# + 2

(,1 1/,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 of1995 (2U.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, orby 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 ofthis rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking ofPrivateProperty

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)ofExecutive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Environmental

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact ofthis 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 ofChildren

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 TribalGovernments

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,

oron the distribution ofpower 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, orUse. We have determined that itis not a "significant energy action" under Executive Order 12866 and isnot likely to have a significant adverse effect onthe supply, distribution, oruse ofenergy. Ithas not been designated by the Administrator of the Office ofInformation andRegulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement ofEnergy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
List ofSubjects in 33 CFRPart165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165, asfollows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1.The authority citation for part 165 continues to read asfollows:

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 asfollows: §165.T07-132 Security Zones; Port of San Juan, Puerto Rico. (a)Regulatedarea.Temporary moving security zones are established 50 yards around all cruise ships entering or departing the Port ofSan Juan. These moving security zones are activated when the subjectvessel is one mile north ofthe #3 buoy at approximate position 18o28"17.19" N, 066o-07"45.7" W when entering the Port of SanJuan and deactivated when the vessel passes this buoy onits departure from the Port ofSan Juan. Temporary fixed security

zones are also established 50yards around all cruise ships when they are moored in the Port ofSanJuan. (b)Regulations.In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.33 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited except as authorized bythe Captain ofthe Port, or a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, orpetty officer designated by him.The Captain ofthe Port will notify the public of any changes in the status ofthis zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 22 (157.1 MHz). (c) Dates.Thisrule 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, LieutenantCommander, U.S. CoastGuard, Acting CaptainofthePort,SanJuan. [FR Doc. 02-28836 Filed 11-12-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 [AZ080-0060; FRL-7261-6]

Revisionsto the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air Quality Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing afull disapproval ofrevisions to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District's (PCAQCDs) portion ofthe Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the incorporation by reference of external documents into the SIP. We are also finalizing afull approval ofa revision to the PCAQCD portion ofthe Arizona SIP concerning definitions and a removal ofrules previously approved in error.We are finalizing action onlocal rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAAor the Act). EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on December 13, 2002. ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action atEPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can inspect copies ofthe submitted rule revisions atthe 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 ofEnvironmental

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), AirDivision, 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 2002Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 219/Wednesday, November 13, 2002/Rules and Regulations 68765

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. ProposedAction rules inTable 1 that were submitted for Throughout this document, "we," "us" OnNovember 19, 2001 (66 FR 57914), incorporation into the Arizona SIP. and "our" refer to EPA. EPA proposed a full disapproval ofthe

TABLE 1.- SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
PCAQCD

............................................................... 1-2-110 Adopted Documents

........................................... 07/29/98 10/07/98 PCAQCD

............................................................... 1-3-130 Adopted Documents

........................................... 05/14/97 10/07/98 PCAQCD

............................................................... 3-1-020 Adopted Documents

........................................... 05/14/97 10/07/98 PCAQCD

............................................................... 4-1-010 Adopted Documents

........................................... 05/14/97 10/07/98

We proposed afull 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 ofthe rule in Table 2that was submitted for incorporation into the Arizona SIP, because we believe itfulfills all relevant CAA requirements.

TABLE 2.-SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule Title Amended Submitted

P

C

A

QCD

............................................................... 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 ofrules in Table 3that 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

PCAQCD

............................................................... 1-3-130 Adopted Documents

.......................... ................ 10/12/95 11/27/95 PCAQCD

............................................................... 3-1-020 Adopted Documents

........................................... 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 andEPA Responses

EPA's proposed action provided a 30- day public comment period. During this period, we did not receive any comments.
III. EPAAction

No comments were submitted that change our assessment ofthe rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), EPA is finalizing a full disapproval ofRules 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 ofthe CAA as described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994).

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe CAA, EPA is finalizing

afull approval ofRule 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 ofRules 1-3-130 and 3-1- 020.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled "Regulatory Planning and Review."

B. Executive Order13211

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
C.Executive Order13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection ofChildren 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 Order13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPAto develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely inputby State and local officials in the development ofregulatory policies thathave federalism implications." "Policies thathave federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or onthe distribution of power and responsibilities among the

HeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 68765 2002

### No. 219/Wednesday, November 13, 2002/Rules and Regulations

various levels ofgovernment." Under Executive Order 13132, EPAmay not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and thatis 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 thathas federalism implications and thatpreempts 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 ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely acts on a state rule implementing

afederal standard, and does not alter the relationship orthe distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 ofthe Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

E.Executive Order13175

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 inputby tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies thathave 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 ofpower 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 ofpower 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. RegulatoryFlexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

aregulatory 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 ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

EPA's disapproval ofthe state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place afterthis disapproval. Federal disapproval ofthe state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval ofthe 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 ofthe Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation offlexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPAto base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
G. UnfundedMandates

Under section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPAmust prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed orfinal rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate; orto private sector, of$100 million ormore. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe 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 oruniquely 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, orto the private sector. This Federal action acts

onpre-existing requirements under State orlocal law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, orto the private sector, result from this action.
H.NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct
Section 12 ofthe 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, EPAmust consider and use "voluntary

consensus standards" (VCS) ifavailable and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so wouldbe 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 ofVCS.

L Submission to Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register.A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Thisrule is not a "major" rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
J.Petitions forJudicialReview
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by January 13, 2003. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See Section 307(b)(2).
List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

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 andrecordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 2,2002. Laura Yoshii, DeputyRegional Administrator, RegionIX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal 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 amendedby 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) ofthis section andnow deleted without replacement, Rule 3-1-020. (H) Previously approved on April 9, 1996 in paragraph (c)(84)(i)(D) ofthis section andnow deleted without replacement, Rule 1-3-130.

* * * * *

(107) Amended rules for the following agency were submitted on October 7, 1998by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (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 amendedby adding paragraphs (f)and (g) toread as follows: §52.133 Rules and regulations.

* * * * *

(f)Rules 1-3-130 and 3-1-020 submitted onNovember 27, 1995 ofthe Pinal County Air Quality Control District regulations have limited enforceability because theyreference 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 ofthe Pinal County Air Quality Control District regulations have limited enforceability because theyreference 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 ofSouth Carolina, Department ofHealth and Environmental Control (Department). This revision consisted ofan addition to Regulation 61-62.1, Definitions and General Requirements, entitled "Section V-Credible Evidence." The submission ofSection V-Credible Evidence by South Carolina isto meet the requirements for credible evidence set forth in EPA's May 23, 1994, SIP call letter. EPAis also approving a correction to the SIP regarding removal ofStandard 3 "Emissions from Incinerators" from the SIP asrequested by the State ofSouth 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

atimely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule in the FederalRegister 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 ofthe 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 ofHealth and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman at 404/562-9043, orby electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.Background On Credible Evidence II.SouthCarolina's Response to Credible Evidence III. Removal of Standard 3 IV.Final Action V. Administrative Requirements

I.Background OnCredible Evidence

On October 22, 1993, the EPA published aFederal Register document proposing an Enhanced Monitoring Program Rule. In that document, the EPAproposed 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 ofany credible evidence the EPAissued a SIP call to all states in a letter dated May 23, 1994. The purpose ofthisletter was to require the states to revise their SIP to allow for the use ofenhanced monitoring as a means ofestablishing compliance and "any credible evidence" to prove violations. AFederal Implementation Plan (FIP)was tobe promulgated ifthe 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 newparts: "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'sResponse 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 ofthe addition of Section V-Credible Evidence to Regulation 61-62.1 Definitions and General Requirements. The purpose of Section V regarding the demonstration ofcompliance or noncompliance, or the certification of compliance is:

* to clarify that any credible evidence

canbe used,

* to eliminate any potential ambiguity in language regarding exclusive reliance on reference test methods, and

* to curtail language thatlimits the types oftesting ormonitoring data that maybe used. Section V specifically allows for the use of any credible evidence "in the determination ofnonHeinOnline -- 67 Fed. Reg. 68767 2002