31778 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the environment. For the final NOX SIP 

Call, the Agency conducted a general 

analysis of the potential changes in 

ozone and particulate matter levels that 

may be experienced by minority and 

low-income populations as a result of 

the requirements of that rule. These 

findings were presented in the RIA for 

the NOX SIP Call. This action does not 

affect this analysis. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 78 

Acid rain, Air pollution control, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 97 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 1, 2007. 

William L. Wehrum, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

1. The authority citation for Part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q. 

Subpart G—Control Strategy 

2. Section 51.121 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (c)(2). 

b. By removing the entry for 

‘‘Georgia’’ from the tables in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i), (e)(4)(iii) and (g)(2)(ii). 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(C). 

d. By removing paragraph (s). 

§ 51.121 Findings and requirements for 

submission of State implementation plan 

revisions relating to emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) With respect to the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the portions of Missouri, 

Michigan, and Alabama within the fine 

grid of the OTAG modeling domain. The 

fine grid is the area encompassed by a 

box with the following geographic 

coordinates: Southwest Corner, 92 

degrees West longitude and 32 degrees 

North latitude; and Northeast Corner, 

69.5 degrees West longitude and 44 

degrees North latitude. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–11036 Filed 6–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0571; FRL–8324–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for Arizona; 

Maricopa County PM–10 

Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan 

for Attainment of the 24-Hour and 

Annual PM–10 Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 25, 2002, EPA 

approved under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) the serious area particulate 

matter (PM–10) plan for the Maricopa 

County portion of the metropolitan 

Phoenix (Arizona) nonattainment area 

(Maricopa County area). Among other 

things, EPA approved the best available 

control measure (BACM) and most 

stringent measure (MSM) 

demonstrations in the plan and granted 

the State’s request for an attainment 

date extension for the area. EPA’s 

approval was challenged in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

In response to the Court’s remand, EPA 

reassessed the BACM and MSM 

demonstrations for the significant 

source categories of on-road motor 

vehicles and nonroad engines and 

equipment exhaust, specifically 

regarding whether California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) diesel is a 

BACM and/or MSM. As a result of this 

reassessment, EPA again approved the 

BACM and MSM demonstrations in the 

plan and granted the State’s request to 

extend the attainment deadline from 

2001 to 2006. In light of its recent 

finding that the Maricopa County area 

failed to attain the 24-hour PM–10 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) by December 31, 2006, EPA is 

again reassessing the BACM and MSM 

demonstrations in the plan and is again 

proposing to approve these 

demonstrations. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

July 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0571, by one of the folling 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: weisner.carol@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

eRulemaking portal or e-mail. The 

eRulemaking portal is an anonymous 

access system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

apointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Weisner, U.S. EPA Region 9, (415) 

947–4107, weisner.carol@epa.gov or 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/ 

actions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

A. EPA’s 2002 Approval 

On July 25, 2002, EPA approved 

multiple documents submitted to EPA 

by Arizona for the Maricopa County 

area as meeting the CAA requirements 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31779 

1Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the 

annual PM–10 standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 

2006). References to the annual standard in this 

proposed rule for historical purposes only. EPA is 

not taking any regulatory action with regard to this 

former standard. 

2For a detailed discussion of the MAG plan and 

the serious area PM–10 requirements, please see 

EPA’s proposed and final approval actions at 65 FR 

19964 (April 13, 2000), 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 

2001) and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002). 

3For a detailed discussion of EPA’s preliminary 

interpretation of the CAA’s BACM requirements, 

see ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers 

for PM–10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998, 42008–42014 

(August 16, 1994). 

4 ‘‘Nonroad vehicles’’ and ‘‘nonroad engines’’ are 

used interchangeably in EPA’s proposed and final 

approval actions on the MAG plan. In addition, 

CARB and other state air agencies typically refer to 

these sources as ‘‘off-road.’’ ‘‘Nonroad engines and 

equipment,’’ ‘‘nonroad vehicles,’’ ‘‘nonroad 

engines,’’ ‘‘nonroad’’ and ‘‘off-road’’ are used 

interchangeably in today’s proposed rule. 

5A list of all potential BACM was compiled for 

each of the significant source categories and a 

detailed analysis of whether the potential BACM 

were technically and economically feasible was 

provided by the MAG plan and evaluated by EPA. 

65 FR at 19964, 66 FR at 50252. 

for serious PM–10 nonattainment areas 

for the 24-hour and annual PM–10 

national ambient air quality standards.1

Among these documents is the ‘‘Revised 

MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan 

for PM–10 for the Maricopa County 

Nonattainment Area,’’ February 2000 

(MAG plan) that includes the BACM 

demonstrations for all significant source 

categories (except agriculture) for both 

the 24-hour and annual PM–10 

standards and the State’s request and 

supporting documentation, including 

the most stringent measure analysis 

(except for agriculture) for an attainment 

date extension for both standards. EPA’s 

July 25, 2002 final action included 

approval of these elements of the MAG 

plan.2

Under CAA section 189(b)(2), serious 

area PM–10 plans must provide 

assurances that BACM will be 

implemented no later than four years 

after a moderate PM–10 nonattainment 

area is reclassified as serious. For the 

Maricopa County area, the BACM 

implementation deadline was June 10, 

2000. In short, a BACM demonstration 

starts with the identification of all 

source categories contributing 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

PM–10 NAAQS. Once the significant 

categories are identified, all potential 

BACM for these categories must be 

identified and a reasoned justification 

must be provided for any BACM that are 

not implemented. All BACM that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible must be implemented.3

In the case of the Maricopa County 

area, the MAG plan identified eight 

significant PM–10 source categories, 

including on-road motor vehicle and 

nonroad engines and equipment 

exhaust.4 5 In our 2002 approval of the 

MAG plan, we stated that Arizona had 

one of the most comprehensive 

programs for addressing on-road motor 

vehicle emissions and that the 

additional measures in the MAG plan 

would strengthen and go beyond that 

program. For nonroad engines, EPA 

stated that Arizona had committed to 

adopt measures that would strengthen 

the overall nonroad engine program 

making it go beyond the existing federal 

program. 65 FR at 19972–19974; 66 FR 

at 50258–50260. Strengthening and 

expanding existing programs are key 

criteria for demonstrating the 

implementation of BACM. 59 FR at 

42013. EPA noted that CARB diesel was 

rejected in the MAG plan as a BACM 

due to high costs, but believed the cost 

analysis was too uncertain to judge. 65 

FR at 19973; 67 FR at 48725. EPA 

concluded that, overall, the on-road and 

nonroad measures in the MAG plan 

constituted BACM for the Maricopa 

County area without the 

implementation of CARB diesel. 67 FR 

at 48725. 

As a serious PM–10 nonattainment 

area, the Maricopa County area was 

required to attain the annual and 24–

hour PM–10 standards by no later than 

December 31, 2001. CAA section 

188(c)(2). However, CAA section 188(e) 

allows us to extend the attainment date 

for a serious PM–10 nonattainment area 

for up to five years if attainment by 2001 

is impracticable and certain specified 

additional conditions are met. Among 

these conditions is that the State must 

demonstrate to our satisfaction that its 

serious area plan includes the most 

stringent measures that are included in 

the implementation plan of any state 

and/or are achieved in practice in any 

state and are feasible for the area. EPA 

determined that CARB diesel was not 

required as a MSM because it did not 

advance the attainment date. Therefore 

EPA granted an attainment date 

extension for the Maricopa County area 

without it. Id. at 48739. 

B. Vigil v. Leavitt 

The Arizona Center for Law in the 

Public Interest (ACLPI), on behalf of 

Phoenix area residents, subsequently 

filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit a petition for review of 

EPA’s approval of several elements in 

the MAG plan. As relevant to this 

proposed rule, ACLPI asserted that 

EPA’s approval was arbitrary and 

capricious because the plan did not 

mandate the use of CARB diesel and 

thus did not satisfy the CAA 

requirements for BACM and MSM for 

mobile sources. ACLPI further asserted 

that we granted an extension of the 

statutory deadline for attainment to 

December 31, 2006 based on an 

inadequate MSM demonstration. 

On May 10, 2004, the Court issued its 

opinion which upheld EPA’s final 

approval in part but remanded to EPA 

the question of whether CARB diesel 

must be included in the serious area 

plan as a BACM and a MSM. 

Specifically, with respect to whether 

CARB diesel was appropriately rejected 

as BACM, the Court stated that ‘‘* * * 

Arizona has offered one explanation, 

which EPA has declined to ratify, and 

EPA has not proffered an adequate 

explanation of its own.’’ The Court 

further stated that ‘‘[i]n light of our 

disposition with respect to CARB diesel 

as a BACM, we remand to EPA for 

further consideration of whether CARB 

diesel satisfies MSM as well.’’ Finally, 

the Court remanded the question of 

Maricopa County area’s eligibility for an 

extension of the attainment date to 

2006, but only insofar as that question 

depends on EPA’s determination 

regarding CARB diesel as a MSM. Vigil 

v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, amended at 

381 F. 3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004). 

C. EPA’s 2006 Approval 

In response to the Vigil Court’s 

remand, on August 3, 2006, EPA again 

approved the BACM and MSM 

demonstrations in the MAG plan for the 

significant source categories of on-road 

motor vehicles and nonroad engines and 

equipment exhaust without CARB 

diesel and granted the State’s request to 

extend the attainment deadline from 

2001 to 2006. 71 FR 43979. In this final 

action, EPA concluded that CARB diesel 

is not feasible for on-road motor 

vehicles because Arizona would not be 

able to obtain a CAA section 

211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver for purposes of 

PM–10 attainment. In reaching this 

conclusion, EPA reasoned that Arizona 

would not be able to provide a 

demonstration that CARB diesel is 

‘‘necessary’’ to achieve the PM–10 

NAAQS, as required by that section, 

because EPA had already approved the 

State’s demonstration of attainment of 

the PM–10 NAAQS without relying on 

CARB diesel. Id. at 43983. Also in this 

final action, EPA noted that in August 

2005, CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) was 

amended by the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPAct), 42 U.S.C. 15801 et seq., 

which placed additional restrictions on 

EPA’s authority under that provision. 

We did not, however, address the effect 

of the new restrictions on our action 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31780 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

6 In its proposed and final nonattainment finding 

actions, EPA refers to the Maricopa County area as 

the Phoenix nonattainment area. These terms are 

interchangeable. 

7The final rule will be published shortly in the 

Federal Register. 

8This prohibition applies to all states except 

California, as explained in section 211(c)(4)(B). 

9Note that under the EPAct, in cases where our 

approval would not increase the total number of 

fuels on the list because the total number of fuels 

in SIPs at that point is below the number of fuels 

as of September 1, 2004, then our approval requires 

a finding that the new fuel will not cause supply 

or distribution problems or have significant adverse 

impacts on fuel producibility in the affected or 

contiguous areas. CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV). 

In addition, we may not approve a state fuel unless 

that fuel is already approved in at least one SIP in 

the applicable Petroleum Administration for 

Defense District (PADD). CAA section 

211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). Because we believe that approval 

of CARB diesel is not allowed as it would increase 

the total number of fuels on the Boutique Fuels list 

above the number of fuels as of September 1, 2004, 

we do not address these additional restrictions on 

our approval authority under CAA section 

211(c)(4)(c)(i). 

because of our conclusion that CARB 

diesel was not necessary to achieve the 

NAAQS. Id. at 43980, footnotes 2 and 3. 

With respect to nonroad engines and 

equipment, EPA concluded that CARB 

diesel is not feasible because of the 

uncertainties with fuel availability, 

storage and segregation and concerns 

about program effectiveness due to 

owners and operators fueling outside 

the Maricopa County area. Id. 

II. Proposed Action 

On March 23, 2007, EPA proposed to 

find that the Maricopa County area 6

failed to attain the 24-hour PM–10 

NAAQS by the December 31, 2006 

deadline mandated by the CAA. 72 FR 

13723. On May 24, 2007, the Regional 

Administrator signed a final rule finding 

that the Maricopa County area failed to 

attain.7 As a result, the Agency can no 

longer rely on its August 3, 2006 

conclusion that the State would not be 

able to obtain a section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) 

waiver for CARB diesel because it is not 

necessary for attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS. Thus EPA has reassessed the 

BACM demonstration for the onroad 

motor vehicle exhaust source category 

in light of the new EPAct provisions 

that it did not previously consider. As 

discussed further in section III.A. below, 

EPA has concluded it could not approve 

a CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver for 

Arizona for CARB diesel because the 

effect of such an approval would 

unlawfully increase the total number of 

fuels approved into SIPs under section 

211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004. 

Therefore, EPA is again proposing to 

approve the BACM demonstration in the 

MAG plan without CARB diesel. 

Because our August 2006 approval of 

the BACM demonstration for nonroad 

engines and equipment exhaust relied to 

some extent on our conclusion with 

respect to onroad motor vehicle exhaust, 

we are also proposing again to find that 

CARB diesel is not required as a BACM 

for the nonroad category because of the 

uncertainties with fuel availability, 

storage and segregation and program 

effectiveness due to owners and 

operators fueling outside the Maricopa 

County area. 

Finally, since EPA granted the State’s 

request for an attainment date extension 

in August 2006, the December 31, 2006 

attainment deadline has passed. 

Therefore the extension request is now 

moot. However, if CARB diesel had 

been required as a MSM in order for 

EPA to grant the extension request, the 

State would now be required to 

continue to implement it absent the 

requisite showing under CAA section 

110(1). Therefore EPA is again 

proposing to approve the MSM 

demonstration in the MAG plan without 

CARB diesel. We are also confirming 

that we appropriately granted Arizona’s 

request for an attainment date extension 

in our 2002 and 2006 actions. 

III. Reassessment of the BACM 

Demonstration for the Maricopa County 

Area 

A. On-Road Motor Vehicle Exhaust 

Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA 

generally preempts states from 

prescribing or attempting to enforce 

controls respecting motor vehicle fuel 

characteristics or components that EPA 

has controlled under section 211(c)(1),8

unless the state control is identical to 

the Federal control. EPA currently has 

nationwide regulations prescribing 

limits on various characteristics and 

components of motor vehicle diesel fuel 

(e.g., sulfur content limits, minimum 

cetane index and limits on aromatic 

content). 55 FR 34120 (August 21, 

1990). Thus Arizona would need to 

obtain a CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) 

waiver in order to implement a different 

requirement governing these 

characteristics and components of onroad diesel fuel, i.e., CARB diesel, in the 

Maricopa County area. 

Under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), EPA 

may waive preemption by approving a 

non-identical state fuel control as a SIP 

provision, if the state demonstrates that 

the measure is necessary to achieve the 

NAAQS. We may approve a state fuel 

requirement as ‘‘necessary’’ if no other 

measures would bring about timely 

attainment, or if other measures exist 

and are technically possible to 

implement but are unreasonable or 

impracticable. 

Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(I), added by 

the EPAct, further restricts EPA’s 

authority to waive preemption by 

providing that the Agency cannot 

approve, under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), 

any state fuel if the effect of such 

approval increases the total number of 

fuels approved into SIPs under section 

211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004. 

