Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2000-08-18 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of correction

302 words·~1 min read·/register/2000/08/18/00-21077

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [AZ023-CORR; FRL-6853-2] Adequacy Status of the Maricopa County, Arizona Submitted PM-10 Attainment Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes, Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of correction. SUMMARY: This action corrects language in a public notice that was published in the **Federal Register** on April 6, 2000, that stated that the submitted Maricopa County (Phoenix, Arizona) serious area particulate matter (PM-10) attainment plan is adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
This notice does not change the adequacy status of the plan, just clarifies language in the April 6 notice. DATES: This notice is effective August 18, 2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The finding is available at EPA's conformity website: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there, click on the “Conformity” button, then look for “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”). You may also contact Karina O'Connor, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
(415)744-1247 or oconnor.karina@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The April 6, 2000 notice announced our finding that the *Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area* (February 2000), submitted by the Arizona on February 16, 2000, contains adequate emissions budgets 1 for transportation conformity purposes. The last sentence of the notice, which refers to how the adequacy decision was made, incorrectly stated “We followed this guidance in making our inadequacy determination on the Maricopa County PM-10 plan.” This sentence should have stated, “We followed this guidance in making our adequacy determination on the Maricopa County PM-10 plan.” 1 Note that the plan provides for a regional PM10 emission budget which is applicable for both the annual and 24 hour PM-10 standards. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: August 10, 2000. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 00-21077 Filed 8-17-00; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 1
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of correction
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.