Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 41629 

State regulation State effective date EPA approved date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter 19, ‘‘Control and Prohibition of Air 

Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen.’’

October 17, 2005 ...... July 31, 2007 [Insert 

FR page citation].

Subchapter 19 is approved into the SIP except for the following provisions: (1) Open 

Market Emissions Trading (OMET) provisions at 19.3(g), 19.3(h), 19.27 and 19.27 

Appendix; and (2) New amendments to 

phased compliance plan through 

repowering in § 19.21 that allow for implementation beyond May 1, 1999; and (3) 

New amendments to phased compliance 

plan through the use of innovative control 

technology in § 19.23 that allow for implementation beyond May 1, 1999. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–14480 Filed 7–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0295, FRL–8443–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; States of 

Arizona and Nevada; Interstate 

Transport of Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve state implementation 

plans submitted by the States of Arizona 

and Nevada that address interstate 

transport with respect to the 8-hour 

ozone and fine particulate matter 

national ambient air quality standards. 

In so doing, EPA has determined that 

the plans submitted by Arizona and 

Nevada and approved herein satisfy 

requirements under Clean Air Act 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for each State to 

submit a plan containing adequate 

provisions to prohibit interstate 

transport with respect to the standards 

for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate 

matter. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to those provisions of the 

Clean Air Act that obligate the Agency 

to take action on submittals of state 

implementation plans. The effect of this 

action is to approve the Arizona and 

Nevada state implementation plans 

addressing interstate transport with 

respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate standards and to eliminate 

obligations on the Agency to promulgate 

Federal implementation plans for these 

States addressing this same 

requirement. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

1, 2007, without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

August 30, 2007. If adverse comment is 

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: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0295 by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3579 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air 

Planning, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode 

AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

• Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office 

of Air Planning, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, 

Mailcode AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 

p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2007–

0295. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air Planning, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
41630 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1See memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- 

Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ dated August 15, 2006. 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Arizona issues, contact Wienke Tax, 

EPA Region IX, (520) 622–1622, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov; for Nevada issues, 

contact Karina O’Connor, EPA Region 

IX, (775) 833–1276, 

oconnor.karina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Applicable Clean Air Act Requirements 

A. CAA Procedural Provisions 

B. ‘‘Significant Contribution’’ and 

‘‘Interference With Maintenance’’

Requirements 

C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) 

D. Visibility 

III. Arizona’s Interstate Transport SIP 

A. CAA Procedural Provisions 

B. ‘‘Significant Contribution’’ and 

‘‘Interference With Maintenance’’

Requirements 

C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Visibility 

D. Evaluation and Conclusion 

IV. Nevada’s Interstate Transport SIP 

A. CAA Procedural Provisions 

B. ‘‘Significant Contribution’’ and 

‘‘Interference With Maintenance’’

Requirements 

C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Visibility 

D. Evaluation and Conclusion 

V. EPA’s Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued new 

standards for the 8-hour ozone and 

particulate matter (PM) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

For ozone, EPA revised the NAAQS by 

adding an 8-hour averaging period 

(versus 1 hour for the previous 

NAAQS), and the level of the standard 

was changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 

ppm (62 FR 38856). For the PM 

NAAQS, EPA added a new 24-hour 

standard and a new annual standard for 

fine particles (generally referring to 

particles less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (μm) in diameter, PM2.5). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requires States to 

submit new state implementation plans 

(SIPs) that provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

standard within three years after 

promulgation of such standard, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that such new SIPs must 

address, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which applies to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

Section 110(a)(1) imposes the obligation 

upon States to make a SIP submission 

for a new or revised NAAQS, but the 

contents of that submission may vary 

depending upon the facts and 

circumstances of each State. 

On April 25, 2005, EPA made a 

finding that States had failed to submit 

SIPs to satisfy the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act for the 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 

FR 21147. This finding started a 2-year 

clock for promulgation by EPA of a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in 

accordance with section 110(c)(1), for 

any State that did not submit a SIP 

meeting the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS, unless prior to that time, 

each State makes a submission to meet 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such 

submission. On August 15, 2006, EPA 

issued a guidance memorandum 

(‘‘Interstate Transport Guidance’’) 

concerning the SIP submissions under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).1

On February 7, 2007, the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) submitted a SIP entitled Nevada 

State Implementation Plan for Interstate 

Transport to Satisfy the Requirements of 

Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- 

Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

Promulgated in July 1997 (January 31, 

2007) (‘‘Nevada Interstate Transport 

SIP’’). On May 24, 2007, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) submitted a SIP entitled 

Revision to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Under Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Regional 

Transport (May 2007) (‘‘Arizona 

Interstate Transport SIP’’). For the 

reasons provided in sections III and IV 

of this rule, we are approving Arizona’s 

and Nevada’s interstate transport SIPs in 

this action thereby eliminating the 

requirement under CAA Section 

110(c)(1) for EPA to promulgate 

interstate transport FIPs for these States. 

II. Applicable Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

As noted above, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

in 1997, and under section 110(a)(1), 

within three years thereafter, States 

were to submit SIPs to address the 

various SIP elements listed under 

section 110(a)(2) for the new NAAQS, 

including the ‘‘good neighbor’’

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the Act. Under the ‘‘good neighbor’’

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

each State must submit a SIP that 

contains adequate provisions: 

(i) Prohibiting, consistent with the 

provisions of this subchapter, any source or 

other type of emissions activity within the 

state from emitting any air pollutant in 

amounts which will—

(I) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with respect 

to any such national primary or secondary 

ambient air quality standard, or 

(II) Interfere with measures required to be 

included in the applicable implementation 

plan for any other State under part C of this 

subchapter to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility. 

Under section 110 of the Act and EPA 

regulations (at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

F), each State must provide reasonable 

notice and public hearing prior to 

adoption of SIPs and SIP revisions for 

subsequent submittal to EPA. 

III. Arizona’s Interstate Transport SIP 

A. CAA Procedural Provisions 

On March 29 and 30, 2007, ADEQ 

published a notice in the Arizona 

Republic, a newspaper of general 

circulation in the Phoenix area, of a 

public hearing on proposed revisions to 

the Arizona SIP to address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

A public hearing was held on April 30, 

2007 in Phoenix. On May 24, 2007, in 

accordance with Arizona law, the 

Director of ADEQ adopted the Arizona 

Interstate Transport SIP and submitted 

the SIP to EPA for approval. ADEQ’s 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submittal 

package includes evidence of public 

notice, public hearing, and ADEQ 

adoption as described above. No public 

comments were received on the draft 

SIP. Based on review of these materials, 

we find that ADEQ has met the 

procedural requirements of CAA section 

110 and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

B. ‘‘Significant Contribution’’ and 

‘‘Interference With Maintenance’’

Requirements 

As noted above, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires States to 

prohibit emissions that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with respect to the NAAQS. 

ADEQ’s Arizona Interstate Transport 

SIP concludes that emissions from air 

pollution sources in Arizona do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone or 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 41631 

PM2.5 NAAQS or interfere with 

maintenance of those standards in 

another state. In support of this negative 

declaration, the Arizona Interstate 

Transport SIP identifies the following 

factors and provides the following 

analysis: 

• Boundary designations and 

locations. Nonattainment boundaries are 

intended to include areas where 

NAAQS violations are occurring as well 

as areas that contribute to those 

violations and in the case of Arizona 

and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the only 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area (the 

Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area) is 

located within the central portion of the 

State. The Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment 

Area includes much of eastern Maricopa 

County as well as Apache Junction in 

Pinal County. There are no 

nonattainment areas in Arizona for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Maricopa 

Association of Governments (MAG) is 

currently developing a SIP revision for 

the area which will demonstrate 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard 

by its statutory attainment date of 2009. 

• Spatial distribution of emissions. 

Emissions of pollutants contributing to 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 formation are 

highest in the Phoenix metropolitan 

area, which as noted above, is located in 

the central portion of the State. The 

most recently available emissions 

inventories from EPA’s AirData for 

Arizona counties show that Maricopa 

County sources emit approximately 50 

percent of the state’s volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and 36 percent of the 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), known 

precursors to ozone, and approximately 

30 percent of the state’s total PM2.5

emissions. No other county emits the 

level of emissions generated by 

Maricopa County. 

• Monitoring data. An examination of 

historic monitored ambient air quality 

data demonstrates that Maricopa County 

is the only county in the state where 

monitors have recorded violations of the 

8-hour ozone standard. Data collected 

from 2004–2006 show that all 

monitored areas are currently meeting 

the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. 

The highest recorded ambient 

concentrations from this period are from 

Maricopa County monitoring sites or 

from those of nearby sites in Gila and 

Pinal Counties. 

• Topography. The Phoenix-Mesa 8- 

hour Ozone Nonattainment Area is 

located primarily in the broad and 

mostly flat Salt River Valley and is 

separated from other areas of the State 

by mountainous, complex terrain on the 

north, northeast, east, and southwest. 

• Meteorology/Climatology. Wind 

patterns in the Phoenix-Mesa 

Nonattainment Area are greatly 

influenced by local topography. Because 

of its valley location, backed by high 

terrain to the north and east, the 

Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area is 

subject to distinct up-valley/downvalley wind patterns. The prevailing 

winds and high elevation blocking 

terrain to the east of the area were two 

of the factors that helped determine the 

impacts of transported emissions and 

the eastern extent of the Phoenix-Mesa 

Nonattainment Area. Similar patterns 

are repeated across Arizona’s many 

airsheds and areas of complex terrain. 

• Location of Nonattainment Areas in 

Neighboring States. Nonattainment 

areas for 8-hour ozone in states 

neighboring Arizona are located in 

southern Nevada (40 CFR 81.329), 

southern California (40 CFR 81.305), 

and north-central Colorado (40 CFR 

81.306). First, in designating the 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area in southern 

Nevada (i.e., a portion of Clark County), 

EPA concurred in Arizona’s conclusion 

that sources in neighboring Mojave 

County did not contribute to 

nonattainment in the Las Vegas area. 

Second, the closest 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area in California is 

located in Imperial County, more than 

80 miles west of the Phoenix-Mesa 

Nonattainment Area and more than 200 

miles from large point sources in 

Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 

Counties. Based on regional and local 

air flow patterns, California 

nonattainment areas are upwind of 

Arizona emissions sources. Third, the 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area in 

Colorado is separated from Arizona by 

the Rocky Mountains, with elevations 

greater than 14,000 feet and are more 

than 200 miles from the ArizonaColorado border and more than 400 

miles from the Phoenix-Mesa 

Nonattainment Area. With respect to 

PM2.5, as noted, California 

nonattainment areas are upwind of 

Arizona emissions sources. All other 

states that border Arizona are 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

PM2.5. 

• Modeling. With respect to the PM2.5

NAAQS, ADEQ also points to modeling 

that EPA conducted in connection with 

EPA’s promulgation of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which 

purportedly shows Arizona’s 

contribution to nonattainment in 

downwind states to be minimal. The 

information that EPA provided ADEQ 

concerning EPA’s modeling for the 

CAIR rule, however, was in error. The 

State of Arizona was not included in the 

modeling. We believe that ADEQ has 

presented sufficient support for the 

negative declaration in its discussion of 

the other factors and need not rely on 

CAIR modeling results. 

C. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility 

As noted above, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires States to 

prohibit emissions that interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

SIP for any other State to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility. 

The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP 

explains that non-interference with 

CAA PSD measures in other states is 

achieved through preconstruction 

review and permitting procedures for 

stationary sources. Specifically, all new 

sources and modifications to existing 

sources in Arizona are subject to state 

requirements for preconstruction review 

and permitting pursuant to Arizona 

Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, 

Chapter 2, Articles 2 and 4 or relevant 

county rules. All new major sources and 

major modifications to existing major 

sources in Arizona are subject to the 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) provisions of these rules 

(including 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas) or Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for attainment areas. 

ADEQ indicates that Arizona will 

update the NSR rules when EPA’s PM2.5

implementation guidance is finalized 

and that Arizona will implement the 

current rules in accordance with EPA’s 

interim guidance using PM10 as a 

surrogate for PM2.5 in the PSD and 

NNSR programs. 

The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP 

explains that non-interference with 

CAA visibility measures in other states 

is achieved with respect to 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 through implementation and 

enforcement of the State’s reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

(RAVI) rule (codified at Arizona 

Administrative Code Sections R18–2–

1601 through R18–2–1606), which 

requires Arizona to analyze and 

implement control strategies where 

applicable should a source be certified 

and found attributable for causing or 

contributing to visibility impairment. 

The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP 

notes that Arizona Administrative Code 

Section R18–2–410 provides additional 

protection of visibility by requiring new 

major sources or major modifications to 

complete an analysis of the anticipated 

impacts on visibility to any Class I area 

that may be affected by the emissions 

from the source. Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs) may also submit a visibility 

impact analysis for additional 

consideration during the permitting 

process. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
41632 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2See pages 9 and 10 in EPA’s Interstate Transport 

Guidance, referenced in Footnote 1. 

Regarding visibility impairment 

caused by regional haze, the Arizona 

Interstate Transport SIP concurs with 

EPA in concluding that it is currently 

premature to determine whether or not 

SIPs for 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that interfere with measures 

in other States’ SIPs designed to address 

regional haze.2 Under EPA’s regional 

haze regulations, regional haze SIPs are 

not due until December 17, 2007, and 

until these SIPs are submitted, accurate 

assessments regarding the impact of 

emissions and control measures on 

other States’ SIPs cannot be made. 

D. Evaluation and Conclusion 

We find that ADEQ’s selection of 

factors and accompanying analysis (see 

section III.B., above) provide a 

reasonable basis with which to evaluate 

the impacts of emissions from within 

Arizona on other states. We also find 

that ADEQ’s conclusion that emissions 

from Arizona do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

or PM2.5 standard in any other state is 

adequately supported by the 

information in the Arizona Interstate 

Transport SIP. 

We also find that the Arizona 

Interstate Transport SIP adequately 

provides for non-interference with CAA 

PSD and visibility (not including 

regional haze) measures in other states 

with respect to 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

and reasonably concludes that a 

determination of whether or not the 

Arizona SIP for 8-hour ozone or PM2.5

contains adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that interfere with measures 

in other States’ SIPs designed to address 

regional visibility impairment caused by 

regional haze must wait for the 

submittal of regional haze SIPs. 

Based on these findings, we are 

approving the Arizona Interstate 

Transport SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result of our 

approval of this SIP, we are no longer 

obligated to promulgate a FIP for 

Arizona addressing the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement. 

IV. Nevada’s Interstate Transport SIP 

A. CAA Procedural Provisions 

On December 18, 2007, NDEP’s 

Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAQP) 

published a notice on their Web site of 

a comment period on a proposed SIP to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). Notice of the comment 

period was also sent via the State 

Environmental Commission’s (SEC’s) 

electronic mailing list as well as the 

BAQP’s lists of interested persons. The 

comment period was open until January 

19, 2007. No public comments were 

received on the proposed SIP. The 

notice provided the opportunity for 

members of the public to request a 

public hearing, but no such request was 

made. On February 5, 2007, in 

accordance with Nevada law, the 

Administrator of NDEP adopted the 

Nevada Interstate Transport SIP and 

submitted the SIP to EPA for approval. 

NDEP’s section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP 

submittal package includes evidence of 

public notice and opportunity for public 

hearing, and NDEP adoption, and, based 

on review of these materials, we find 

that NDEP has met the procedural 

requirements of CAA section 110 and 40 

CFR part 51, subpart F. 

B. ‘‘Significant Contribution’’ and 

‘‘Interference With Maintenance’’

Requirements 

As noted above, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires States to 

prohibit emissions that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with respect to the NAAQS. 

NDEP’s Nevada Interstate Transport SIP 

concludes that emissions from air 

pollution sources in Nevada do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone or 

PM2.5 NAAQS or interfere with 

maintenance of those standards in 

another state. In support of this negative 

declaration, the Nevada Interstate 

Transport SIP identifies the following 

factors and provides the following 

analysis: 

• Prevailing Winds and Location of 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas in 

Neighboring States. There are no PM2.5

nonattainment areas in Nevada. 

Moreover, prevailing winds are from the 

south to west, and PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas in neighboring states are located to 

the east, i.e., upwind, in California. 

• Prevailing Winds and Location of 8- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in 

Neighboring States. There is one 

nonattainment area in Nevada, the Las 

Vegas area. Data from McCarran 

International Airport in Las Vegas 

indicate that prevailing winds are from 

the southwest. Thus, 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas in southern 

California lie upwind of the Las Vegas 

area. The Phoenix metropolitan area, the 

only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

in Arizona, lies 300 miles south of Las 

Vegas and is characterized by east-west 

winds and thus is not downwind of Las 

Vegas. 

• Nonattainment Plans. Clark County 

Department of Air Quality and 

Environmental Management (Clark 

County) is currently required to develop 

a SIP revision for the Las Vegas area 

which will demonstrate attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard by 2009. 

In the Nevada Interstate Transport 

SIP, NDEP commits to continue to 

review new air quality information as it 

becomes available to ensure that the 

negative declaration based on the above 

factors and analysis is still supported by 

such information. 

C. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility 

As noted above, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires States to 

prohibit emissions that interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

SIP for any other State to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility. 

The Nevada Interstate Transport SIP 

explains that non-interference with 

CAA PSD measures in other states is 

achieved through preconstruction 

review and permitting procedures for 

major new sources and major 

modifications under the State’s PSD 

program (delegated from EPA) and 

under the State’s regulations for 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR). NDEP notes that EPA has 

established or will establish schedules 

for SIP submissions that incorporate 

revisions to EPA’s preconstruction 

permitting regulations that are specific 

to the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and that Nevada intends to revise the 

Nevada SIP consistent with such 

schedules. In the meantime, NDEP will 

implement the current rules and PSD 

delegation in accordance with EPA’s 

interim guidance using PM10 as a 

surrogate for PM2.5 in the PSD and 

NNSR programs. 

For showing non-interference with 

CAA visibility measures in other states, 

the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP 

notes that EPA has made no 

determination that the emissions from 

any State interfere with measures 

required to be included in a plan to 

address reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment. With respect to regional 

haze, NDEP notes in the Nevada 

Interstate Transport SIP that Nevada is 

working on a SIP to address visibility 

impairment due to regional haze and is 

required to submit a regional haze SIP 

by December 17, 2007. 

D. Evaluation and Conclusion 

We find that NDEP’s selection of 

factors and accompanying analysis (see 

section IV.B., above) provide a 

reasonable basis with which to evaluate 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 41633 

the impacts of emissions from within 

Nevada on other states. We also find 

that NDEP’s conclusion that emissions 

from Nevada do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

or PM2.5 standard in any other state is 

adequately supported by the 

information in the Nevada Interstate 

Transport SIP. 

We also find that the Nevada 

Interstate Transport SIP adequately 

provides for non-interference with CAA 

PSD and visibility (not including 

regional haze) measures in other states 

with respect to 8-hour ozone and PM2.5. 

A determination of whether or not the 

Nevada SIP for 8-hour ozone or PM2.5

contains adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that interfere with measures 

in other States’ SIPs designed to address 

regional visibility impairment caused by 

regional haze must wait for the 

submittal of regional haze SIPs. 

Based on these findings, we are 

approving the Nevada Interstate 

Transport SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result of our 

approval of this SIP, we are no longer 

obligated to promulgate a FIP for 

Nevada addressing the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement. 

V. EPA’s Final Action 

In today’s action, EPA is approving 

the SIPs submitted by the States of 

Arizona and Nevada to satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. These approvals eliminate the 

obligation on EPA to promulgate section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) FIPs for these States. 

We are publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipates no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, 

EPA is publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal should 

adverse comments be filed. This action 

will be effective October 1, 2007, 

without further notice unless the EPA 

receives relevant adverse comments by 

August 30, 2007. 

If we receive such comments, then we 

will publish a document withdrawing 

the final rule and informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. We will not 

institute a second comment period. 

Parties interested in commenting should 

do so at this time. If no such comments 

are received, the public is advised that 

this rule will be effective on October 1, 

2007 and no further action will be taken 

on the proposed rule. 

VI. 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 plans 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 plans 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 State plans 

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. section 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 October 1, 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
41634 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: June 11, 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)(136) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(136) The following plan was 

submitted on May 24, 2007 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Revision to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Under Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Regional 

Transport (May 2007), adopted by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality on May 24, 2007. 

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 3. Section 52.1470 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(64) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(64) The following plan was 

submitted on February 5, 2007 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection. 

(1) Nevada State Implementation Plan 

for Interstate Transport to Satisfy the 

Requirements of Clean Air Act 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS Promulgated in July 1997 

(January 31, 2007), adopted by the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection on February 5, 2007. 

[FR Doc. E7–14473 Filed 7–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

Final Flood Elevation Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified 

BFEs are made final for the 

communities listed below. The BFEs 

and modified BFEs are the basis for the 

floodplain management measures that 

each community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

remain qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing 

BFEs and modified BFEs for each 

community. This date may be obtained 

by contacting the office where the maps 

are available for inspection as indicated 

on the table below. 

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 

Management Section, Mitigation 

Directorate, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below for the modified BFEs for 

each community listed. These modified 

elevations have been published in 

newspapers of local circulation and 

ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 

publication. The Mitigation Division 

Director of FEMA has resolved any 

appeals resulting from this notification. 

This final rule is issued in accordance 

with section 110 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, 

and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has 

developed criteria for floodplain 

management in floodprone areas in 

accordance with 44 CFR part 60. 

Interested lessees and owners of real 

property are encouraged to review the 

proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM 

available at the address cited below for 

each community. The BFEs and 

modified BFEs are made final in the 

communities listed below. Elevations at 

selected locations in each community 

are shown. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This final rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirements of 44 CFR part 

10, Environmental Consideration. An 

environmental impact assessment has 

not been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This final rule involves no policies that 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This final rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

■ Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 67 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§ 67.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 67.11 are amended as 

follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES