+(,121/,1(

Citation: 67 Fed. Reg. 54957 2002 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Jun 18 17:22:44 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 166/Tuesday, August 27, 2002/Rules and Regulations

which the OT agreement becomes

effective. Costs that were incurred for a

prototype project by the business units

of an awardee or subawardee after the

beginning of negotiations, but prior to

the date the OT agreement becomes

effective, may be counted as nonFederal amounts if and to the extent that

the Agreements Officer determines in

writing that:

(1) The awardee or subawardee

incurred the costs in anticipation of

entering into the OT agreement; and

(2) It was appropriate for the awardee

or subawardee to incur the costs before

the OT agreement became effective in

order to ensure the successful

implementation of the OT agreement.

(b) As a matter of policy, these

limitations on cost-sharing apply any

time cost-sharing may be recognized

when using OT authority for prototype

projects.

8. Newly redesignated § 3.7 is

amended by revising the section

heading to read as follows:

§3.7 Comptroller General access.

Dated: August 14, 2002.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 02-21267 Filed 8-26-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-8-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 111-0050a; FRL-7261-7]

Revision 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). Under authority of the Clean

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act), we are approving a local rule that

regulates excess emissions from

malfunctions, startups, and shutdowns.

DATES: This rule is effective on October

28, 2002, without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comments by

September 26, 2002. If we receive such

comment, we will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register to

notify the public that this rule will not

take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Gerardo

Rios, Permits Office Chief (AIR-3), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

You can inspect a copy of the

submitted SIP revision and EPA's

technical support document (TSD) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see a copy

of the submitted SIP revision at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington

D.C. 20460.

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 1110 West Washington Street,

Phoenix, AZ 85007.

Maricopa County Environmental Services

Department, Air Quality Division, 1001

North central Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix,

AZ 85004.

A courtesy copy of the rule may be

available via the Internet at http://

www.maricopa.gov/envsvc/air/

mledesc.asp. However, this version of

the rule may be different than the

version submitted to EPA for approval.

Readers are cautioned to verify that the

adoption date of the rule listed is the

same as the rule submitted to EPA for

approval. The official submittal is only

available at the agency addresses listed

above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX; (415) 947-4118.

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 Is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rule?

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. Background Information

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving

with the dates that it was adopted by the

local air agency and submitted by the

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality.

TABLE 1 .- SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted

M C ES D .................................... 140 Excess Em issions ..................................................................... 09/05/01 02/22/02

On April 12, 2002 this rule submittal C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 140. Moreover, the affirmative defense

was found 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 This

Rule?

There is no previous version of Rule

140 in the SIP.

Rule?

The purpose of Rule 140 is to provide

an owner and/or operator of a source

who has been charged with a violation

for excess emissions with an affirmative

defense to a civil or administrative

enforcement penalty. To qualify for the

limited affirmative defense to a penalty

action, the source must demonstrate

compliance with listed criteria and

reporting requirements set forth in Rule

does not apply to a SIP provision

required by federally promulgated

performance standards or emission

limits, such as new source performance

standards (NSPS) and national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAPS). The defense also does not

apply to violations in areas where a

single source has the potential to cause

an exceedence of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or

54957

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 54957 2002
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 166/Tuesday, August 27, 2002/Rules and Regulations

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) increments. The TSD has more

information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

This rule contains administrative

provisions and standards that apply to

emission controls found in other local

agency requirements. In combination

with those other requirements, this rule

must be enforceable (see section 110(a)

of the CAA) and must not relax existing

requirements (see sections 110(1) and

193). EPA policy that we used to define

specific enforceability requirements

includes:

* State Implementation Plans: Policy

Regarding Excess Emissions during

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,

EPA Memorandum from Steven Herman

and Robert Perciasepe to Regional

Administrators, Regions I-X (September

20, 1999).

* Issues Relating to VOC Regulation

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;

Clarification to Appendix D, November

24, 1987 Federal Register Notice, (Blue

Book), notice of availability published

in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

Rule 140 excludes injunctive relief,

federally promulgated emission

standards or limitations, and violations

in areas with single sources have the

potential to exceed the NAAQS from the

rule's affirmative defense to

enforcement penalties. Rule 140

excludes any violation of standards and

limitations included in a permit to meet

requirements for pollutant significance

levels in adjacent nonattainment areas

where primary or secondary ambient air

quality standards are being violated.

These exclusions assure that Rule 140

will not interfere with the NAAQS and

PSD increments, as required by sections

110(a) and (1) of the CAA.

We believe Rule 140 is consistent

with the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations,

and EPA's policy regarding excess

emissions. 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 September 26, 2002, 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

receive timely adverse comments, the

direct final approval will be effective

without further notice on October 28,

2002. This will incorporate this rule

into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires

states to submit regulations that control

volatile organic compounds, oxides of

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other

air pollutants which harm human health

and the environment. This rule was

developed as part of the local agency's

program to control these pollutants.

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

CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by October 28, 2002. 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

54958

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 54958 2002
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 166/Tuesday, August 27, 2002/Rules and Regulations

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. Section

307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 25, 2002.

Keith Takata,

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)(106) to read as

follows:

§52.120 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(106) Amended rule for the following

agency was submitted on February 22,

2002, by the governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department.

(1) Rule 140, revised on September 5,

2001.

[FR Doc. 02-21663 Filed 8-26-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 160-1160a; FRL-7267-6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the state of Missouri. This

revision to the state's construction

permits rule exempts incinerators used

for the on-site noncommercial

incineration of dead animals from the

construction permit requirements. We

are approving this revision to ensure

consistency between the state and

Federally-approved rules, and to ensure

Federal enforceability of the state's

revised rule.

DATES: This direct final rule will be

effective October 28, 2002, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by

September 26, 2002. If adverse

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Wayne Kaiser, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the above-listed Region 7

location. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913)

551-7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

"we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean

EPA. This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What Is a SIP?

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a

SIP?

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean to Me?

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP

Revision Been Met?

What Action Is EPA Taking?

What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires states to develop air

pollution regulations and control

strategies to ensure that state air quality

meets the national ambient air quality

standards established by EPA. These

ambient standards are established under

section 109 of the CAA, and they

currently address six criteria pollutants.

These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these

regulations and control strategies to us

for approval and incorporation into the

Federally-enforceable SIP.

Each Federally-approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its point of origin. These

SIPs can be extensive, containing state

regulations or other enforceable

documents and supporting information

such as emission inventories,

monitoring networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process

generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period,

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state

submits it to us for inclusion into the

SIP. We must provide public notice and

seek additional public comment

regarding the proposed Federal action

on the state submission. If adverse

comments are received, they must be

addressed prior to any final Federal

action by us.

All state regulations and supporting

information approved by EPA under

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally-approved SIP.

Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

entitled "Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans." The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

outright but are "incorporated by

reference," which means that we have

approved a given state regulation with

a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean to Me?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally-approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, we are

authorized to take enforcement action

against violators. Citizens are also

offered legal recourse to address

violations as described in section 304 of

the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

On May 30, 2002, we received a

request from the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources (MDNR) to amend the

Missouri SIP. This request pertained to

rule 10 C.S.R. 10-6.060, Construction

Permits Required. This rule defines

sources which are required to obtain

permits to construct and establishes

requirements to be met prior to

54959

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 54959 2002