+(,121/,1(

Citation: 67 Fed. Reg. 68764 2002 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Jun 18 17:04:50 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.
No. 219/Wednesday, November 13, 2002/Rules and Regulations

determined that it does not have

implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 or more in any one year.

Although this rule will not result in

such an expenditure, we do discuss the

effects of this rule elsewhere in this

preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Environmental

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded under Figure 2-1, paragraph

34(g) of Commandant Instruction

M16475.1D, this rule is categorically

excluded from further environmental

documentation. A "Categorical

Exclusion Determination" is available in

the docket for inspection or copying

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not create an environmental risk to

health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal

implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments,

because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationships between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have

determined that it is not a "significant

energy action" under Executive Order

12866 and is not likely to have a

significant adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy. It has not

been designated by the Administrator of

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs as a significant energy action.

Therefore, it does not require a

Statement of Energy Effects under

Executive Order 13211.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR Part 165, as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new temporary § 165.T07-132 is

added to read as follows:

§ 165.T07-132 Security Zones; Port of San

Juan, Puerto Rico.

(a) Regulated area. Temporary moving

security zones are established 50 yards

around all cruise ships entering or

departing the Port of San Juan. These

moving security zones are activated

when the subject vessel is one mile

north of the #3 buoy at approximate

position 18o28"17.19" N, 066o-07"45.7"

W when entering the Port of San Juan

and deactivated when the vessel passes

this buoy on its departure from the Port

of San Juan. Temporary fixed security

zones are also established 50 yards

around all cruise ships when they are

moored in the Port of San Juan.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in § 165.33 of

this part, entry into this zone is

prohibited except as authorized by the

Captain of the Port, or a Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer

designated by him. The Captain of the

Port will notify the public of any

changes in the status of this zone by

Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF

Marine Band Radio, Channel 22 (157.1

MHz).

(c) Dates. This rule is effective at

11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2002 until

11:59 p.m. on April 30, 2003.

Dated: October 31, 2002.

D.A. Greene,

Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard,

Acting Captain of the Port, San Juan.

[FR Doc. 02-28836 Filed 11-12-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 080-0060; FRL-7261-6]

Revisions to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air

Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a full

disapproval of revisions to the Pinal

County Air Quality Control District's

(PCAQCDs) portion of the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions concern the incorporation by

reference of external documents into the

SIP. We are also finalizing a full

approval of a revision to the PCAQCD

portion of the Arizona SIP concerning

definitions and a removal of rules

previously approved in error. We are

finalizing action on local rules under

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

December 13, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of

the administrative record for this action

at EPA's Region IX office during normal

business hours. You can inspect copies

of the submitted rule revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington DC 20460.

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 1110 West Washington

Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

Pinal County Air Quality Control

District, Building F, 31 North Pinal

Street (P.O. Box 987), Florence, AZ

85232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4),

Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105; (415) 947-4118.

68764 Federal Register/Vol. 67,

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 68764 2002
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 219/Wednesday, November 13, 2002/Rules and Regulations 68765

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Proposed Action rules in Table 1 that were submitted for

Throughout this document, "we," "us" On November 19, 2001 (66 FR 57914), incorporation into the Arizona SIP.

and "our" refer to EPA. EPA proposed a full disapproval of the

TABLE 1 .- SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted

PCAQ C D ............................................................... 1-2-110 Adopted Docum ents ........................................... 07/29/98 10/07/98

PCAQ C D ............................................................... 1-3-130 Adopted Docum ents ........................................... 05/14/97 10/07/98

PCAQ C D ............................................................... 3-1-020 Adopted Docum ents ........................................... 05/14/97 10/07/98

PCAQ C D ............................................................... 4-1-010 Adopted Docum ents ........................................... 05/14/97 10/07/98

We proposed a full disapproval because we determined that these rules have limited enforceability due to relying on

references to rules not contained in the SIP. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

On November 19, 2001 (66 FR 57914), EPA proposed a full approval of the rule in Table 2 that was submitted for

incorporation into the Arizona SIP, because we believe it fulfills all relevant CAA requirements.

TABLE 2.-SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule Title Amended Submitted

P C A Q C D ............................................................... 1-3- 140 D efinitions ............................................................. 07/29/98 10/07/98

On November 19, 2001 (66 FR 57914), EPA proposed the removal from the Arizona SIP of rules in Table 3 that were

originally approved in error.

TABLE 3.-RULES FOR REMOVAL FROM THE SIP

[Previously Approved on April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15717), as Clarified on December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79742]

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted

PC AQ C D ............................................................... 1-3-130 Adopted Docum ents .......................... ................ 10/12/95 11/27/95

PCAQ C D ............................................................... 3-1-020 Adopted Docum ents ........................................... 06/29/93 11/27/95

We proposed removing these rules from

the SIP because we determined that

these rules have limited enforceability

due to relying on references to rules not

contained in the SIP. Our proposed

action contains more information on the

rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

EPA's proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this

period, we did not receive any

comments.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted that

change our assessment of the rules as

described in our proposed action.

Therefore, as authorized in sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a), EPA is finalizing a

full disapproval of Rules 1-2-110, 1-3-

130, 3-1-020, and 4-1-010. As a result,

these rules will not be in the Arizona

SIP and sanctions will not be imposed

under section 179 of the CAA as

described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4,

1994).

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing

a full approval of Rule 1-3-140. This

action incorporates the submitted rule

into the Arizona SIP.

As authorized in section 110(k)(6),

EPA is finalizing the removal from the

Arizona SIP of Rules 1-3-130 and 3-1-

020.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866, entitled

"Regulatory Planning and Review."

B. Executive Order 13211

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is

not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be "economically

significant" as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure "meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 68765 2002
No. 219/Wednesday, November 13, 2002/Rules and Regulations

various levels of government." Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This 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, because it

merely acts on 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. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

E. Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." "Policies that have tribal

implications" is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have "substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes."

This final rule does not have tribal

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

EPA's disapproval of the state request

under section 110 and subchapter I, part

D of the Clean Air Act does not affect

any existing requirements applicable to

small entities. Any pre-existing federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

state submittal does not affect state

enforceability. Moreover, EPA's

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action acts

on pre-existing requirements under

State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use "voluntary

consensus standards" (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today's action because it

does not require the public to perform

activities conducive to the use of VCS.

L Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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 rule is not a "major" rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

J. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 January 13, 2003.

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 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,

68766 Federal Register/Vol. 67,

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 68766 2002
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 219/Wednesday, November 13, 2002/Rules and Regulations 68767

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: August 2, 2002.

Laura Yoshii,

Deputy 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)(84)(i)(G),

(c)(84)(i)(H), and (c)(107) to read as

follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(84) * * *

(i) * * *

(G) Previously approved on April 9,

1996 in paragraph (c)(84)(i)(A) of this

section and now deleted without

replacement, Rule 3-1-020.

(H) Previously approved on April 9,

1996 in paragraph (c)(84)(i)(D) of this

section and now deleted without

replacement, Rule 1-3-130. * * * * *

(107) Amended rules for the following

agency were submitted on October 7,

1998 by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Pinal County Air Quality Control

District.

(1) Rule 1-3-140, adopted on June 29,

1993 and amended on July 29, 1998. * * * * *

3. Section 52.133 is amended by

adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as

follows:

§52.133 Rules and regulations. * * * * *

(f) Rules 1-3-130 and 3-1-020

submitted on November 27, 1995 of the

Pinal County Air Quality Control

District regulations have limited

enforceability because they reference

rules not contained in the Arizona State

Implementation Plan. Therefore, these

rules are removed from the Arizona

State Implementation Plan.

(g) Rules 1-2-110, 1-3-130, 3-1-020,

and 4-1-010 submitted on October 7,

1998 of the Pinal County Air Quality

Control District regulations have limited

enforceability because they reference

rules not contained in the Arizona State

Implementation Plan. Therefore, these

rules are disapproved.

[FR Doc. 02-28351 Filed 11-12-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[SC-041, 046-200211(a); FRL-7406-7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; South Carolina;

Adoption of Revision Governing

Credible Evidence and Removal of

Standard 3

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a

revision to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) submitted on October 1, 2002,

by the State of South Carolina,

Department of Health and

Environmental Control (Department).

This revision consisted of an addition to

Regulation 61-62.1, Definitions and

General Requirements, entitled "Section

V-Credible Evidence." The submission

of Section V-Credible Evidence by

South Carolina is to meet the

requirements for credible evidence set

forth in EPA's May 23, 1994, SIP call

letter. EPA is also approving a

correction to the SIP regarding removal

of Standard 3 "Emissions from

Incinerators" from the SIP as requested

by the State of South Carolina.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

January 13, 2003 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by December 13, 2002. If adverse

comment is received, EPA will publish

a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Sean Lakeman, EPA

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303-8960. Copies of the State

submittal is available at the following

addresses for inspection during normal

business hours: Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Sean

Lakeman, 404/562-9043. South Carolina

Department of Health and

Environmental Control, 2600 Bull

Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201-1708.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Lakeman at 404/562-9043, or by

electronic mail at

lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background On Credible Evidence

II. South Carolina's Response to Credible

Evidence

III. Removal of Standard 3

IV. Final Action

V. Administrative Requirements

I. Background On Credible Evidence

On October 22, 1993, the EPA

published a Federal Register document

proposing an Enhanced Monitoring

Program Rule. In that document, the

EPA proposed both new regulations and

amendments to several existing air

pollution program regulations. To

address the revisions to the Clean Air

Act (CAA) regarding the use of any

credible evidence the EPA issued a SIP

call to all states in a letter dated May 23,

1994. The purpose of this letter was to

require the states to revise their SIP to

allow for the use of enhanced

monitoring as a means of establishing

compliance and "any credible

evidence" to prove violations. A Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) was to be

promulgated if the states failed to

correct the deficiencies in the SIP by

June 30, 1995. However, during the time

between which the Enhanced

Monitoring Program Rule was proposed

and the FIP was to be in place, EPA

separated the enhanced monitoring rule

into two new parts: "any credible

evidence" and "compliance assured

monitoring" (CAM); and promulgated

them in separate Federal Register

documents. The final rule for "any

credible evidence" was promulgated on

February 24, 1997.

II. South Carolina's Response to

Credible Evidence

In response to the May 23, 1994, SIP

call, the Department submitted a

revision to South Carolina's SIP on

October 1, 2002. This revision consisted

of the addition of Section V-Credible

Evidence to Regulation 61-62.1

Definitions and General Requirements.

The purpose of Section V regarding the

demonstration of compliance or

noncompliance, or the certification of

compliance is:

* to clarify that any credible evidence

can be used,

* to eliminate any potential

ambiguity in language regarding

exclusive reliance on reference test

methods, and

* to curtail language that limits the

types of testing or monitoring data that

may be used. Section V specifically

allows for the use of any credible

evidence "in the determination of nonHeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 68767 2002