Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25969 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

for the Parkersburg-Marietta, 

WV-OH Area.

Wood County ................................ 09/08/06 05/08/07 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.349 the table entitled ‘‘West 

Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area to 

read as follows: 

§ 81.349 West Virginia. 

* * * * * 

WEST VIRGINIA—OZONE

[8-Hour Standard] 

Designated Area 

Designation a Category/Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area 

Wood County ........................................................................................................... 05/08/07 Attainment.

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8678 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0677a; FRL–8303–2] 

Revisions to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan, Washoe County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Washoe County portion of the Nevada 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM) emissions from fugitive dust 

sources, such as open areas, unpaved 

roads, and construction activities. We 

are approving this local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 

2007 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 7, 

2007. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0677a, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), 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 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 

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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

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

copy at EPA Region IX, 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 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
25970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 

either (415) 947–4111, or 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving 

with the date that it was adopted by 

Washoe County and submitted by 

Nevada. 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

Washoe Co ..................................................... 040.030 Dust Control ................................................... 07/26/02 08/05/02 

On February 5, 2003, this Rule 

040.030 submittal became complete by 

operation of law because EPA did not 

make a formal finding that it met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V. These criteria must be met 

before formal EPA review may begin. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved a prior version of this 

rule into the Nevada SIP on July 27, 

1972; please see 37 Federal Register 

(FR) 15086. On October 30, 1991, 

Nevada submitted a revised version of 

Regulation 040.030 to EPA as part of its 

moderate PM–10 nonattainment area 

plan. Nevada submitted additional 

revisions to Regulation 040.030 to EPA 

on September 18, 1992, and March 25, 

1994, as ‘‘addenda’’ to its moderate PM–

10 area nonattainment plan. EPA did 

not act on these submitted versions of 

the rule, but they have been in effect 

under state law since their adoption. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

Washoe County Regulation 040.030—

Dust Control is designed to limit the 

emissions of fugitive dust or particulate 

matter from a variety of activities and 

sources such as construction sites, bulk 

material hauling, unpaved parking lots, 

and disturbed soil in open areas and 

vacant lots. Regulation 040.030 is a 

significant part of the Washoe County 

serious area PM–10 attainment plan 

control strategy for the Truckee 

Meadows Air Basin (TMAB). The 

Washoe County serious area PM–10 

attainment plan (submitted August 

2002) identified fugitive dust from 

construction activity and disturbed land 

as significant sources of PM–10 

emissions. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

On January 8, 2001, EPA determined 

TMAB had failed to attain the annual 

and 24-hour PM–10 standards by the 

statutory deadline of December 31, 1994 

based on monitored air quality data 

during the years 1992–94. 

Consequently, the area was reclassified 

under CAA 188(b)(2) by operation of 

law as a serious nonattainment area, 

effective February 7, 2001. See 66 FR 

1268 (January 8, 2001). States 

containing initial moderate PM–10 

nonattainment areas that are reclassified 

as serious under CAA section 188(b)(2) 

are required under section 189(b)(2) to 

submit a serious PM–10 nonattainment 

plan within 18 months of the 

reclassification. A serious PM–10 

nonattainment plan must provide for, 

among other things, implementation of 

best available control measures (BACM), 

including best available control 

technology (BACT). Also, SIP rules must 

be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not interfere with 

existing requirements contributing 

towards meeting air quality standards 

(section 110(l)) or relax control 

requirements existing before November 

15, 1990 (see section 193). We have 

listed below the guidance and policy 

documents that we used to evaluate this 

rule for enforceability, RACM, and 

BACM requirements. 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987. 

2. ‘‘Review of State Implementation 

Plans and Revisions for Enforceability 

and Legal Sufficiency’’, September 23, 

1987. 

3. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; 

Clarification to Appendix D of 

November 24, 1987 Federal Register 

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of 

availability published in the May 25, 

1988 Federal Register. 

4. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

5. ‘‘General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ at 57 FR 

13498, April 16, 1992. 

6. ‘‘General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ at 57 FR 

18070, April 28, 1992. 

7. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background 

Document and Technical Information 

Document for Best Available control 

Measures,’’ EPA 450/2–92–004, 

September 1992. 

8. General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ at 59 FR 

41998, August 16, 1994. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, BACM, and SIP 

relaxations. Regulation 040.030 contains 

specific well-defined requirements that 

are enforceable. The rule also contains 

new control measures that achieve 

substantially greater emission 

reductions compared to the 1972 rule in 

the SIP. Consequently, EPA finds that 

the submitted rule does not interfere 

with progress toward air quality 

standards and does not relax any SIP 

control requirements existing before 

November 15, 1990. The TSD provides 

more information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

We have no recommendations. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rule because we believe it 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25971 

fulfills all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by June 7, 2007, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on July 9, 2007. 

This will incorporate these rules into 

the federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

III. 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 law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

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 is not economically 

significant. 

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. 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 July 9, 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) of the CAA.) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 15, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

on May 2, 2007. 

■ 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 DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(55)(i)(A)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(55) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Regulation 040.030 adopted on 

July 26, 2002. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8695 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0635; FRL–8308–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Visible Emissions and Particulate 

Matter Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES