Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-07-31 · Food and Drug Administration, HHS · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

18,160 words·~83 min read·/register/2007/07/31/07-3635

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs For Use in Animal Feeds; Ractopamine and Tylosin AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application
(NADA)filed by Elanco Animal Health. The supplemental NADA revises the indications for use of two-way combination Type B and Type C medicated swine feeds formulated with ractopamine hydrochloride and tylosin phosphate. DATES: This rule is effective July 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harlan J. Howard, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-120), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0231, e-mail: *harlan.howard@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elanco Animal Health, a Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a supplement to NADA 141-172 that provides for use of two-way combination Type B and Type C medicated swine feeds formulated with PAYLEAN (ractopamine hydrochloride) and TYLAN (tylosin phosphate) single- ingredient Type A medicated articles. The supplement provides for revised indications for use of Type C medicated feeds used for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and increased carcass leanness; and for control of swine dysentery associated with *Brachyspira hyodysenteriae* and porcine proliferative enteropathies (ileitis) associated with *Lawsonia intracellularis* in finishing swine, weighing not less than 150 pounds (lbs), fed a complete ration containing at least 16 percent crude protein for the last 45 to 90 lbs of gain prior to slaughter. The supplemental NADA is approved as of June 20, 2007, and the regulations in 21 CFR 558.500 are amended to reflect the approval. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(2) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 2. In § 558.500, revise the table in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii) to read as follows: § 558.500 Ractopamine.
(e)* * *
(1)* * * Ractopamine grams/ton Combination grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor * * * * * * *
(ii)4.5 to 9 Tylosin 40 Finishing swine: As in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section; and for control of swine dysentery associated with *Brachyspira hyodysenteriae* and porcine proliferative enteropathies (ileitis) associated with *Lawsonia intracellularis* . Feed continuously as sole ration until market weight following the use of tylosin at 100 grams per ton (g/ton) for at least 3 weeks. 000986
(iii)4.5 to 9 Tylosin 100 1. Finishing swine: As in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section; and for control of porcine proliferative enteropathies (ileitis) associated with *Lawsonia intracellularis* . 2. Finishing swine: As in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section; and for control of swine dysentery associated with *Brachyspira hyodysenteriae* . Feed continuously as sole ration for 21 days. Feed continuously as sole ration for at least 3 weeks followed by tylosin at 40 g/ton until market weight. 000986 * * * * * * * Dated: July 12, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-14699 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 584 Food Substances Affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Ethyl Alcohol Containing Ethyl Acetate AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations for food substances affirmed as generally recognized as safe
(GRAS)in feed and drinking water of animals to correct a cross-reference. This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations. DATES: This rule is effective July 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michaela G. Alewynse, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-228), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-453-6866, e-mail: *mika.alewynse@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA has found that the regulation affirming as GRAS the use of ethyl alcohol containing ethyl acetate as a source of added energy in ruminant feed does not reflect the correct cross-reference to the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). This error was introduced when sections containing formulas for denatured alcohol and rum were removed and added by ATF in 1983 (48 FR 24672, June 2, 1983). At this time, the regulation is being amended in 21 CFR 584.200 to add the correct cross-reference. This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations. Publication of this document constitutes final action on this change under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Notice and public procedure are unnecessary because FDA is merely correcting a nonsubstantive error. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 584 Animal feeds, Food additives. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 584 is amended as follows: PART 584—FOOD SUBSTANCES AFFIRMED AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE IN FEED AND DRINKING WATER OF ANIMALS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 584 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371. § 584.200 [Amended] 2. In § 584.200, remove “27 CFR 212.45” and add in its place “27 CFR 21.62”. Dated: July 23, 2007. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E7-14700 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9321] RIN 1545-BE79 Application of Section 409A to Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations that were published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 (73 FR 19234), relating to section 409A. DATES: This correction is effective July 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Tackney,
(202)622-9639 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations that are subject to these corrections are under section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9321) contain errors that may prove misleading and are in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * § 1.409A-1 [Corrected] **Par. 2.** Section 1.409A-1 is amended as follows: 1. Paragraph (a)(3)(i) is revised. 2. The first and second sentences of paragraph (a)(5) are revised. 3. The first sentences of paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(i)(D) are revised. 4. *Examples 3* and *5* in paragraph (b)(4)(iii) are amended by revising the last sentences of the paragraphs. 5. Paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(B)( *2* )( *ii* ) is revised. 6. In paragraph (b)(8)(iii) the first sentence is revised. 7. The first sentence of paragraph (b)(9)(v)(A) is revised. 8. Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(H) is revised. 9. Paragraph (c)(3)(viii) is revised. 10. The last sentence of paragraph (f)(1) is revised. 11. The ninth sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(ii) is revised. 12. The first sentence of paragraph (i)(2) is revised. § 1.409A-1 Definitions and covered plans.
(a)* * *
(3)* * *
(i)* * * With respect to an individual for a taxable year, the term *nonqualified deferred compensation plan* does not include any scheme, trust, arrangement, or plan maintained with respect to such individual, to the extent contributions made by or on behalf of such individual to such scheme, trust, arrangement, or plan, or credited allocations, accrued benefits, earnings, or other amounts constituting income, of such individual under such scheme, trust, arrangement, or plan, are excludable by such individual for Federal income tax purposes pursuant to any bilateral income tax convention, or other bilateral or multilateral agreement, to which the United States is a party.
(5)* * * The term *nonqualified deferred compensation plan* does not include a plan, or a portion of a plan, to the extent that the plan provides bona fide vacation leave, sick leave, compensatory time, disability pay, or death benefits. For these purposes, the terms “disability pay” and “death benefits” have the same meanings as provided in § 31.3121(v)(2)-1(b)(4)(iv)(C) of this chapter, provided that for purposes of this paragraph, such disability pay and death benefits may be provided through insurance and the lifetime benefits payable under the plan are not treated as including the value of any taxable term life insurance coverage or taxable disability insurance coverage provided under the plan. * * *
(b)* * *
(4)* * *
(i)*In general.* A deferral of compensation does not occur under a plan with respect to any payment (as defined in § 1.409A-2(b)(2)) that is not a deferred payment, provided that the service provider actually or constructively receives such payment on or before the last day of the applicable 2 1/2 month period. * * *
(D)A payment is a deferred payment if it is made pursuant to a provision of a plan that provides for the payment to be made or completed on or after any date, or upon or after the occurrence of any event, that will or may occur later than the end of the applicable 2 1/2 month period, such as a separation from service, death, disability, change in control event, specified time or schedule of payment, or unforeseeable emergency, regardless of whether an amount is actually paid as a result of the occurrence of such a payment date or event during the applicable 2 1/2 month period. * * *
(iii)* * * *Example 3.* * * * The bonus plan will not be considered to have provided for a deferral of compensation if the bonus is paid or made available to Employee C on or before March 15, 2011. *Example 5.* * * * The bonus plan provides for a deferral of compensation, and will not qualify as a short-term deferral regardless of whether the bonus is paid or made available on or before March 15, 2011 (and generally any payment before June 1, 2011 would constitute an impermissible acceleration of a payment).
(5)* * *
(iv)* * *
(B)* * * ( *2* ) * * * ( *ii* ) A valuation based upon a formula that, if used as part of a nonlapse restriction (as defined in § 1.83-3(h)) with respect to the stock, would be considered to be the fair market value of the stock pursuant to § 1.83-5, provided that such stock is valued in the same manner for purposes of any transfer of any shares of such class of stock (or any substantially similar class of stock) to the issuer or any person that owns stock possessing more than 10 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of the issuer (applying the stock attribution rules of § 1.424-1(d)), other than an arm's length transaction involving the sale of all or substantially all of the outstanding stock of the issuer, and such valuation method is used consistently for all such purposes, and provided further that this paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(B)( *2* )( *ii* ) does not apply with respect to stock subject to a stock right payable in stock, where the stock acquired pursuant to the exercise of the stock right is transferable other than through the operation of a nonlapse restriction.
(8)* * *
(iii)* * * A tax equalization agreement does not provide for a deferral of compensation if payments made under such tax equalization agreement are made no later than the end of the second taxable year of the service provider beginning after the taxable year of the service provider in which the service provider's U.S. Federal income tax return is required to be filed (including any extensions) for the year to which the compensation subject to the tax equalization payment relates, or, if later, the second taxable year of the service provider beginning after the latest such taxable year in which the service provider's foreign tax return or payment is required to be filed or made for the year to which the compensation subject to the tax equalization payment relates. * * *
(9)* * *
(v)* * *
(A)* * * To the extent a separation pay plan (including a plan providing payments upon a voluntary separation from service) entitles a service provider to payment by the service recipient of reimbursements that are not otherwise excludible from gross income for expenses that the service provider could otherwise deduct under section 162 or section 167 as business expenses incurred in connection with the performance of services (ignoring any applicable limitation based on adjusted gross income), or of reasonable outplacement expenses and reasonable moving expenses actually incurred by the service provider and directly related to the termination of services for the service recipient, such plan does not provide for a deferral of compensation to the extent such rights apply during a limited period of time (regardless of whether such rights extend beyond the limited period of time). * * *
(c)* * *
(2)* * *
(i)* * *
(H)All deferrals of compensation with respect to that service provider under all plans of the service recipient to the extent such plans are stock rights (as defined in paragraph
(l)of this section) subject to section 409A, are treated as deferred under a single plan.
(3)* * *
(viii)* * * The plan aggregation rules of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section do not apply to the written plan requirements of this paragraph (c)(3). Accordingly, deferrals of compensation under an agreement, method, program, or other arrangement that fails to meet the requirements of section 409A solely due to a failure to meet the written plan requirements of this paragraph (c)(3) are not aggregated with deferrals of compensation under other agreements, methods, programs, or other arrangements that meet such requirements.
(f)* * *
(1)*In general.* * * * The term *service provider* generally includes a person who has separated from service (a former service provider).
(h)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)*Termination of employment.* * * * Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph (h)(1)(ii), a plan may treat another level of reasonably anticipated permanent reduction in the level of bona fide services as a separation from service, provided that the level of reduction required must be designated in writing as a specific percentage, and the reasonably anticipated reduced level of bona fide services must be greater than 20 percent but less that 50 percent of the average level of bona fide services provided in the immediately preceding 36 months. * * *
(i)* * *
(2)* * * For purposes of identifying a specified employee by applying the requirements of section 416(i)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii), the definition of compensation under § 1.415(c)-2(a) is used, applied as if the service recipient were not using any safe harbor provided in § 1.415(c)-2(d), were not using any of the elective special timing rules provided in § 1.415(c)-2(e), and were not using any of the elective special rules provided in § 1.415(c)-2(g). * * * § 1.409A-2 [Corrected] **Par. 3.** Section 1.409A-2 is amended as follows: 1. The first sentences of paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(9) are revised. 2. The third sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) is revised. 3. A new sentence is added after the third sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A). § 1.409A-2 Deferral elections.
(a)* * *
(6)* * * In the case of a service recipient with a taxable year that is not the same as the taxable year of the service provider, a plan may provide that fiscal year compensation may be deferred at the service provider's election if the election to defer such compensation is made not later than the close of the service recipient's taxable year immediately preceding the first taxable year of the service recipient in which any services are performed for which such compensation is payable. * * *
(9)* * * If a nonqualified deferred compensation plan provides that the amount deferred under the plan is determined under the formula for determining benefits under a qualified employer plan (as defined in § 1.409A-1(a)(2)) or a broad-based foreign retirement plan (as defined in § 1.409A-1(a)(3)(v)) maintained by the service recipient but applied without regard to one or more limitations applicable to the qualified employer plan under the Internal Revenue Code or to the broad-based foreign retirement plan under other applicable law, or that the amount deferred under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan is determined as an amount offset by some or all of the benefits provided under the qualified employer plan or the broad-based foreign retirement plan, an increase in amounts deferred under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan that results directly from the operation of the qualified employer plan or broad-based foreign retirement plan (other than service provider actions described in paragraphs (a)(9)(iii) and
(iv)of this section) including changes in benefit limitations applicable to the qualified employer plan or the broad-based foreign retirement plan under the Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law does not constitute a deferral election under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan, provided that such operation does not otherwise result in a change in the time or form of a payment under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan, and provided further that such change in the amounts deferred under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan does not exceed that change in the amounts deferred under the qualified employer plan or the broad-based foreign retirement plan, as applicable. * * *
(b)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)* * *
(A)* * * For purposes of § 1.409A-1, this section, and §§ 1.409A-3 through 1.409A-6, the term *life annuity* means a series of substantially equal periodic payments, payable not less frequently than annually, for the life (or life expectancy) of the service provider, or a series of substantially equal periodic payments, payable not less frequently than annually, for the life (or life expectancy) of the service provider, followed upon the death or end of the life expectancy of the service provider by a series of substantially equal periodic payments, payable not less frequently than annually, for the life (or life expectancy) of the service provider's designated beneficiary (if any). Notwithstanding the foregoing, a schedule of payments does not fail to be an annuity solely because such plan provides for an immediate payment of the actuarial present value of all remaining annuity payments if the actuarial present value of the remaining annuity payments falls below a predetermined amount, and the immediate payment of such amount does not constitute an accelerated payment for purposes of § 1.409A-3(j), provided that such feature, including the predetermined amount, is established by no later than the time and form of payment is otherwise required to be established, and provided further that any change in such feature, including the predetermined amount, is a change in the time and form of payment. * * * § 1.409A-3 [Corrected] **Par. 4.** Section 1.409A-3 is amended as follows: 1. The first sentence of paragraph
(c)is revised. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(B) is revised. 3. The fourth sentence of paragraph (i)(3)(ii) is revised. 4. The last sentence of paragraph (j)(4)(vi) is revised. 5. The last sentence of paragraph (j)(4)(ix)(B) is revised. 6. The first sentence of paragraph (j)(5) is revised. 7. Paragraph (j)(5)(iv) is revised. § 1.409A-3 Permissible payments.
