Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25973 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state rules 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 state rules 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. section 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 July 9, 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).) 

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: April 19, 2007. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, 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. 

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraphs (c)(14)(x) and 

(c)(25)(iv); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs 

(c)(56)(i)(A)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph 

(c)(56)(i)(A)(3)(viii) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(14) * * * 

(x) Previously approved on June 18, 

1982 in paragraph (c)(14)(viii) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Article 16: Rules 16.3.3.1. 

* * * * * 

(25) * * * 

(iv) Previously approved on March 27, 

1984 in paragraph (c)(25)(i)(A) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Nevada Administrative 

Code (NAC) section: 445.535. 

* * * * * 

(56) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) October 3, 1995: 445B.005, 

445B.059, 445B.077, 445B.112, 

445B.116, 445B.130, 445B.145, 

445B.152, 445B.177, 445B.180, and 

445B.22037. 

(ii) January 22, 1998: 445B.011, 

445B.0425, 445B.058, 445B.22027, and 

445B.22033. 

(iii) September 9, 1999: 445B.2203 

and 445B.22047. 

* * * * * 

(viii) October 4, 2005: 445B.22017 

(effective April 1, 2006) and 445B.2202 

(effective April 1, 2006). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8693 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0827; FRL–8302–9] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Maricopa County 

Environmental Services Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Maricopa County Environmental 

Services Department (MCESD) portion 

of the Arizona State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns 

particulate matter (PM–10) emissions 

from open burning. We are approving a 

local rule under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 

2007 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 7, 

2007. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
25974 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0827, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://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: Al 

Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–

4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What are the purposes of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving 

with the dates that the rule was 

amended by the local air agency and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule # Rule title Revised Submitted 

MCESD ...................... 314 ................................................................ Open Outdoor Fires ..................................... 04/20/05 06/08/06 

On December 7, 2006, the submittal of 

MCESD Rule 314 was determined by 

operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

A version of MCESD Rule 314 was 

approved into the SIP on August 12, 

2002 (67 FR 52416). 

C. What are the purposes of the 

submitted rule revision? 

Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires states to submit 

regulations that control volatile organic 

compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate 

matter, and other air pollutants which 

harm human health and the 

environment. These rules were 

developed as part of local air districts’

programs to control these pollutants. 

The purposes of the submitted 

MCESD Rule 314 revision are as 

follows: 

• (314.200): The rule revises various 

definitions in order to improve clarity. 

• (314.302.6 and 314.302.7): The rule 

adds the requirements that an air 

curtain destructor (a) be used to burn 

vegetative material greater than 6 inches 

diameter and (b) not operate closer than 

500 feet from the nearest dwelling. 

• (314.402.3 and 314.402.4): The rule 

adds the requirements that (a) a 

permittee must comply with the 

regulations of the local fire agency and 

(b) Maricopa County must obtain a 

permit for its own burning from ADEQ. 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about these 

rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

CAA) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). SIP rules in serious PM–10 

nonattainment areas must require for 

significant sources best available control 

measures (BACM), including best 

available control technology (BACT) 

(see section 189(b)). MCESD regulates a 

serious PM–10 nonattainment area (see 

40 CFR part 81), so MCESD Rule 314 

must fulfill the requirements of BACM/ 

BACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to help evaluate rules 

consistently include the following: 

• Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 

CFR part 51. 

• PM–10 Guideline Document (EPA–

452/R–93–008). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe MCESD Rule 314 is 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

BACM/BACT, and SIP relaxations. The 

TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the CAA, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rule because we believe it 

fulfills all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rule. If we receive adverse 

comments by June 7, 2007, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25975 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on July 9, 2007. 

This will incorporate the rule into the 

federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 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. section 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 July 9, 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).) 

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: March 23, 2007. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, 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. 

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(135) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(135) An amended regulation was 

submitted on June 8, 2006, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Maricopa County Environmental 

Services Department. 

(1) Rule 314, adopted on July 13, 1988 

and amended on April 20, 2005. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8689 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0249; FRL–8310–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Missouri; 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revising the Missouri 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

purpose of approving the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources’

(MDNR) actions to address requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean 

Air Act. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

each state to submit a SIP that prohibits 

emissions that adversely affect another 

state’s air quality through interstate 

transport. MDNR has adequately 

addressed the four distinct elements 

related to the impact of interstate 

transport of air pollutants. These 

include prohibiting significant 

contribution to downwind 

nonattainment of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

interference with maintenance of the 

NAAQS, interference with plans in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES