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

State regulation State effective date EPA approved date Comments

Subchapter 19, "Control and Prohibition ofAir October 17, 2005

...... July31, 2007 [Insert Subchapter 19 is approved into the SIP exPollution from Oxides of Nitrogen." FR page citation]. cept 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 imple- mentation 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; InterstateTransport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve state implementation plans submitted bythe States ofArizona and Nevada that address interstate transportwith 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 byArizona and Nevada and approved herein satisfy requirements under Clean Air Act. section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for each Stateto submit a plan containing adequate provisions to prohibit interstate transportwith 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 ofstate implementation plans. The effect of this action is to approve the Arizona and Nevada state implementation plans addressing interstatetransport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate standards and to eliminate obligations on the Agency to promulgate Federal implementation plansfor these States addressing this same requirement.

- DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adversecomments-by August 30, 2007. Ifadverse comment is received, EPA will publish atimely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public thatthe rule will nottake effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO9- OAR-2007-0295 by one ofthe 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 inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).

e Mail:Wienke Tax, Office ofAir Planning, Environmental Prote6tion -Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.

* HandDelivery:Wienke Tax, Office ofAir Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, Califoriia 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 athttp:// 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 bystatute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.govor e-mail. The http://www.regulations.govWeb site is

an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will notknow your identity
orcontact information unlessyou provide it in the body ofyour comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through http:// www.regulations.gov,your e-mail address will be automaticallycaptured and includedas part ofthe comment that is placed inthe public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electroniccomment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment and with any diskor CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to -technical difficultiesand cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronicfiles should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free ofany defects or viruses. For additional informatioji about EPA's public docketvisit the EPA Docket Center homepage athttp://

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

Docket:All documents.in the docket

are listed in thehttp:// www.regulations.govindex. Although listed inthe 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. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the Office ofAir 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, youcontact the individual listed inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy ofthe docket.You may viewthe hard copy ofthe docket 

### 41629

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 41629 2007

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

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 ofContents

I.Background II.Applicable Clean Air Act Requirements

A. CAA Procedural Provisions B."Significant Contribution" and

"Interference With Maintenance" Requirements C. Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration

(PSD) D. Visibility
-III. Arizona's Interstate Transport SIP A. CAA Procedural Provisions B."Significant Contribution" and

"Interference With Maintenance" Requirements C. Prevention ofSignificant 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 ofSignificant Deterioration

(PSD) and Visibility D. Evaluation andConclusion V.EPA's Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background

OnJuly 18, 1997, EPA issued new standards forthe 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 previoug NAAQS), and the level ofthe standard

was changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). Forthe PM NAAQS, EPA added a new 24-hour standard and a new annual standard for fine particles (generallyreferring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (gm)in diameter, PM2
. 5). Section 110(a)(1) ofthe CleanAir Act (CAA or "Act") requires States to submit new state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide forthe implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofa new orrevised 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 sectidn 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which applies to interstate transport ofcertain emissions. Section 110(a)(1) imposes the obligation upon States to make a SIP submission fora 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) ofthe Act for the 8-hour.ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 21147. This finding started a 2-yedr clock for promulgation by EPA ofa Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in accordance with section 110(c)(1), for any Statethat did not submit a SIP meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ,ozoneand PM 2. 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. OnAugust 15, 2006, EPA issued aguidance memorandum ("Interstate Transport Guidance") concerning the SIP submissions under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).'

On February 7,2007, the Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a SIP entitled Nevada State Implementation Plan forInterstate Traiisport to Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i),for the 8- Hour Ozone andPM2. 5 NAAQS Promulgated in July 1997 (January31; 2007) ("Nevada Interstate Transport SIP"). On May 24, 2007, the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental 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 ofthis 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 EPAto promulgate interstate transport FIPs forthese States.
II. Applicable Clean AirAct Requirements

As noted above, EPA promulgated

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5' in 1997, and under section 110(a)(1), within three years thereafter, States

were to submit SIPs to address the

See memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director,Air Quality Policy Division, Office ofAir 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 PM 2. 5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards," dated Augdst 15, 2006. various SIP elements listed under section 110(a)(2) for the new NAAQS, including the "good neighbor's 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 submita SIP that contains adequate provisions:

(i)Prohibiting, consistent with the provisions ofthis subchapter, any source or othertype ofemissions activitywithin the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will-

(I)

Contribute significantly to nonattainment in, orinterfere 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 inthe applicable implementation plan for anyother State under part Cofthis subchapter to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality orto 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 ofSIPs and SIP revisions for gubsequent submittal to EPA.

III.Arizona'sInterstateTransportSIP
A. CAA Procedural Provisions
On March 29 and 30, 2007, ADEQ published a notice inthe Arizona Republic,anewspaper ofgeneral circulation in the Phoenix area, ofa public hearing on proposed revisions to the Arizona SIP to address the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Apublic hearing was held on April 30, 2007 in Phoenix. On May 24, 2007, in accordance with Arizona law, the Director ofADEQadopted 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. "SignificantContribution"and "InterferenceWithMaintenance" 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 ofthe 8-hour ozone or 41630

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 41630 2007Federal Register

### / Vol. 72, No. 146 /Tuesday, July 31, 2007/Rules and Regulations

PM2.5NAAQS orinterfere with maintenance ofthose standards in another state. In support ofthis negative declaration, the Arizona Interstate Transport SIP identifies the following factors and provides the following analysis:

* Boundarydesignationsand 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 ofArizona and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area) is located within the central portion.ofthe State. The Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area includes much ofeastern Maricopa County as well as Apache Junction in Pinal County. There are no nonattainment areas in Arizona for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Maricopa Association ofGovernments (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.

e Spatialdistributionofemissions. Emissions ofpollutants contribiuting 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 ofthe State. The
most recently available emissions inventories from EPA's AirData for Arizona counties show thatMaricopa County sources emit approximately 50 percent ofthe state's volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 36 percent of the nitrogen oxides (NOx), known precursors to ozone, and approximately 30 percent ofthe state's total PM2.5 emissions. No other county emits the level ofemissions generated by Maricopa County.

* Monitoringdata.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 ofthe 8-hour ozone standard. Data collected from 2004-2006 show that all monitored areas are currently meeting the 8-hour ozone and PM 2. 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 RiverValley and is separated from other areas ofthe 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 ofits 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 ofthe areawere two ofthe factors that helped determine the impacts oftransported 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 Areasin NeighboringStates.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 Cdlorado (40 CFR 81.306). First, in designating the 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area in southern Nevada (i.e., a portion ofClark 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 inCalifornia is located in Imperial County, more than 80 miles west ofthe Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area and more than 200 miles from large point sources in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties. Based on regional and local airflow patterns, California nonattainment areas are upwind of Arizona emissions sources. Third, the 8- hour ozone nonattainrment 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 respectto the PM2 5 NAAQS, ADEQ also points to modeling that EPAconducted in connection with EPA's promulgation of theClean 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 ofArizona 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 notrely on CAIR modeling results.

C.PreventionofSignificant Deterioration (PSD)andVisibility

As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(25(D)(i)(II) requires States t6 prohibit emissions that interfere with

measures required tobe 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, allnew

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 orrelevant county rules. All new major sources and majormodifications to existing major

sources in Arizona are subject to the nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) provisions ofthese rules (including 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for attainment areas. ADEQindicates that Arizona will update the NSR rules when EPA's PM2. 5 implementation guidance is finalized and thatArizona will implement the
current rules in accordance with EPA's interim guidance using PM10 as a surrogate forPM 2.5 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 respectto 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 forcausingor contributing to visibility impairment.

The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP
notes thatArizona Administrative Code Section R18-2-410 provides additional protection ofvisibility by requiring new major sources or major modifications to complete an analysis ofthe 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. 

### 41631

o

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 41631 2007

### Federal Register

### /Vol. 72, No. 146/Tuesday, July 31, 2007/Rules and. Regulationg

Regarding visibility impairment causedby 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'sregional haze regulations, regional haze SIPs are not dueuntil December 17, 2007, and until these SIPs are submitted, accurate assessments regarding the impact of emissions and control measures on other States' SIPs cannotbe made.

D.EvaluationandConclusion

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 ofemissions fromwithin Arizona on other states. We also find that ADEQ's conclusion that emissions from Arizona do not significantly contribute to nonattainment orinterfere with maintenance ofthe 8-hour ozone

or PM2.5standard in any other state is adequately supported by the information inthe 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 ofwhether or not the Arizona SIP for 8-hour ozone or PM2. 5 contains adequate provisions toprohibit emissions that interfere with measures in other States'SIPs designed to address regional visibility impairment caused by regional haze must wait for the submittal ofregional haze SIPs.

Based on these findings, we are approving the Arizona Interstate Transport SIP as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result ofour approval ofthis 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 ofAir Quality Planning (BAQP) published a notice on theirWeb site of

a comment period on a proposed SIP to address the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Notice of the comment period was also sent via the State

See pages 9 -and10 in EPA's Interstate Transport Guidance, referenced in Footnote 1. Environmental Commission's (SEC's) electronic mailing list as well as the BAQP's lists ofinterested persons. The
comment period was open until January 19, 2007. Nopublic comments were received on the proposed SIP. The notice providedthe opportunity for members ofthe public to request a public hearing, but no such request was made. On February 5, 2007, in' accordance with Nevada law, the Administrator ofNDEP 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

onreview ofthese materials, we find that NDEP has met the procedural requirements ofCAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.

B. "SignificantContribution"and "InterferenceWithMaintenance" Requirements

As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires States to prohibit emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfer 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 ofthe 8-hour ozone or PM2. 5 NAAQS orinterfere with maintenance ofthose standards in another state. In support ofthis negative declaration, the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP identifies the following factors and provides the following analysis:

-0 PrevailingWindsandLocationof PM2.sNonattainment Areasin NeighboringStates.There are noPM2.5 nonattainment areas inNevada. Moreover, prevailing winds are fromthe south to west, and PM2.5 nonattainment

areas in neighboring states are located to the east, i.e.,upwind, in California. * PrevailingWindsandLocationof8- HourOzone Nonattainment Areasin NeighboringStates.There is one nonattainment areain Nevada, the Las Vegas area. Data fromMcCarran International Airport in LasVegas indicate that prevailing winds are from the southwest. Thus, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in southern California lie upwind ofthe Las Vegas

area. The Phoenix metropolitan area, the only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in Arizona, lies 300 miles south ofLas Vegas and is characterized byeast-west winds and thus is not downwind ofLas -Vegas. * Nonattainment Plans.Clark County Department ofAir 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 standardby 2009. In the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP, NDEP commits to continue toreview new air quality information as it becomes available to ensure that the negative declaration based onthe above factors and analysis is still supported by suchinformation.

C.PreventionofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) andVisibility
As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) requires States to prohibit emissions that interfere with

measures required to be included inthe SIP for any other State toprevent significant deterioration ofair quality or, to protect visibility.

The Nevada Interstate Transport SIP explains that non-interference with CAA PSD measures inother states is achieved through preconstruction review and permitting procedures for major new sources and major modifications under the State's PSD progran (delegated from EPA) and under the State's regulations for nonattainment New Source Review" (NNSR). NDEP notes thatEPAhas established or will establish schedules for SIP.submissions thatincorporate 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 thecurrent rules and PSD delegation in accordance with EPA's interim guidance using PM 1oas 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 thatEPA has made no determination thatthe emissions from any State interfere with measures required tobe 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 byDecember 17, 2007.

D.EvaluationandConclusion

We find that NDEP's selection of factors and accompanying analysis (see section IV.B.,above) provide a reasonable basis with which to evaluate 

### 41632

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 41632 2007

### Federal 

### Register/VoL, 7-2, No.. 146/Tueqday, July 31, 2007./Rules andRegllations

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 ofthe 8-hour ozone

or PM2. 5 standard inany other state is adequately supported by the information in the Nevada Interstate 'Transport SIP. We also find thatthe 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 PM 2. 5. A determination ofwhether or not the Nevada SIP for 8-hour ozone orPM2. 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 ofregional haze SIPs.

Based on these findings, we are approving the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result ofour approval ofthis SIP, we are no longer obligated to promulgate a FIP for Nevada addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement.

V. EPA'sFinal Action

In today's action, EPA is approving the SIPs submitted by the States of Arizona and Nevada to satisfy the requirements ofsection 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 forthese 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 nottake 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 atthis time. Ifno such comments

are received, the public is advised that this rule willbe effective on October 1, 2007 and no further action willbe tal~en

onthe proposed rule.

VI. StatutoryandExecutive 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 ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does notimpose 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 itwill not have a substantial direct effect on one ormore 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 byExecutive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because itdoes nothave 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 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely' approves State plans implementing'a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower 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 ofa 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. Itwould thus be inconsistent with-applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission;
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air-Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe 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 ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. gection 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 eadh House ofthe 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 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. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

-Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action mustbe filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthis rule for the"
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review maybe 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 ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

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 etseq. 41633*

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 41633 2007

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

Dated: June 11, 2007. Laura Yoshii, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIX.

mPart 52, ChapterI, Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

In1. The authority citation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart D-Arizona

m2. 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 ofEnvironmental Quality on May 24, 2007.
Subpart DD-Nevada

E 3. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(64)to read as follows:

§52.1470 Identification ofplan.

V

. * * * (c) * * * (64) The following plan was submitted -onFebruary 5, 2007by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection.

(1) Nevada State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport to Satisfy the Requirements ofClean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.gNAAQS Promulgated inJuly 1997 (January 31, 2007), adopted by the Nevada Division ofEnvironmental 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 listedbelow. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt orto show evidence ofbeing

. already in effect in orderto qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood.Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date ofissuance ofthe 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 thetable below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection
at the office ofthe ChiefExecutive Officer ofeach communit4. The respective addresses are listed in the tablebelow.
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 listedbelow for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified. elevations have been published in newspapers oflocal circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed sincethat publication. The Mitigation Division Director ofFEMA has resolved any appeals resulting fromthis notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 ofthe 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 ofreal property are encouraged to review the proofFlood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final inthe communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community

are shown.

NationalEnvironmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has
notbeen prepared.

RegulatoryFlexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory *flexibilityanalysis is notrequired.

RegulatoryClassification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 ofSeptember 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order12988, CivilJustice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List ofSubjects in 44 CFR Part 67

Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

mAccordingly, 44 CFRpart 67is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

m 1.The authority citation forpart 67 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 etseq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

### §67.11 [Amended]

Is2.The tablespublished underthe authority of§ 67.11 are amended as follows: 

### 41634

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 41634 2007