Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 62119 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guides the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have made a preliminary 

determination that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we 

believe that this rule should be 

categorically excluded, under figure 2–

1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, 

from further environmental 

documentation. Under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is 

required for this rule. A final 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

and a final ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 Subpart C as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T05–123, to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–123 Safety Zone: Motts 

Channel/ Banks Channel, Wrightsville 

Beach, North Carolina 

(a) Location: The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of Motts 

Channel/Banks Channel within 1000 

feet of Bird Island at Wrightsville Beach, 

NC, approximate position latitude 

34°12′41′′ N, longitude 077°48′26′′ W in 

the Captain of the Port Sector North 

Carolina zone as defined in 33 CFR 

3.25–20. 

(b) Definition. As used in this section 

the ‘‘on scene representative’’ means 

any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port to 

act on his behalf. 

(c) Regulation: (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in 165.23 of this 

part, entry into this zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port or the on scene representative. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this safety zone 

shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a U.S. 

Coast Guard Ensign; 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a U.S. 

Coast Guard Ensign. 

(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage within the safety zone 

must request authorization from the 

Captain of the Port, Sector North 

Carolina or his on scene representative 

by telephone at (252) 247–4570 or (252) 

247–4571 or by marine band radio on 

VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

(d) Enforcement period: This 

regulation will be enforced from 6 p.m. 

to 8 p.m. on November 24, 2007. 

Dated: October 10, 2007. 

William D. Lee, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector North 

Carolina. 

[FR Doc. E7–21589 Filed 11–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0590; FRL–8489–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Requests for Rescission 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval 

of revisions to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on August 28, 2006 and 

include certain regulations and statutes 

for which the State of Nevada is 

requesting rescission. The intended 

effect is to rescind unnecessary 

provisions from the applicable plan. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on December 3, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0590 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
62120 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1NAC 445.617 (‘‘Six-minute period’’) is the lone 

rescission request among the 12 cited in the January 

2007 final rule that is not being finalized today. In 

the submittal dated June 26, 2007, NDEP requests 

withdrawal of the rescission request for NAC 

445.617 and, instead, replacement of NAC 445.617 

in the SIP with approval of the current codification 

of the rule (i.e., NAC 445B.172). We will be taking 

action on submitted rule NAC 445B.172 in a 

separate document. Also, in the submittal dated 

June 26, 2007, NDEP provides public participation 

documentation for rescission of NAC 445.667 

(‘‘Excess emissions: Schedule maintenance; testing; 

malfunctions’’), a rule covered by our proposal 

dated December 18, 2006 (71 FR 75690). We will 

take final action on rescission of NAC 445.667 in 

a separate document. 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50875), 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), 

EPA proposed approval of certain 

revisions to the Nevada SIP and 

disapproval of certain other revisions. 

These revisions involve rules and 

statutory provisions previously 

approved in the Nevada SIP for which 

the State of Nevada is requesting 

rescission. 

In our August 28, 2006 proposed rule, 

we made final approval of those 

rescission requests that we proposed to 

approve contingent upon the receipt of 

certain public notice and hearing 

documentation from the State of 

Nevada. On January 3, 2007 (72 FR 11), 

based on public notice and hearing 

documentation provided by the State for 

most of the requested rescission, we 

finalized the rescissions for most of the 

subject rules and statutory provisions. 

On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32529), we 

published a second final rule related to 

our August 28, 2006 proposed rule. In 

our June 2007 final rule, we rescinded 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

that we promulgated in the 1970’s to 

regulate emissions of sulfur oxides from 

a now defunct smelter that had operated 

within White Pine County, Nevada. 

In our January 3, 2007 final rule, we 

listed 12 provisions for which the State 

had yet to provide documentation of 

public participation and for which, 

therefore, we were deferring final 

action. See 72 FR 11, at 16. On June 26, 

2007, the Governor’s designee, the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP), submitted the 

necessary public participation 

documentation for 11 of the 12 

provisions for which final action had 

been deferred in our January 3, 2007 

final rule.1 The 11 provisions are listed 

in the table below. Based on the 

documentation provided by NDEP on 

June 26, 2007, we now take final action 

to approve the requested rescission of 

the 11 provisions listed below. 

SIP PROVISIONS FOR WHICH THE STATE’S RESCISSION REQUEST IS APPROVED

SIP provision Title Submittal date Approval date 

NAC 445.477 ............. Confidential information ................................................................................................... 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NAC 445.554 ............. Nuisance .......................................................................................................................... 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NAC 445.596 ............. Ringelmann chart ............................................................................................................. 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NAC 445.662 ............. Confidential information ................................................................................................... 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NAC 445.695 ............. Schedules for compliance ............................................................................................... 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NAC 445.698 ............. Appeal of director’s decision: Application forms ............................................................. 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NAC 445.700 ............. Violations: Manner of paying fines .................................................................................. 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NAC 445.844 ............. Odors ............................................................................................................................... 10/26/82 03/27/84 

NRS 445.401 ............. Declaration of public policy .............................................................................................. 12/29/78 07/10/80 

NRS 445.466 ............. Commission regulations: Notice and hearing .................................................................. 12/29/78 07/10/80 

NRS 445.497 ............. Notice of regulatory action; Requirement; method; contents of notice ........................... 12/29/78 07/10/80 

The majority of the provisions in the 

table above represent defined terms that 

are not used by any other provisions in 

the applicable SIP or represent 

provisions that are not required for SIPs 

and thus are unnecessary and 

appropriate for rescission. Our proposed 

action and related technical support 

document (TSD) contain more 

information on the rules and statutory 

provisions cited above and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s August 28, 2006 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day public comment 

period. During this period, we received 

comments from Jennifer L. Carr and 

Michael Elges, NDEP, by letter dated 

September 25, 2006. In our January 3, 

2007 final rule (72 FR 11), we 

summarized the comments from NDEP’s 

letter and provided our responses. With 

respect to the 11 provisions for which 

final action is taken herein, NDEP 

indicated in its September 25, 2006 

letter that it would be conducting the 

necessary public notice and hearing. 

NDEP’s June 26, 2007 submittal 

provides the necessary public 

participation documentation and 

provides the basis for EPA to take this 

final action to approve the State’s 

request to rescind the 11 provisions 

listed in the table above from the 

applicable Nevada SIP. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of our proposed 

action. Therefore, as authorized in 

section 110(k) of the Act, EPA is 

finalizing the approval of the State’s 

request to rescind the provisions listed 

in the table above from the applicable 

SIP. 

IV. 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 62121 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

rescissions of state law that are 

unnecessary to meet Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements. 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 rescinds requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty, 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 rescissions of state law that are 

unnecessary to implement 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. 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 January 2, 2008. 

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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 16, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

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 DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(14)(xi) and 

(c)(25)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(14) * * * 

(xi) Previously approved on July 10, 

1980 in paragraph (14)(ii) and now 

deleted without replacement: Nevada 

Revised Statutes (NRS) sections: 

445.401, 445.466, and 445.497. 

* * * * * 

(25) * * * 

(ii) Previously approved on March 27, 

1984, in paragraph (25)(i)(A) and now 

deleted without replacement: Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) sections: 

445.447, 445.554, 445.596, 445.662, 

445.695, 445.698, 445.700, and 445.844. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–21447 Filed 11–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7745] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists 

communities where modification of the 

Base (1% annual-chance) Flood 

Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because 

of new scientific or technical data. New 

flood insurance premium rates will be 

calculated from the modified BFEs for 

new buildings and their contents. 

DATES: These modified BFEs are 

currently in effect on the dates listed in 

the table below and revise the Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect 

prior to this determination for the listed 

communities. 

From the date of the second 

publication of these changes in a 

newspaper of local circulation, any 

person has ninety (90) days in which to 

request through the community that the 

Mitigation Assistant Administrator of 

FEMA reconsider the changes. The 

modified BFEs may be changed during 

the 90-day period. 

ADDRESSES: The modified 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 Branch, Mitigation 

Directorate, Federal Emergency 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES