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

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 5001–08–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/

ruledesc.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 

MCESD .................................... 140 Excess Emissions ..................................................................... 09/05/01 02/22/02 

On April 12, 2002 this rule submittal 

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. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

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 

140. Moreover, the affirmative defense 

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

54958 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(l) 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 (l) 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 54959

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