The EPAct required EPA to determine 

the total number of fuels approved into 

SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of 

September 1, 2004, and to publish the 

list for public review and comment. 

On June 6, 2006, EPA’s notice of its 

draft list was published in the Federal 

Register. 71 FR 32532. On December 28, 

2006, EPA’s notice of its final list, 

known as the Boutique Fuels List, was 

published in the Federal Register. 71 FR 

78192. The final list includes eight 

types of fuels approved into SIPs under 

section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 

2004. CARB fuels are approved into 

California’s SIP, but because the 

approval is not under CAA section 

211(c)(4)(C)(i), we did not place CARB 

fuels on the list of fuel types. 71 FR 

78196. Thus, CARB diesel is not one of 

these eight fuel types. As a result, EPA 

has no authority to approve, under 

section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), CARB diesel for 

on-road motor vehicles in the Maricopa 

County area because the effect of such 

approval would be to increase the total 

number of fuels approved into SIPs 

under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of 

September 1, 2004.9 Thus, the State 

would not be able to obtain a section 

211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver necessary to 

implement CARB diesel for on-road 

motor vehicles. Consequently EPA is 

again proposing to approve the BACM 

demonstration for the on-road category 

in the MAG plan without CARB diesel. 

B. Nonroad Engines and Equipment 

Exhaust 

EPA is not changing its assessment in 

its August 3, 2006 final rule that 

requiring CARB diesel for the control of 

nonroad engines and equipment exhaust 

is not currently feasible and is therefore 

not required as BACM in the Maricopa 

County area. Therefore, except as 

specifically modified below, EPA is 

relying for this proposed rule on its 

discussion of Nonroad Engines and 

Equipment Exhaust in Section II.B(2) of 

the Agency’s July 1, 2005 proposed rule. 

70 FR at 38066–38067. We are also 

relying on our responses to public 

comments on this issue in Section II.B. 

of our August 3, 2006 final rule. 71 FR 

at 43981–43983. 

We note one update to the 

information in footnote 7 of the August 

2006 final rule. There are currently six, 

rather than four, approval letters on the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31781 

Texas Low Emission Diesel fuel 

program web site providing for the use 

of alternative diesel fuel formulations. 

The second sentence in footnote 7 

should now read as follows: ‘‘Although 

Section 114.312(f) provides that 

alternative diesel fuel formulations must 

provide comparable or better reductions 

of NOX and PM, three of the six 

alternative diesel fuel formulation 

approval letters to date have cited NOX

reductions alone, or (in one case) 

reductions of NOX and hydrocarbons, 

but not PM, as the basis for approval.’’

IV. MSM Demonstration and Extension 

of Attainment Date 

In our August 3, 2006 final action, we 

determined that CARB diesel was not 

required as a MSM because it did not 

advance the attainment date. Today’s 

proposed approval of the BACM 

demonstration in the MAG plan for the 

on-road and nonroad vehicle exhaust 

source categories for the Maricopa 

County area without CARB diesel does 

not affect that determination. Therefore, 

we are again proposing to approve the 

MSM demonstration in the MAG plan. 

If we again take final action to approve 

the MSM demonstration, the attainment 

date extension granted to the Maricopa 

County area in our August 3, 2006 final 

action would not be affected. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

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 proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed 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 

proposes to approve 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 (Public Law 104–4). 

This proposed 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 

proposes to approve 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. This proposed 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 a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submission, 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 proposed 

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.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 31, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 07–2848 Filed 6–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0165; FRL–8323–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On April 17, 2007 (72 FR 

19144), EPA proposed certain approvals 

and certain disapprovals of revisions to 

the Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted to EPA by the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection. 

These revisions involve State rules 

governing applications for, and issuance 

of, permits for stationary sources, but 

not including review and permitting of 

major sources and major modifications 

under parts C and D of title I of the 

Clean Air Act. EPA is extending the 

comment period to August 17, 2007. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by August 17, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0165, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: rios.gerardo@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS