Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Requests for Rescission, 62119-62121 [E7-21447]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
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.
I 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
62119
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
I
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0590; FRL–8489–4]
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.
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Revisions to the
Nevada State Implementation Plan;
Requests for Rescission
2. Add temporary § 165.T05–123, to
read as follows:
I
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
62120
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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
NAC
NAC
NAC
NAC
NAC
NAC
NAC
NAC
NRS
NRS
NRS
445.477
445.554
445.596
445.662
445.695
445.698
445.700
445.844
445.401
445.466
445.497
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
Title
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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Approval date
10/26/82
10/26/82
10/26/82
10/26/82
10/26/82
10/26/82
10/26/82
10/26/82
12/29/78
12/29/78
12/29/78
03/27/84
03/27/84
03/27/84
03/27/84
03/27/84
03/27/84
03/27/84
03/27/84
07/10/80
07/10/80
07/10/80
Confidential information ...................................................................................................
Nuisance ..........................................................................................................................
Ringelmann chart .............................................................................................................
Confidential information ...................................................................................................
Schedules for compliance ...............................................................................................
Appeal of director’s decision: Application forms .............................................................
Violations: Manner of paying fines ..................................................................................
Odors ...............................................................................................................................
Declaration of public policy ..............................................................................................
Commission regulations: Notice and hearing ..................................................................
Notice of regulatory action; Requirement; method; contents of notice ...........................
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.
1 NAC 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Submittal date
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
(‘‘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.
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 212 / Friday, November 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:25 Nov 01, 2007
Jkt 214001
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:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
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:
I
§ 52.1470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00017
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
62121
(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
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Interim rule.
AGENCY:
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
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 212 (Friday, November 2, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62119-62121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21447]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 62120]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NAC 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.
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: 10/26/82 03/27/84
Application forms.
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 12/29/78 07/10/80
hearing.
NRS 445.497............................... Notice of regulatory action; 12/29/78 07/10/80
Requirement; method; contents of
notice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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.
0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD--Nevada
0
2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(14)(xi) and
(c)(25)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 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