(c)* * * Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (c), for an amount of deferred compensation under a plan, the plan may designate only one time and form of payment upon the occurrence of each event described in paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), (5), or
(6)of this section. * * *
(i)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)* * *
(B)* * * A change in the limitation or a change in the time and form of payment of any payment that is not otherwise made at the scheduled payment date due to application of the formula limitation is subject to the requirements of § 1.409A-2(b) (subsequent deferral elections) and paragraph
(j)of this section (accelerated payments).
(3)* * *
(ii)* * * However, the determination of amounts reasonably necessary to satisfy the emergency need is not required to take into account any additional compensation that is available from a qualified employer plan as defined in § 1.409A-1(a)(2) (including any amount available by obtaining a loan under the plan), or that due to the unforeseeable emergency is available under another nonqualified deferred compensation plan (including a plan that would provide for deferred compensation except due to the application of the effective date provisions under § 1.409A-6). * * *
(j)* * *
(4)* * *
(vi)* * * However, the total payment under this acceleration provision must not exceed the aggregate of the FICA or RRTA amount, and the income tax withholding related to such FICA or RRTA amount.
(ix)* * *
(B)* * * Solely for purposes of this paragraph (j)(4)(ix)(B), the applicable service recipient with the discretion to liquidate and terminate the agreements, methods, programs, and other arrangements is the service recipient that is primarily liable immediately after the transaction for the payment of the deferred compensation.
(5)* * * If a nonqualified deferred compensation plan provides that the amount deferred under the plan is the amount determined under the formula determining benefits under a qualified employer plan (as defined in § 1.409A-1(a)(2)), or a broad-based foreign retirement plan (as defined in § 1.409A-1(a)(3)(v)) maintained by the service recipient but applied without regard to one or more limitations applicable to the qualified employer plan under the Internal Revenue Code or to the broad-based foreign retirement plan under other applicable law, or that the amount deferred under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan is determined as an amount offset by some or all of the benefits provided under the qualified employer plan or broad-based foreign retirement plan, a decrease in amounts deferred under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan that results directly from the operation of the qualified employer plan or broad-based foreign retirement plan (other than service provider actions described in paragraphs (j)(5)(iii) and
(iv)of this section) including changes in benefit limitations applicable to the qualified employer plan or the broad-based foreign retirement plan under the Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law does not constitute an acceleration of a payment under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan, provided that such operation does not otherwise result in a change in the time or form of a payment under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan, and provided further that the change in the amounts deferred under the nonqualified deferred compensation plan does not exceed such change in the amounts deferred under the qualified employer plan or the broad-based foreign retirement plan, as applicable. * * *
(iv)A service provider's action or inaction under a qualified employer plan with respect to elective deferrals and other employee pre-tax contributions subject to the contributions restrictions under section 401(a)(30) or section 402(g), and after-tax contributions by the service provider to a qualified employer plan that provides for such contributions, that affects the amounts that are credited under one or more nonqualified deferred compensation plans as matching amounts or other similar amounts contingent on such elective deferrals, pre-tax contributions, or after-tax contributions, provided that the total of such matching or contingent amounts, as applicable, never exceeds 100 percent of the matching or contingent amounts that would be provided under the qualified employer plan absent any plan-based restrictions that reflect limits on qualified plan contributions under the Internal Revenue Code. § 1.409A-6 [Corrected] **Par. 5.** Section 1.409A-6 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and
(ii)and (a)(4)(iv) to read as follows: § 1.409A-6 Application of section 409A and effective dates.
(a)* * *
(3)* * *
(i)* * * The amount of compensation deferred before January 1, 2005, under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that is a nonaccount balance plan (as defined in § 1.409A-1(c)(2)(i)(C)), equals the present value of the amount to which the service provider would have been entitled under the plan if the service provider voluntarily terminated services without cause on December 31, 2004, and received a payment of the benefits available from the plan on the earliest possible date allowed under the plan to receive a payment of benefits following the termination of services, and received the benefits in the form with the maximum value. * * *
(ii)* * * The amount of compensation deferred before January 1, 2005, under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that is an account balance plan (as defined in § 1.409A-1(c)(2)(i)(A)), equals the portion of the service provider's account balance as of December 31, 2004, the right to which was earned and vested (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section) as of December 31, 2004, plus any future contributions to the account, the right to which was earned and vested (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section) as of December 31, 2004, to the extent such contributions are actually made.
(4)* * *
(iv)* * * With respect to an account balance plan (as defined in § 1.409A-1(c)(2)(i)(A)), it is not a material modification to change a notional investment measure to, or to add to an existing investment measure, an investment measure that qualifies as a predetermined actual investment within the meaning of § 31.3121(v)(2)-1(d)(2) of this chapter or, for any given taxable year, reflects a reasonable rate of interest (determined in accordance with § 31.3121(v)(2)-1(d)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter). * * * Guy R. Traynor, Federal Register Liaison, Legal Processing Division, Publication & Regulations Branch, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration). [FR Doc. E7-14624 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 28 CFR Part 0 [A.G. Order No. 2897-2007] Organization; Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Associate Attorney General AGENCY: Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations that describe the structure, functions, and responsibilities of the Offices of the Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart Frisch, General Counsel, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530,
(202)514-3452. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule removes paragraph
(h)of 28 CFR 0.15 and paragraph
(d)of 28 CFR 0.19, which reserve certain personnel administration authorities within the Department of Justice to the Attorney General. These paragraphs are reserved for future use. This rule only makes changes to the Department's internal organization and structure and does not affect the rights or obligations of the general public. Administrative Procedure Act This rule relates to matters of agency management and personnel, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(3)(A), (d)(3). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not required to be prepared for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter. Executive Order 12866 This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, § 1(b), Principles of Regulation. This rule is limited to agency organization, management, and personnel as described by Executive Order 12866 § 3(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by that Executive Order. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988 This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Congressional Review Act The Department has determined that this action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organizations and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies). Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, part 0 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519. § 0.15 Deputy Attorney General. 2. Remove and reserve paragraph
(h)of § 0.15. § 0.19 Associate Attorney General. 3. Remove and reserve paragraph
(d)of § 0.19. Dated: July 25, 2007. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General. [FR Doc. E7-14707 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-19-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY COAST GUARD 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD08-07-007] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Mississippi River, Eighty-One Mile Point AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has amended the regulated navigation area
(RNA)for the Lower Mississippi River
(LMR)mile marker
(MM)233.9 through South and South West Passes by establishing mandatory check-in procedures for vessels transiting on the waters of the Mississippi River between
(MM)167.5 LMR and 187.9 LMR. This rule is needed to minimize the risk of collisions, allisions, and groundings occurring as a result of vessels meeting unanticipated traffic in the vicinity of Eighty-One Mile Point, MM 178 LMR. This rule requires vessels, subject to the Bridge to Bridge Radiotelephone Act (33 U.S.C. 26), to notify Vessel Traffic Center Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans (VTC New Orleans) prior to entering or getting underway in this section of the RNA. DATES: This rule is effective August 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being in the docket, are part of docket [CGD08-07-007] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, 6041 Crestmount Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70809 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Todd Peterson, Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, at
(225)298-5400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 5, 2007 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Regulated Navigation Area; Mississippi River, Eighty-One Mile Point in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 65). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meetings were requested and none were held. Background and Purpose From 1999 to 2006 there have been 64 reported collisions, allisions, or groundings on the Lower Mississippi River between MM 167.5 and 187.9. There have been 21 allisions, 2 barge breakaways, 13 collisions and 28 groundings. Of these 64 casualties, 3 were categorized by 46 CFR part 4 as serious marine incidents and 5 as major marine casualties. These casualties have involved all sectors of the maritime industry including deep draft shipping, towing vessels, and barge fleets and have occurred at high, normal and low water conditions. A waterways user group subcommittee of the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC) examined marine casualties on the LMR in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point. This subcommittee consisted of members of the pilots association, towing vessel industry, barge fleets and the Coast Guard. This subcommittee reviewed the location and marine investigation associated with each casualty and subjectively examined river conditions within this RNA. This committee determined that existing waterways management tools may not be sufficient to safely navigate in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point. Providing position reports to VTC New Orleans would allow the Coast Guard to track vessels in this RNA and provide advice to mariners about upcoming traffic in an effort to eliminate meeting and overtaking scenarios at Eighty-One Mile Point. Discussion of Comments and Changes There were no comments received on this rule change. No public meetings were requested and none were held. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule does not prohibit vessel transits, barge fleeting, or towboat operations within the RNA, but merely requires checking in with VTS New Orleans using existing equipment. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This RNA will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will not obstruct the regular flow of commercial vessel traffic conducting business within the RNA. It does not require the purchase of additional equipment and instead uses existing VHF capabilities already required by other laws or regulations. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Todd Peterson, Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge at
(225)298-5400. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule does not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits in paragraph (34)(g) because it is a regulated navigation area. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is 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, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 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. Amend § 165.810 by adding paragraph
(g)to read as follows: § 165.810 Mississippi River, LA-regulated navigation area.
(g)*Movement of vessels in the vicinity of Eighty-One Mile Point, Geary LA mm 167.5-187.9 LMR.*
(1)Prior to proceeding upriver past MM 167.5, LMR, Sunshine Bridge, vessels shall contact Vessel Traffic Center
(VTC)New Orleans on VHF Channel 63A to check-in. Vessels must provide name, destination, confirm proper operation of their automated identification system
(AIS)if required under 33 CFR 164.46 and, if applicable, size of tow and number of loaded and empty barges. At MM 173.7, LMR, Bringier Point Light, ascending vessels shall contact VTC New Orleans and provide a follow-on position check. At both check-in and follow-on position check, VTC New Orleans will advise the vessel on traffic approaching Eighty-One Mile Point.
(2)Prior to proceeding downriver past MM 187.9, LMR, COS-MAR Lights, vessels shall contact Vessel Traffic Center
(VTC)New Orleans on VHF Channel 63A to check-in. Vessels must provide name, destination, confirm proper operation of their automated identification system
(AIS)if required under 33 CFR 164.46 and, if applicable, size of tow and number of loaded and empty barges. At MM 183.9 LMR, Wyandotte Chemical Dock Lights, descending vessels shall contact VTC New Orleans and provide a follow-on position check. At both check-in and follow-on position check VTC New Orleans will advise the vessel on traffic approaching Eighty-One Mile Point.
(3)All vessels getting underway between miles 167.5 and 187.9 must check-in with VTC New Orleans on VHF Channel 63A immediately prior to getting underway and must comply with the respective ascending and descending check-in and follow-on points listed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) above.
(4)Fleet vessels must check-in with VTC New Orleans if they leave their respective fleet or if they move into the main channel. Fleet vessels are not required to check-in if they are operating exclusively within their fleet. Dated: July 16, 2007. J.R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-14697 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0162, FRL-8444-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Implementation Plan Revision; State of New Jersey AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a request from the State of New Jersey to revise its State Implementation Plan
(SIP)for ozone to incorporate state-adopted amendments to Subchapter 19 “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen” and related amendments to Subchapter 16 “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds.” The amendments relate to the control of oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) emissions from stationary industrial sources. This SIP revision consists of control measures needed to meet the shortfall in emission reductions in New Jersey's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP as identified by EPA. The intended effect of this action is to approve the state control strategy, which will result in emission reductions that will help achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone required by the Clean Air Act (the Act). DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule will be effective August 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)which replaces the Regional Materials in EDOCKET
(RME)docket system. The new FDMS is located at *http://www.regulations.gov* and the docket ID for this action is EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0162. All documents in the docket are listed in the FDMS index. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in FDMS or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Energy, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401 East State Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony
(Ted)Gardella, *Gardella.anthony@epa.gov,* Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,
(212)637-3892. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For detailed information and EPA's analysis of New Jersey's revision to its State Implementation Plan
(SIP)for ozone see EPA's proposed rulemaking action (72 FR 11812, March 14, 2007) which can be viewed at *http://www.regulations.gov.* The following table of contents describes the format for this notice. Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? II. What Comments Were Received and How Has EPA Responded to Them? III. What Role Does This Rule Play in the Ozone SIP? IV. What Are EPA's Conclusions? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? New Jersey submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)for ozone dated December 16, 2005, for EPA approval, that includes a new rule and amendments to Subchapter 19 “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen”; Subchapter 16 “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds”; Subchapter 8 “Permits and Certificates for Minor Facilities (and Major Facilities Without an Operating Permit)”; and Subchapter 22 “Operating Permits.” Except for certain Open Market Emissions Trading
(OMET)Program provisions in Subchapters 8, 16, and 19, and compliance dates beyond November 15, 2007 for repowering and innovative control technology, EPA is approving, as revisions to the New Jersey ozone SIP, the state-adopted amendments to Subchapter 19 and Subchapter 16, each adopted by New Jersey on September 8, 2005, and submitted to EPA on December 16, 2005. EPA is currently reviewing past amendments to Subchapter 8 and will address the approvability of all Subchapter 8 amendments at the same time in a future action. Subchapter 22 is New Jersey's operating permit rule that was separately approved under title V of the Clean Air Act and therefore Subchapter 22 should not have been submitted as a SIP revision. EPA has reviewed the new amendments to Subchapter 22 and will formally respond to New Jersey with a letter. New Jersey amended Subchapter 19 to reduce emissions of NO <sup>X</sup> in response to emission reduction shortfalls, identified by EPA (64 FR 70380, December 16, 1999), for attainment of New Jersey's 1-hour ozone standard. New Jersey amended Subchapter 16 to be consistent with amendments to Subchapter 19. Except for certain OMET provisions in Subchapters 8, 16, and 19, and compliance dates beyond November 15, 2007 for repowering and innovative control technology, New Jersey's state-adopted Subchapters 16 and 19 are fully approvable as a SIP-strengthening measure for New Jersey's ground level ozone SIP. The amendments to Subchapters 16 and 19 in New Jersey's submittal to EPA meet New Jersey's commitment by adopting control measures for additional emission reductions to attain the 1-hour ozone standard and close the shortfall. Because EPA is determining that the State has now adopted measures to fulfill its SIP commitment to address the NO <sup>X</sup> shortfall, EPA will not proceed with the May 27, 2004 (69 FR 30249) proposed Finding of Failure to Implement. For a detailed discussion on the content and EPA's analysis of New Jersey's SIP submittal, the reader is referred to EPA's proposed rulemaking action (72 FR 11812, March 14, 2007). II. What Comments Were Received and How Has EPA Responded to Them? The public comment period on EPA's proposed approval of New Jersey's December 16, 2005 SIP submittal ended on April 13, 2007. EPA received one comment on the proposed approval action. The comment addressed EPA's proposed approval of the rule regarding emergency generators. Although EPA proposed to approve the rule, EPA
(1)noted that in February 2006 the Agency sent a letter to the State indicating that NSR and title V permits should continue to include an hours of operation limit in permits; and
(2)recommended that New Jersey revise its regulations to include emergency generator restrictions that were in the previous SIP-approved version of the rule. The comment and EPA's response follows. *Comments:* The Division of Air Quality, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) commented that it “disagrees with the USEPA suggestion that all NJDEP issued permits for emergency units include an operating hour limitation to cover emergencies ( *i.e.* , 500 hours per year). Rather, the only operating time limitation in permits for emergency units should be that time needed for testing or maintenance, as per manufacturer's specifications and government safety ordinances.” NJDEP continued, “It is unreasonable to base maximum potential emissions on emergency scenarios which may or may not materialize.” Additionally, NJDEP noted that the Subchapter 19 definition of “Emergency Generator” and “Emergency” make the 500 hour limitation superfluous and that if operation of an emergency generator is consistent with those definitions an hourly restriction in unnecessary. NJDEP also noted that it currently utilizes a total operating hour limit in title V permits as requested by EPA, but objects to its use there also. *Response:* EPA notes that it did not propose to condition approval of the SIP rule on the recommendations it made in the February 2006 letter or in the proposed rule. Thus, these recommendations were not intended to have binding effect. Because it is not necessary for the rules to reflect these recommendations in order to be fully approvable, EPA is moving forward with its approval. EPA will continue to discuss with New Jersey the concerns noted in their comment, which concerns were raised by EPA with respect to New Jersey's permitting programs. Specifically, as noted in EPA's proposed rule, potential to emit
(PTE)requirements for emergency generators should be included in the provisions of New Jersey's permitting regulations that identify which sources must obtain a permit, i.e. Subchapters 8 and 22. For rule consistency, EPA believes it appropriate, although not required, that New Jersey revise the current state-adopted Subchapter 19 to include the emergency generator restrictions (e.g.,
(1)the 500 hour annual operating restriction, and
(2)the 25 tons per year
(tpy)PTE source exemption). III. What Role Does This Rule Play in the Ozone SIP? When EPA evaluated New Jersey's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations, EPA determined that additional emission reductions were needed for the State's severe nonattainment areas in order for the State to attain the 1-hour ozone standard (64 FR 70380; December 16, 1999). EPA provided that states in the Ozone Transport Region could achieve these emission reductions through regional control programs. New Jersey decided to participate with the other states in the Northeast in an Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC)regulatory development effort which lead to six model control measures. These amendments to Subchapter 19 incorporate a portion of the OTC model rule for additional NO <sup>X</sup> control measures. The emission reductions from this control measure fully meet the commitment in the New Jersey SIP to achieve an additional 0.88 tpy NO <sup>X</sup> reduction in the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton nonattainment area and 3.45 tpy NO <sup>X</sup> reduction in the New Jersey portion of the New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island nonattainment area. The emission reductions will help ensure attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. IV. What Are EPA's Conclusions? EPA evaluated New Jersey's submittal for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations and EPA policy. The adopted new control measures will strengthen the SIP by achieving the additional NO <sup>X</sup> emission reductions that the State committed to achieve. Accordingly, EPA is approving the revisions to Subchapter 19, and related revisions to Subchapter 16, as adopted on September 8, 2005, except that EPA is not acting, at this time, on OMET Program provisions in Subchapters 16 and 19 or the new amendments to phased compliance plans by repowering and innovative control technology in sections 19.21 and 19.23, respectively. Additionally, EPA is not approving any dates that allow for NO <sup>X</sup> RACT compliance beyond May 31, 1995, in general, and beyond May 1, 1999 for completion of repowering, for sources that should have complied by those dates as required in the EPA-approved SIP. At a later date, EPA will act on Subchapter 8, as adopted by New Jersey on September 8, 2005. With the adoption of Subchapter 19, New Jersey has fulfilled its obligation to adopt all six control measures that New Jersey identified as necessary to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. These six control measures are applicable statewide and the emission reductions projected from their implementation meets the additional emission reductions that EPA identified as necessary to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. Because New Jersey has now implemented the elements of its SIP that were the subject of EPA's May 27, 2004 (69 FR 30249) proposed Finding of Failure to Implement, EPA will not move forward to finalize that finding. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 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 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 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 Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 13, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. 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 FF—New Jersey 2. Section 52.1570 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(81) to read as follows: 52.1570 Identification of plans.
(c)* * *
(81)Revisions to the State Implementation Plan for ozone dated December 16, 2005 by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) that establishes revised control measures for achieving additional reductions of NO <sup>X</sup> emissions from stationary combustion sources.
(i)Incorporation by reference:
(A)Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 19, of the New Jersey Administrative Code entitled “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen,” effective October 17, 2005 and Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 16 of the New Jersey Administrative Code entitled “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds,” effective October 17, 2005.
(ii)Additional information:
(A)December 16, 2005 letter from Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell, NJDEP, to Alan J. Steinberg, EPA, requesting EPA approval of revisions to Subchapters 8, 16, 19, and 22. 3. In 52.1605, the table is amended by revising the entries for Subchapters 16 and 19 under the headings “Title 7, Chapter 27” to read as follows: § 52.1605 EPA-approved New Jersey regulations. State regulation State effective date EPA approved date Comments * * * * * * * Title 7, Chapter 27 * * * * * * * Subchapter 16, “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds.” October 17, 2005 July 31, 2007 [Insert FR page citation] Subchapter 16 is approved into the SIP except for Open Market Emissions Trading
(OMET)provisions at 16.1A(g) and 16.1A(h). * * * * * * * Subchapter 19, “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen.” October 17, 2005 July 31, 2007 [Insert FR page citation] Subchapter 19 is approved into the SIP except 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 implementation 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; Interstate Transport of Pollution AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve state implementation plans submitted by the States of Arizona and Nevada that address interstate transport with 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 by Arizona and Nevada and approved herein satisfy requirements under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for each State to submit a plan containing adequate provisions to prohibit interstate transport with 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 of state implementation plans. The effect of this action is to approve the Arizona and Nevada state implementation plans addressing interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate standards and to eliminate obligations on the Agency to promulgate Federal implementation plans for these States addressing this same requirement. DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 30, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0295 by one of the 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 in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. • *Hand Delivery:* Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 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 at *http://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 by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Office of Air 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, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket 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 of Contents I. Background II. Applicable Clean Air Act Requirements A. CAA Procedural Provisions B. “Significant Contribution” and “Interference With Maintenance” Requirements C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)D. Visibility III. Arizona's Interstate Transport SIP A. CAA Procedural Provisions B. “Significant Contribution” and “Interference With Maintenance” Requirements C. Prevention of Significant 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 of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)and Visibility D. Evaluation and Conclusion V. EPA's Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On July 18, 1997, EPA issued new standards for the 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 previous NAAQS), and the level of the standard was changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). For the PM NAAQS, EPA added a new 24-hour standard and a new annual standard for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (μm) in diameter, PM 2.5 ). Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requires States to submit new state implementation plans
(SIPs)that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised 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 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which applies to interstate transport of certain emissions. Section 110(a)(1) imposes the obligation upon States to make a SIP submission for a 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) of the Act for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 21147. This finding started a 2-year clock for promulgation by EPA of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in accordance with section 110(c)(1), for any State that did not submit a SIP meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and 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. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued a guidance memorandum (“Interstate Transport Guidance”) concerning the SIP submissions under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 1 1 See memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air 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 August 15, 2006. On February 7, 2007, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP)submitted a SIP entitled Nevada State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport to Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS Promulgated in July 1997 (January 31, 2007) (“Nevada Interstate Transport SIP”). On May 24, 2007, the Arizona Department of Environmental 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 of this 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 EPA to promulgate interstate transport FIPs for these States. II. Applicable Clean Air Act 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 various SIP elements listed under section 110(a)(2) for the new NAAQS, including the “good neighbor” 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 submit a SIP that contains adequate provisions:
(i)Prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—
(I)Contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere 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 in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C of this subchapter to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to 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 of SIPs and SIP revisions for subsequent submittal to EPA. III. Arizona's Interstate Transport SIP A. CAA Procedural Provisions On March 29 and 30, 2007, ADEQ published a notice in the *Arizona Republic,* a newspaper of general circulation in the Phoenix area, of a public hearing on proposed revisions to the Arizona SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). A public hearing was held on April 30, 2007 in Phoenix. On May 24, 2007, in accordance with Arizona law, the Director of ADEQ adopted 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. “Significant Contribution” and “Interference With Maintenance” 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 of the 8-hour ozone or PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS or interfere with maintenance of those standards in another state. In support of this negative declaration, the Arizona Interstate Transport SIP identifies the following factors and provides the following analysis: • *Boundary designations and 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 of Arizona and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area) is located within the central portion of the State. The Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area includes much of eastern Maricopa County as well as Apache Junction in Pinal County. There are no nonattainment areas in Arizona for the PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. The Maricopa Association of Governments
(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. • *Spatial distribution of emissions.* Emissions of pollutants contributing to 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> formation are highest in the Phoenix metropolitan area, which as noted above, is located in the central portion of the State. The most recently available emissions inventories from EPA's AirData for Arizona counties show that Maricopa County sources emit approximately 50 percent of the state's volatile organic compounds
(VOC)and 36 percent of the nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ), known precursors to ozone, and approximately 30 percent of the state's total PM <sup>2.5</sup> emissions. No other county emits the level of emissions generated by Maricopa County. • *Monitoring data.* 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 of the 8-hour ozone standard. Data collected from 2004-2006 show that all monitored areas are currently meeting the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> 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 River Valley and is separated from other areas of the 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 of its valley location, backed by high terrain to the north and east, the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area is subject to distinct up-valley/down-valley wind patterns. The prevailing winds and high elevation blocking terrain to the east of the area were two of the factors that helped determine the impacts of transported 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 Areas in Neighboring States.* 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 Colorado (40 CFR 81.306). First, in designating the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in southern Nevada ( *i.e.* , a portion of Clark 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 in California is located in Imperial County, more than 80 miles west of the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area and more than 200 miles from large point sources in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties. Based on regional and local air flow patterns, California nonattainment areas are upwind of Arizona emissions sources. Third, the 8-hour ozone nonattainment 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 Arizona-Colorado border and more than 400 miles from the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area. With respect to PM <sup>2.5</sup> , as noted, California nonattainment areas are upwind of Arizona emissions sources. All other states that border Arizona are designated unclassifiable/attainment for PM <sup>2.5</sup> . • *Modeling.* With respect to the PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS, ADEQ also points to modeling that EPA conducted in connection with EPA's promulgation of the Clean 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 of Arizona 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 not rely on CAIR modeling results. C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)and Visibility As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires States to prohibit emissions that interfere with measures required to be 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, all new 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 or relevant county rules. All new major sources and major modifications to existing major sources in Arizona are subject to the nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR)provisions of these rules (including 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)for attainment areas. ADEQ indicates that Arizona will update the NSR rules when EPA's PM <sup>2.5</sup> implementation guidance is finalized and that Arizona will implement the current rules in accordance with EPA's interim guidance using PM <sup>10</sup> as a surrogate for PM <sup>2.5</sup> 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 respect to 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> 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 for causing or contributing to visibility impairment. The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP notes that Arizona Administrative Code Section R18-2-410 provides additional protection of visibility by requiring new major sources or major modifications to complete an analysis of the 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. Regarding visibility impairment caused by 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 PM <sup>2.5</sup> contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that interfere with measures in other States' SIPs designed to address regional haze. 2 Under EPA's regional haze regulations, regional haze SIPs are not due until December 17, 2007, and until these SIPs are submitted, accurate assessments regarding the impact of emissions and control measures on other States' SIPs cannot be made. 2 See pages 9 and 10 in EPA's Interstate Transport Guidance, referenced in Footnote 1. D. Evaluation and Conclusion 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 of emissions from within Arizona on other states. We also find that ADEQ's conclusion that emissions from Arizona do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone or PM <sup>2.5</sup> standard in any other state is adequately supported by the information in the 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 PM <sup>2.5</sup> and reasonably concludes that a determination of whether or not the Arizona SIP for 8-hour ozone or PM <sup>2.5</sup> 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 of regional haze SIPs. Based on these findings, we are approving the Arizona Interstate Transport SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result of our approval of this 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 of Air Quality Planning
(BAQP)published a notice on their Web site of a comment period on a proposed SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Notice of the comment period was also sent via the State Environmental Commission's (SEC's) electronic mailing list as well as the BAQP's lists of interested persons. The comment period was open until January 19, 2007. No public comments were received on the proposed SIP. The notice provided the opportunity for members of the public to request a public hearing, but no such request was made. On February 5, 2007, in accordance with Nevada law, the Administrator of NDEP 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 on review of these materials, we find that NDEP has met the procedural requirements of CAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. B. “Significant Contribution” and “Interference With Maintenance” 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. NDEP's Nevada Interstate Transport SIP concludes that emissions from air pollution sources in Nevada do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone or PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS or interfere with maintenance of those standards in another state. In support of this negative declaration, the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP identifies the following factors and provides the following analysis: • *Prevailing Winds and Location of PM* 2.5 *Nonattainment Areas in Neighboring States.* There are no PM <sup>2.5</sup> nonattainment areas in Nevada. Moreover, prevailing winds are from the south to west, and PM <sup>2.5</sup> nonattainment areas in neighboring states are located to the east, *i.e.* , upwind, in California. • *Prevailing Winds and Location of 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in Neighboring States.* There is one nonattainment area in Nevada, the Las Vegas area. Data from McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas indicate that prevailing winds are from the southwest. Thus, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in southern California lie upwind of the Las Vegas area. The Phoenix metropolitan area, the only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in Arizona, lies 300 miles south of Las Vegas and is characterized by east-west winds and thus is not downwind of Las Vegas. • *Nonattainment Plans.* Clark County Department of Air 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 standard by 2009. In the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP, NDEP commits to continue to review new air quality information as it becomes available to ensure that the negative declaration based on the above factors and analysis is still supported by such information. C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)and Visibility As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires States to prohibit emissions that interfere with measures required to be included in the SIP for any other State to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility. The Nevada Interstate Transport SIP explains that non-interference with CAA PSD measures in other states is achieved through preconstruction review and permitting procedures for major new sources and major modifications under the State's PSD program (delegated from EPA) and under the State's regulations for nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR). NDEP notes that EPA has established or will establish schedules for SIP submissions that incorporate revisions to EPA's preconstruction permitting regulations that are specific to the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS and that Nevada intends to revise the Nevada SIP consistent with such schedules. In the meantime, NDEP will implement the current rules and PSD delegation in accordance with EPA's interim guidance using PM <sup>10</sup> as a surrogate for PM <sup>2.5</sup> in the PSD and NNSR programs. For showing non-interference with CAA visibility measures in other states, the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP notes that EPA has made no determination that the emissions from any State interfere with measures required to be 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 by December 17, 2007. D. Evaluation and Conclusion We find that NDEP's selection of factors and accompanying analysis (see section IV.B., above) provide a reasonable basis with which to evaluate 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 of the 8-hour ozone or PM <sup>2.5</sup> standard in any other state is adequately supported by the information in the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP. We also find that the 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 <sup>2.5</sup> . A determination of whether or not the Nevada SIP for 8-hour ozone or PM <sup>2.5</sup> 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 of regional haze SIPs. Based on these findings, we are approving the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result of our approval of this SIP, we are no longer obligated to promulgate a FIP for Nevada addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement. V. EPA's Final Action In today's action, EPA is approving the SIPs submitted by the States of Arizona and Nevada to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. These approvals eliminate the obligation on EPA to promulgate section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) FIPs for these 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 not take 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 at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 1, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state 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 of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves State plans implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it 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 of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 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 October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 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 *et seq.* Dated: June 11, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting 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 D—Arizona 2. 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 of Environmental Quality on May 24, 2007. Subpart DD—Nevada 3. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(64) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(64)The following plan was submitted on February 5, 2007 by the Governor's designee.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. ( *1* ) Nevada State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport to Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour Ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS Promulgated in July 1997 (January 31, 2007), adopted by the Nevada Division of Environmental 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 listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the 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 the table below. ADDRESSES: The final 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 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 listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the 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 of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: State City/town/ county Source of flooding Location # Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)Modified Town of North Canaan, Connecticut Docket No.: FEMA-B-7472 Connecticut Town of North Canaan Blackberry River Approximately 700 feet downstream of Route 44 +656 Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Route 7 +672 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 100 Pease Street, Canaan, Connecticut 06018. Town of Van Buren, Maine Docket No.: FEMA-B-7708 Maine Town of Van Buren Violette Brook At confluence of Violette Stream +468 Just upstream of Castonguay Road +530 Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of private road at the Corporate Limits +608 Violette Stream At Bangor and Aroostook Railroad +451 At confluence of Violette Brook +468 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Champlain Street +483 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Van Buren Maps are available for inspection at 51 Main Street, Suite 101, Van Buren, ME 04785. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground modified Communities affected Village of Cambridge, New York Docket No.: FEMA-B-7711 Cambridge Creek Confluence with Owl Kill +477 Village of Cambridge. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of State Route 372 +508 Owl Kill Approximately 850 feet upstream of County Route 71 +466 Village of Cambridge. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of N. Park Street +493 White Creek Corporate limits of Village of Cambridge +493 Village of Cambridge. Approximately 150 feet downstream of corporate limits of Village of Cambridge +523 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Village of Cambridge Maps are available for inspection at 23 West Main Street, Cambridge, NY 12819. Grand County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7705 Fraser River Approximately 1700 ft upstream of the intersection with State Highway 8 +8550 Town of Fraser, Grand County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2445 ft downstream of the confluence with Leland Creek +8628 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Fraser Maps are available for inspection at 153 Fraser Avenue, Fraser, CO 80442. Grand County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 308 Byers Avenue, Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451. Edwards County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7705 Arkansas River At U.S. Highway 50 +2160 Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2 miles upstream of Old U.S. Highway 183 +2187 Big Coon Creek At U.S. Highway 50 +2164 Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kinsley. At Colony Avenue +2172 Approximately 1 mile upstream of Winchester Avenue +2179 Little Coon Creek At Winchester Avenue +2169 Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2 miles upstream of County Road 13 +2183 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Edwards County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the County Clerk's Office, 312 Massachusetts Avenue, Kinsley, KS 67547. City of Kinsley Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 721 Marsh, Kinsley, KS 67547. Dodge County, Nebraska and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7705 Platte River (levee failure) At Downing Street, south of Union Pacific Railroad +1188 City of Fremont, City of Inglewood, City of North Bend, Unincorporated Areas of Dodge County. At U.S. Highway 77 +1197 Approximately 1 mile downstream of State Highway 79 +1268 South of U.S. Highway 30 at County Road 5 +1279 +1287 Platte River (levee) Approximately 1/2 mile downstream of Burlington Northern Railroad +1195 City of Fremont, City of Inglewood, City of North Bend, Dodge County (Unincorporated Areas). At U.S. Highway 77 +1201 At County Road 19, south of Union Pacific Railroad +1216 Approximately 1 mile downstream of State Highway 79 +1272 Approximately 1 mile upstream of State Highway 79 +1285 South of Union Pacific Railroad, just upstream of County Road 3 +1300 Platte River Overflow Just north of 23rd Street, west of Burlington Northern Railroad #2 City of Fremont, City of Inglewood, City of North Bend, Dodge County (Unincorporated Areas). At the intersection of County Road 5 and County Road S #2 Between U.S. Highway 275 and Old Highway 8 #2 East of Burlington Northern Railroad and north of U.S. Highway 30/Highway 275 #2 Between U.S. Highway 30 and Burlington Northern Railroad, north of Rawhide Creek #2 U.S. Highway 77, north of U.S. Highway 30/Highway 275 +1197 At County Road 19, north of U.S. Highway 30 +1212 At the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road T +1222 At County Road 11, north of U.S. Highway 30 +1255 At Cottonwood Street, north of U.S. Highway 30 +1276 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Inglewood Maps are available for inspection at Inglewood Village Office, 445 Boulevard Street, Fremont, NE 68025. City of North Bend Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, North Bend, NE 68649. Dodge County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Dodge County Zoning Office, 435 N. Park, Fremont, NE 68025. Cooke County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7705 Indian Creek East Lower Reach At confluence with Lake Ray Roberts +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). At Lake Kiowa Dam +705 Indian Creek East Tributary 1 At the confluence with Indian Creek East +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream from FM 217 +693 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Indian Creek East Lower Reach +663 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet downstream from FM Road 3496 +724 Indian Creek Upper Reach At confluence with Lake Kiowa +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2500 feet upstream from confluence with Lake Kiowa +718 Lake Kiowa Lake Kiowa +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Lake Ray Roberts Lake Ray Roberts +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Pecan Creek North Approximately 4,000 feet downstream from FM Road 2071 +703 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream from I-35 +783 Pecan Creek South At the Confluence with Lake Ray Roberts +645 City of Valley View, Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 750 feet upstream from FM Road 922 +712 Tributary 1 At the Confluence with Pecan Creek South +646 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). At intersection with FM Road 922 +687 Persimmon Creek At confluence with Elm Fork Trinity River +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream from North Shore Drive +700 Tributary 1 At confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) +664 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream from confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) +689 Tributary 2 Confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) +664 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream from confluence with Persimmon Creek (Pioneer Valley Lake) +667 Tributary 3 At confluence with Persimmon Creek +678 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream from the confluence with Persimmon Creek +697 Pond Creek Approximately 1,000 feet downstream from confluence with Pond Creek Tributary 2 (County Border) +646 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet downstream from Rail Road (County Border) +674 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Pond Creek +646 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream from I-35 +705 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Pond Creek Tributary +675 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream from I-35 +702 Tributary Kiowa 1 Confluence with Lake Kiowa +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream from confluence with Lake Kiowa +713 Kiowa 2 At confluence with Lake Kiowa +705 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,500 feet upstream from confluence with Lake Kiowa +723 Wolf Creek At the confluence with Lake Ray Roberts +645 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream from FM 295 +746 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Wolf Creek +681 Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,700 feet upstream from confluence with Wolf Creek +709 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Valley View Maps are available for inspection at 100 South Dixon, Gainesville, TX 76240. Cooke County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 100 South Dixon, Gainesville, TX 76240. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 24, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-14719 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 1 [OST Docket No. 1999-6189; Amendment 1-305] RIN 1999-AA51 Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties; Delegations to the Maritime Administrator AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is delegating to the Maritime Administrator the authorities delegated to the Secretary by the President under section 1019 of Public Law 109-364 dated October 17, 2006, and entitled The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Weaver, Director, Office of Management Services, Maritime Administration, MAR-310, Room W26-310, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone:
(202)366-2811. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President delegated his authority under section 1019 of Public Law 109-364 to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by Memorandum dated February 15, 2007 (published in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 2007 (72 FR 7819)). The Secretary is further delegating this authority to the Maritime Administrator. This delegation authorizes the Maritime Administrator:
(1)To transfer the ex-Liberty ship SS Arthur M. Huddell (Vessel) to the Government of Greece in accordance with such terms and conditions as appropriate;
(2)to convey additional equipment from obsolete vessels of the National Defense Reserve Fleet
(NDRF)in order to assist the Government of Greece in using the vessel as a museum exhibit; and
(3)to require, to the maximum extent practicable, as a condition of the transfer of the Vessel, that the Government of Greece have such repair or refurbishment of the Vessel as is needed performed at a shipyard located in the United States. The Secretary is delegating this authority to the Maritime Administrator because the vessel is in the custody of the Maritime Administration and falls within the purview of the Maritime Administration's statutory mission to dispose of the vessels in the NDRF as appropriate. This final rule adds paragraph
(hh)to 49 CFR 1.66 to reflect the Secretary of Transportation's delegation of these authorities. Since this rulemaking relates to departmental organization, procedure and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, since the rulemaking expedites the Maritime Administration's ability to meet the statutory intent of the applicable laws and regulations covered by this delegation, the Secretary finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies). In consideration of the foregoing, part 1 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows: PART 1—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 46 U.S.C. 2104(a); 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); Pub. L. 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736; Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; Pub. L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Pub. L. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1392; Pub. L. 101-115, 103 Stat. 691; Pub. L. 108-293, 118 Stat. 1028; Pub. L. 109-364, 120 Stat. 2083. 2. Section 1.66 is amended by adding paragraph
(hh)to read as follows: § 1.66 Delegations to Maritime Administrator.
(hh)Carry out the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the President by section 1019 of Pub. L. 109-364 and delegated to the Secretary by the President. Issued at Washington, DC, this 25th day of June, 2007. Mary E. Peters, Secretary of Transportation. [FR Doc. 07-3635 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 41
Traces to 41 documents
38 references not yet in our index
  • 21 CFR 558
  • 21 CFR 20
  • 5 USC 801-808
  • 21 CFR 584
  • 27 CFR 212.45
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9321
  • 28 CFR 0
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 46 CFR 4
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 81.329
  • 40 CFR 81.305
  • 40 CFR 81.306
  • 44 CFR 67
  • 44 CFR 60
  • 44 CFR 10
  • 49 CFR 1
  • Pub. L. 109-364
  • 49 CFR 1.66
  • Pub. L. 101-552
  • Pub. L. 106-159
  • 113 Stat. 1748
  • Pub. L. 107-71
  • Pub. L. 108-136
  • 117 Stat. 1392
  • Pub. L. 101-115
  • Pub. L. 108-293
  • 118 Stat. 1028
  • 120 Stat. 2083
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 558.500
C.F.R.§ 514.11
C.F.R.§ 25.33
U.S.C.§ 804
U.S.C.§ 360b
C.F.R.§ 584.200
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 321
C.F.R.§ 21.62
Cite21 CFR 558
Cite21 CFR 20
Cite5 USC 801-808
Cites 79 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.