2912 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

approve 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 

(Public Law 104–4). For the same 

reason, this proposed rule also does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of tribal governments, as 

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed 

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 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. 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. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: December 13, 2002. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(127) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(127) On July 18, 2002, Ohio 

submitted revisions to its Permit to 

Install rules as a revision to the State 

implementation plan. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rules 

3745–31–01, 3745–31–02, 3745–31–03, 

3745–31–05, and 3745–31–07 effective 

November 30, 2001.

[FR Doc. 03–1235 Filed 1–21–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[AZ 106–0064; FRL–7418–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Motor 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). These 

revisions consist of several changes that 

have been made to Arizona’s Basic and 

Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection 

and Maintenance Programs after the 

programs were approved by EPA in 

1995. Arizona’s Basic Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection (VEI) Program is 

implemented in the Tucson Air 

Planning Area carbon monoxide (CO) 

nonattainment area (Area B). The 

Enhanced VEI Program is implemented 

in the Maricopa County ozone and CO 

nonattainment area (the Phoenix area or 

Area A).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the EPA’s Region 9 

office at 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. 

This document and the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for this 

rulemaking are also available as 

electronic files on EPA’s Region 9 Web 

page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/

air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sylvia Dugre ́, Office of Air Planning 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: (415) 

947–4149; e-mail: dugre.sylvia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 12, 2002 (67 FR 52433), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the State of Arizona. The 

notice proposed approval of revisions to 

the SIP for Arizona’s Basic and 

Enhanced VEI programs. 

ADEQ submitted the changes to its 

Basic and Enhanced VEI Programs as a 

revision to its SIP on July 6, 2001. The 

July 6, 2001 SIP revision package 

includes, among various other program 

changes, ADEQ’s revised rule which 

extends the exemption for newer model 

year vehicles from the current model 

year to the first five model year vehicles 

and the revised rules incorporating 

legislative changes to the provisions for 

issuing a waiver. Also included in the 

SIP revision is State legislation that 

discontinues the remote sensing 

program that had been implemented in 

Area A and authorizes a study to 

determine the most effective on-road 

testing program for Arizona. 

A SIP revision supplementing the July 

6, 2001 SIP revision was submitted by 

ADEQ on April 10, 2002. This submittal 

contains the ADEQ rule revisions 

incorporating on-board diagnostics 

(OBD) testing and, in accordance with 

the State legislation, deleting the 

previously approved remote sensing 

program from the ADEQ regulations. It 

also contains a modeling demonstration, 

with adjustments for the IM147

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 2913

1As an unclassified CO nonattainment area that 

has been redesignated to attainment, the Tucson 

area does not have a statutory requirement to 

implement a basic I/M program. The area, however, 

has relied on the program to both attain and 

maintain the CO standard.

transient loaded-mode emissions test, 

showing the I/M program implemented 

in Area A meets EPA’s high enhanced 

performance standard. 

A more complete description of 

Arizona’s submittals and the rationale 

for EPA’s approval were presented in 

the proposal and will not be restated 

here. 

II. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Action 

No comments were submitted to the 

docket during the comment period for 

the proposed rulemaking published in 

the August 12, 2002 Federal Register. 

III. Final Action 

Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 

182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6) require serious 

ozone and carbon monoxide areas, such 

as the Phoenix area, to implement 

enhanced I/M programs. EPA’s 

requirements for these I/M programs are 

contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. 

In order for EPA to approve the SIP 

revisions submitted by ADEQ, they 

must be consistent with EPA’s I/M 

requirements and they must meet CAA 

section 110(a) requirements for 

enforceability as well as CAA section 

110(1) requirements regarding plan 

revisions. 

In today’s action, EPA is finding that 

the Arizona enhanced I/M program 

implemented in Area A (Phoenix) meets 

CAA and EPA requirements for a high 

enhanced program. We are also finding 

that the VEI program implemented in 

Area B (Tucson) continues to meet 

EPA’s I/M requirements for basic 

programs.1 The basis for these findings 

are discussed in the proposal for today’s 

action. See 67 FR 52433. 

In addition, under CAA section 

110(1), EPA is finding that these SIP 

revisions submitted by ADEQ do not 

interfere with the applicable 

requirements concerning CO 

maintenance in the Tucson area or any 

other requirements of the CAA 

applicable to Tucson. We are also 

finding that these SIP revisions will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirements for CO and ozone 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other 

requirements of the CAA applicable to 

the Phoenix area. The basis for these 

findings are discussed in the proposal 

for today’s action. See 67 FR 52433.

Finally, EPA is approving various 

Arizona statutes amending the VEI 

programs and the latest revisions to the 

basic and enhanced VEI program 

regulations. Specifically, we are 

approving the following Arizona 

statutes: 

Amendments to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (ARS) 49–541, 49–542.05, 49–

544, 49–545, 49–551 and the repeal of 

49–542.01 submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision on July 6, 2001. 

Amendments to ARS 49–542, 49–543, 

and the repeal of 49–541.01 submitted 

to EPA as a SIP revision on April 10, 

2002. 

We are also approving the following 

Arizona regulations: 

Arizona Administrative Code (AAC), 

Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 10 (except 

for AAC R 18–2–1020) ‘‘Motor Vehicles; 

Inspection and Maintenance’’ as of 

December 31, 2000, submitted to EPA as 

a SIP revision on July 6, 2001. 

Amendments to AAC R 18–2–1006 

and 18–2–1019, and the repeal of AAC 

R 18–2–1014 and R 18–2–1015 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on 

April 10, 2002. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

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 

(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. 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 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 24, 2003. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does

2914 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: October 31, 2002. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of 

Federal Regulations, is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(108) and (c)(109) 

to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(108) Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan for the Motor 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Programs, submitted on July 6, 2001. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes. 

(1) Section 49–551 as amended in 

Section 27 of Arizona Senate Bill 1427, 

43rd Legislature, 2nd Regular Session 

(1998), approved by the Governor on 

May 29, 1998. 

(2) Section 49–544 as amended in 

Section 15 of Arizona Senate Bill 1007, 

43rd Legislature, 4th Special Session 

(1998), approved by the Governor on 

May 20, 1998. 

(3) Section 49–541 as amended in 

Section 44 of Arizona House Bill 2189, 

44th Legislature, 1st Regular Session 

(1999), approved by the Governor on 

May 18, 1999. 

(4) Section 49–542.01 repealed in 

Section 3 and Section 49–545 as 

amended in Section 5 of Arizona House 

Bill 2104, 44th Legislature, 2nd Regular 

session (2000), approved by the 

Governor on April 28, 2000. 

(5) Section 49–542.05 as added in 

Section 23 of Arizona Senate Bill 1004, 

44th Legislature, 7th Special Session 

(2000), approved by the Governor on 

December 14, 2000. 

(B) Arizona Administrative Code. 

(1) Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 10 

(except for AAC R 18–2–1020) ‘‘Motor 

Vehicles; Inspection and Maintenance’’

as adopted on December 31, 2000. 

(109) Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan for the Motor 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Programs, submitted on April 10, 2002 

by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes. 

(1) Section 49–542 as amended in 

Section 9, Section 49–543 as amended 

in Section 11, and Section 49–541.01 

repealed in Section 29 of Arizona House 

Bill 2538, 45th Legislature, 1st Regular 

Session (2001), approved by the 

Governor on May 7, 2001. 

(B) Arizona Administrative Code. 

(1) Amendments to AAC R 18–2–1006 

and 18–2–1019, and the repeal of AAC 

R 18–2–1014 and R 18–2–1015 effective 

January 1, 2002.

3. Section 52.123 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 52.123 Approval status.

* * * * *

(k) The Administrator approves the 

revised Enhanced Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance Program for the 

Maricopa County carbon monoxide and 

ozone nonattainment area submitted by 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on July 6, 2001 

and April 10, 2002 as meeting the 

requirements of Clean Air Act sections 

182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6) and the 

requirements for high enhanced 

inspection and maintenance programs 

contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.

[FR Doc. 03–1234 Filed 1–21–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMIISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[CC Docket No. 94–102; FCC 02–318] 

Compatibility With Enhanced 911 

Emergency Calling Systems; PSAP 

E911 Service Readiness

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to 

petitions for reconsideration of the 

Commission’s October 2001 decision 

which addressed a petition from the city 

of Richardson, Texas by adopting rules 

that clarify what constitutes a valid 

Public Safety Anwering Point (PSAP) to 

trigger a wireless carrier’s obligation to 

provide E911 service to the PSAP 

within six months. The document 

modifies the Commission’s rules to 

provide additional clarification 

regarding PSAP readiness. The action is 

taken to respond to the petitions for 

reconsideration and to promote rapid 

E911 implementation.

DATES: Effective February 21, 2003, 

except for §§ 20.18(j)(4) and (5), which 

contain information collection 

requirements that are not effective until 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget. The Commission is seeking 

emergency approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget for these 

collections. Public comment on the 

information collections on these PRA 

burdens are due March 24, 2003. The 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of these sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Salhus, Attorney, 202–418–

1310. For further information 

concerning the information collection 

contained in this Fourth Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, contact Judith Boley 

Herman, Federal Communications 

Commission, 202–418–0214, or via the 

Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration (Recon) in CC Docket 

No. 94–102; FCC 02–318, adopted 

November 21, 2002, and released 

November 26, 2002. The complete text 

of the Recon and the Supplemental 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 

available on the Commission’s Internet 

site, at http://www.fcc.gov., and is also 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The text may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Qualex International, Portals 

II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B4202, 

Washington, DC 20554 (telephone 202–

863–2893). 

Synopsis of the Order on 

Reconsideration 

1. The Recon responds to two 

petitions for reconsideration of the 

Commission’s Order (60 FR 55618, 

November 2, 2001) in this proceeding. 

The Order, in further response to a 

petition filed by the city of Richardson, 

Texas, adopted rules clarifying what 

constitutes a valid PSAP request to 

trigger a wireless carrier’s obligation to 

provide E911 service to that PSAP 

within six months. The Recon modifies