time, we also proposed that the serious area plan
be due twelve months from the effective date of the final
reclassification. We selected the 12-month schedule instead of the more
usual 18-month schedule for submittal of a revised plan in order to
ensure that the revised air quality plan would be submitted before the
beginning of the ``ozone season'' in 1999. The ozone season generally
occurs during the summer months from mid-May to October when high
temperatures and extended daylight hours create the conditions most
conducive to ozone formation. Setting the submittal deadline before the
beginning of the 1999 ozone season helps ensure that additional
controls would be in place to reduce ozone concentrations during this
season. The 1999 ozone season is the one that procedes the November 15,
1999 attainment deadline for serious ozone nonattainment areas.
For Phoenix, we received comments opposing the 12-month deadline as
too short to develop the needed plan; however, none of the commenters
proposed an alternative time frame. We, therefore, set a submittal
deadline of 12 months from the effective date of the final
reclassification. For Phoenix, this resulted in a December 8, 1998
submittal deadline.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The effective date was subsequently reset to February 13,
1998 because the original final action was not submitted to Congress
prior to its original effective date as required by the
Administrative Procedures Act. We issued a technical correction to
the effective date on February 13, 1998; however, we retained the
December 8, 1998 submittal deadline for submittal of the serious
area plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Impact Will Extending the Deadline Have on the Area's Ability to
Attain the 1-Hour Ozone Standard?
In Phoenix, high levels of ozone are most likely to occur during
the ozone season from mid-May until late September. To reduce ozone
concentrations in the upcoming 1999 ozone season, the State will need
to implement additional controls prior to the beginning of this ozone
season. The March 22 submittal deadline for the serious area plan is
still well before the beginning of the Phoenix ozone season; therefore,
extending that deadline should not affect the State's ability to
implement needed controls by the beginning of the 1999 ozone season.
However, the March 22 deadline still provides us with an approximately
60-day period prior to the start of the ozone season for determining
that the State has submitted a complete plan. For this reason, we do
not believe that the extension of the submittal deadline will adversely
impact air quality in the Phoenix area.
II. What If I Want To Comment on This Action?
We are publishing this rule as a ``direct'' final action without
first proposing the rule and providing an opportunity for public
comment. We are finalizing this rule directly because we believe this
is noncontroversial and do not expect to receive unfavorable comments
on it. However, in the ``proposed rules'' section of this Federal
Register publication, we are also publishing a separate document to
serve as the proposal should adverse comments be received. This final
rule will be effective January 4, 1999 without further notice from us
unless we receive unfavorable comments by December 7, 1998.
If we do receive adverse comments, then we will publish a document
in the Federal Register withdrawing this final rule and informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. We will then address all
public comments in a later final rule.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's action would simply extend the deadline for submittal of a
plan required by the Clean Air Act; therefore, it will not create a new
mandate on state, local or tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
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 E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
[[Page 64417]]
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, EPA 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 E.O. 13045 because it is neither
economically significant nor does it involve decisions intended to
mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. 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 action will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it simply extends the
deadline for the State of Arizona to submit an already-mandated
requirement. Because the State of Arizona is not a ``small entity''
under RFA and this action 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.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that this action extending the deadline for
submittal of an already-required plan does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
H. 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 January 19, 1999. 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, ozone.
Date: October 24, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 98-29820 Filed 11-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
