Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

51564 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

(1) A notice under PCT Rule Dated: August 31, 2007. New England Regional Office, One
26bis.1(a) adding the priority claim, if Jon W. Dudas, Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ),
the priority claim in respect of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Boston, MA 02114–2023. Such
earlier application is not contained in Property and Director of the United States deliveries are only accepted during the
the international application; Patent and Trademark Office. Regional Office’s normal hours of
(2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(t); and [FR Doc. E7–17711 Filed 9–7–07; 8:45 am] operation. The Regional Office’s official
(3) A statement that the delay in filing BILLING CODE 3510–16–P hours of business are Monday through
the international application within the Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
priority period was unintentional. The holidays.
Director may require additional ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Instructions: Direct your comments to
information where there is a question AGENCY Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2007–
whether the delay was unintentional. 0497. EPA’s policy is that all comments
40 CFR Part 52 received will be included in the public
(c) If the applicant makes a request for
docket without change and may be
early publication under PCT Article [EPA–R01–OAR–2007–0497; A–1–FRL– made available online at
21(2)(b), any requirement under 8463–6], including any
paragraph (b) of this section filed after personal information provided, unless
the technical preparations for Approval and Promulgation of Air
the comment includes information
international publication have been Quality Implementation Plans; New
claimed to be Confidential Business
completed by the International Bureau Hampshire; Revised Carbon Monoxide
Information (CBI) or other information
shall be considered as not having been Maintenance Plan for Nashua
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
submitted in time. Do not submit through
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
(d) Restoration of a right of priority to Agency (EPA)., or e-mail,
a prior application by the United States information that you consider to be CBI
ACTION: Direct final rule.
Receiving Office under this section, or or otherwise protected. The
by any other Receiving Office under the SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Web site is an
provisions of PCT Rule 26bis.3, will not Implementation Plan (SIP) revision ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
entitle applicants to a right of priority in submitted by the State of New means EPA will not know your identity
any application which has entered the Hampshire. This SIP submittal contains or contact information unless you
national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or in revisions to the carbon monoxide (CO) provide it in the body of your comment.
any application filed under 35 U.S.C. maintenance plan for Nashua, New If you send an e-mail comment directly
111(a) which claims benefit under 35 Hampshire. Specifically, New to EPA without going through
U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to an Hampshire has revised the contingency your e-mail
international application in which the plan portion of the original maintenance address will be automatically captured
right to priority has been restored. plan. The intended effect of this action and included as part of the comment
■ 7. Section 1.465 is amended by is to approve this revision to the Nashua that is placed in the public docket and
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: CO maintenance plan. This action is made available on the Internet. If you
being taken in accordance with the submit an electronic comment, EPA
§ 1.465 Timing of application processing recommends that you include your
Clean Air Act.
based on the priority date. name and other contact information in
DATES: This direct final rule will be
* * * * * the body of your comment and with any
effective November 9, 2007, unless EPA
(b) When a claimed priority date is disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
receives adverse comments by October
corrected under PCT Rule 26bis.1(a), or cannot read your comment due to
10, 2007. If adverse comments are
a priority claim is added under PCT technical difficulties and cannot contact
received, EPA will publish a timely
Rule 26bis.1(a), withdrawn under PCT you for clarification, EPA may not be
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Rule 90bis.3, or considered not to have able to consider your comment.
Federal Register informing the public
been made under PCT Rule 26bis.2, the Electronic files should avoid the use of
that the rule will not take effect.
priority date for the purposes of special characters, any form of
computing any non-expired time limits ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, encryption, and be free of any defects or
will be the filing date of the earliest identified by Docket ID Number EPA– viruses.
remaining priority claim under PCT R01–OAR–2007–0497 by one of the Docket: All documents in the
Article 8 of the international following methods: electronic docket are listed in the
application, or if none, the international 1. Follow index. Although
filing date. the on-line instructions for submitting listed in the index, some information is
comments. not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
* * * * * 2. E-mail: information whose disclosure is
■ 8. Section 1.497 is amended by 3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. restricted by statute. Certain other
revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as 4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification material, such as copyrighted material,
follows: Number EPA–R01–OAR–2007–0497,’’ is not placed on the Internet and will be
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental publicly available only in hard copy
§ 1.497 Oath or declaration under 35
U.S.C. 371(c)(4). Protection Agency, EPA New England form. Publicly available docket
Regional Office, One Congress Street, materials are available either
* * * * * Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, electronically in
(f) * * * MA 02114–2023. or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES

(1) There was a change in the 5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver Protection, U.S. Environmental
international filing date pursuant to PCT your comments to: Anne Arnold, Protection Agency, EPA New England
Rule 20.5(c) after the declaration was Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Regional Office, One Congress Street,
executed; or Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
* * * * * Environmental Protection Agency, EPA that if at all possible, you contact the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:16 Sep 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51565

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER July 27, 2007, entitled ‘‘Technical contingency program in Nashua in the event
INFORMATION CONTACT section to Support Document for Revision to the that a CO violation (the ‘contingency trigger’)
schedule your inspection. The Regional Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for is monitored at the re-established Nashua
monitoring site at any time during the
Office’s official hours of business are Nashua, New Hampshire,’’ (TSD). The maintenance period and to consider one or
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, TSD and New Hampshire’s submittal more of the other EPA-approved measures
excluding legal holidays. are available in the docket supporting listed in Section 6.5.2 if necessary to reduce
In addition, copies of the state this action. CO levels.
submittal and EPA’s technical support If the Manchester CO monitor measures a
III. Summary of SIP Revision violation of either the federal 1-hour or 8-
document are also available for public
inspection during normal business On May 30, 2007, the New Hampshire hour NAAQS for CO, the contingency
hours, by appointment at the State Air Department of Environmental Services measures in Section 6.5.2 will be
submitted a SIP revision to EPA that implemented in Nashua as well, until a re-
Agency; Air Resources Division, established Nashua CO monitor shows that
Department of Environmental Services, contains a modification to their CO the area is attainment of the CO standard.
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, maintenance plan for the Nashua CO When implementing contingency
NH 03302–0095. maintenance area. The modifications to measures, New Hampshire will review and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the maintenance plan change the implement the measures necessary to remedy
Robert C. Judge, Air Quality Planning triggering mechanism by which the violation, including transportation
contingency measures would be control measures (TCM) or other additional
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
implemented and will allow the State to vehicle or fuel controls.’’
Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 discontinue CO monitoring in the IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP
(CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023, Nashua maintenance area. CO Revision
telephone number (617) 918–1045, fax concentrations measured in Nashua
have been below the National Ambient EPA agrees that the mechanism
number (617) 918–0045, e-mail described above represents an Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
nearly 20 years, and in recent years, acceptable contingency triggering
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: maximum measured concentrations mechanism for the Nashua CO
have been less than 50% of the 9 parts maintenance plan. Approval of this
Table of Contents
per million 8-hour CO standard. In this revised triggering mechanism will allow
I. Background and Purpose New Hampshire DES to discontinue
II. What action is EPA taking? SIP revision, the State of New
Hampshire is establishing an alternative monitoring in the Nashua area, which
III. Summary of SIP Revision
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP Revision triggering mechanism, which will rely we believe is appropriate for this area
V. Final Action on CO data from a nearby CO monitor which is currently measuring
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews in Manchester, New Hampshire. concentrations well below the existing
Section 6.5.3 of the State’s currently 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS. Under
I. Background and Purpose this plan, we believe air quality goals
approved CO maintenance plan, entitled
On May 30, 2007, the State of New ‘‘Selection of a Nonattainment can be maintained, and State monitoring
Hampshire submitted a formal revision Indicator,’’ includes a triggering resources conserved.
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). mechanism based on levels at the CO On October 17, 2006, EPA published
The SIP revision consists of a minor monitor in Nashua. Under the current a final monitoring rule revising the
modification to the carbon monoxide maintenance plan, contingency minimum monitoring requirements.
(CO) maintenance plan for Nashua, New measures in Nashua are triggered when That rule explicitly recognized that, in
Hampshire. (A redesignation request a violation of the CO NAAQS is some cases where measured levels of
and a maintenance plan for the Nashua measured in Nashua. Under the revised pollutants are low, shutting down
CO nonattainment area were approved maintenance plan, New Hampshire will certain CO monitors may be allowed.
by EPA on November 29, 2000 (65 FR rely on data from the Manchester CO The rule, however, also explicitly
71060).) The modification changes the monitor to determine when and if provides that if a monitor is the only
triggering mechanism which will be monitoring will be reestablished in the monitor in the area, and it serves as a
used by the State to determine if Nashua maintenance area, and, in some trigger to implement a contingency
contingency measures need to be circumstances, when contingency measure in an EPA-approved
implemented in Nashua. The end result measures will be triggered in the maintenance plan, the maintenance
of this action will be to allow the Nashau maintenance area. The revised plan would need to be revised, and the
discontinuation of CO monitoring in the maintenance plan language is found trigger replaced. (See 71 FR 61250 and
Nashua maintenance area. below: 71 FR 61301.)
As described above, this action is
II. What action is EPA taking? ‘‘For the purposes of this plan, New approving a change to the mechanism
EPA is approving revisions to the Hampshire will be discontinuing CO that New Hampshire will use to
monitoring in Nashua upon EPA approval of
Nashua carbon monoxide maintenance this revised plan. New Hampshire DES will
determine when contingency measures
plan submitted by the State of New continue to collect and review CO need to be triggered to reduce CO
Hampshire on May 30, 2007. monitoring data from nearby Manchester, NH concentrations in Nashua. Previously,
Specifically, EPA is approving the on an on-going basis. In the event the second the State would implement a
State’s modification of the portion of the highest CO concentration in any calendar contingency measure based on
maintenance plan used to determine year monitored in Manchester reaches 75 concentrations of CO monitored in
when contingency measures need to be percent of the federal 1-hour or 8-hour Nashua. In light of the fact that Nashua
triggered to reduce CO concentrations in national ambient air quality standard for CO, CO concentrations have been well
New Hampshire will, within 9 months of
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES

Nashua. recording such concentrations, re-establish a

below the standard for some time, the
New Hampshire’s SIP revision and CO monitoring site in Nashua consistent with State is looking to conserve resources.
EPA’s evaluation of this SIP revision are EPA siting criteria, and resume analyzing and New Hampshire DES wants to use its
discussed below. Additional details are reporting those data. New Hampshire will CO monitor in Manchester, a nearby
also provided in a memorandum dated continue to commit to implement its city, to aid in determining if Nashua has

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:16 Sep 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1
51566 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

a CO problem. Nashua and Manchester rules section of this Federal Register Indian tribes, on the relationship
(both in Hillsborough County) are less publication, EPA is publishing a between the Federal Government and
than 20 miles apart, have similar separate document that will serve as the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
populations, and both have had CO proposal to approve the SIP revision power and responsibilities between the
concentrations similar to each other for should relevant adverse comments be Federal Government and Indian tribes,
years. (The TSD provides a comparison filed. This rule will be effective as specified by Executive Order 13175
of the data collected at the Nashua and November 9, 2007 without further (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
Manchester CO monitors over the past notice unless the Agency receives action also does not have Federalism
several decades.) Both cities were relevant adverse comments by October implications because it does not have
designated nonattainment in 1990 for 10, 2007. substantial direct effects on the States,
CO ‘‘by operation of law,’’ though both If the EPA receives such comments, on the relationship between the national
had design values below the standard at then EPA will publish a notice government and the States, or on the
that time. In both cases, only the city withdrawing the final rule and distribution of power and
itself was designated nonattainment informing the public that the rule will responsibilities among the various
since data did not support an expansion not take effect. All public comments levels of government, as specified in
of the nonattainment area. Both cities received will then be addressed in a Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
were redesignated to attainment in subsequent final rule based on the August 10, 1999), because it merely
2000, and both have measured CO proposed rule. The EPA will not approves a state rule implementing a
concentrations well below the standard institute a second comment period on federal standard, and does not alter the
since that time. the proposed rule. All parties interested relationship or the distribution of power
In order to conserve resources, the in commenting on the proposed rule and responsibilities established in the
State is seeking to discontinue should do so at this time. If no such Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
monitoring in Nashua since current air comments are received, the public is subject to Executive Order 13045
quality levels do not warrant the advised that this rule will be effective ‘‘Protection of Children from
additional expense of running a CO on November 9, 2007 and no further Environmental Health Risks and Safety
monitor in this area. The State has action will be taken on the proposed Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
committed to continue CO monitoring rule. Please note that if EPA receives because it approves a state rule
in Manchester, and will reestablish CO adverse comment on an amendment, implementing a Federal standard.
monitoring in Nashua if air quality in paragraph, or section of this rule and if In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
Manchester degrades significantly. that provision may be severed from the role is to approve state choices,
Starting in the early 1970s, EPA has set remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt provided that they meet the criteria of
national standards that have as final those provisions of the rule that the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
considerably reduced emissions of CO are not the subject of an adverse absence of a prior existing requirement
and other pollutants from motor comment. for the State to use voluntary consensus
vehicles, including tailpipe emissions, standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
new vehicle technologies, and clean to disapprove a SIP submission for
fuels programs. Because of this, EPA failure to use VCS. It would thus be
believes that it is unlikely that either Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR inconsistent with applicable law for
maintenance area will exceed the CO 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
NAAQS again. Thus, we believe that the not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
revisions that New Hampshire has made therefore is not subject to review by the that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
to its maintenance plan will continue to Office of Management and Budget. For the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
protect the citizens of New Hampshire this reason, this action is also not requirements of section 12(d) of the
from high CO concentrations, and also subject to Executive Order 13211, National Technology Transfer and
conserve resources. ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 272 note) do not apply. This rule does
V. Final Action Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May not impose an information collection
EPA is approving revisions to the 22, 2001). This action merely approves burden under the provisions of the
Nashua CO maintenance plan submitted state law as meeting Federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
by the State of New Hampshire on May requirements and imposes no additional U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
30, 2007. Specifically, EPA is approving requirements beyond those imposed by The Congressional Review Act, 5
the State’s request to modify the portion state law. Accordingly, the U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
of the maintenance plan used to Administrator certifies that this rule the Small Business Regulatory
determine when contingency measures will not have a significant economic Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
need to be implemented in Nashua. As impact on a substantial number of small generally provides that before a rule
described in more detail above, the State entities under the Regulatory Flexibility may take effect, the agency
will shut down the Nashua CO monitor Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this promulgating the rule must submit a
and rely on data from the CO monitor rule approves pre-existing requirements rule report, which includes a copy of
in Manchester to determine when and if under state law and does not impose the rule, to each House of the Congress
monitoring will be reestablished in the any additional enforceable duty beyond and to the Comptroller General of the
Nashua maintenance area, and, in some that required by state law, it does not United States. EPA will submit a report
circumstances, when contingency contain any unfunded mandate or containing this rule and other required
measures will be triggered in the significantly or uniquely affect small information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
Nashua maintenance area. governments, as described in the House of Representatives, and the
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES

The EPA is publishing this action Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Comptroller General of the United
without prior proposal because the (Pub. L. 104–4). States prior to publication of the rule in
Agency views this as a noncontroversial This rule also does not have tribal the Federal Register. A major rule
amendment and anticipates no adverse implications because it will not have a cannot take effect until 60 days after it
comments. However, in the proposed substantial direct effect on one or more is published in the Federal Register.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:16 Sep 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51567

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as concentrations, re-establish a CO rulemaking notices, EPA omitted the
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). monitoring site in Nashua consistent 2009 MVEBs from the final rules. A
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean with EPA siting criteria, and resume correction was made to add these 2009
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of analyzing and reporting those data. New MVEBs. When this correction was made
this action must be filed in the United Hampshire commits to implement its there was an error in the 2009 MVEB for
States Court of Appeals for the contingency program in Nashua in the NOX for Belmont County, Ohio. This
appropriate circuit by November 9, event that a CO violation is monitored error is corrected in this action.
2007. Interested parties should at the re-established Nashua monitoring Correction
comment in response to the proposed site at any time during the maintenance
rule rather than petition for judicial period. If the Manchester CO monitor For Belmont County, Ohio, in the
review, unless the objection arises after measures a violation of the either the correction notice published in the
the comment period allowed for in the federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, Federal Register on July 5, 2007 (72 FR
proposal. Filing a petition for contingency measures will be 36599), on page 36599 in the third
reconsideration by the Administrator of implemented in Nashua as well, until a column, second full paragraph: ‘‘In
this final rule does not affect the finality re-established CO monitor in Nashua addition, and supported by and
of this rule for the purposes of judicial shows that the area is in attainment of consistent with the ozone maintenance
review nor does it extend the time the CO standard. plan, EPA is approving the 2018 VOC
within which a petition for judicial and NOX MVEBs for transportation
[FR Doc. E7–17633 Filed 9–7–07; 8:45 am] conformity purposes. The 2018 MVEBs
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule BILLING CODE 6560–50–P * * *.’’ is to read: ‘‘In addition, and
or action. This action may not be supported by and consistent with the
challenged later in proceedings to ozone maintenance plan, EPA is
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION approving the 2009 and 2018 VOC and
enforce its requirements. (See section AGENCY
307(b)(2).) NOX MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. For Belmont
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 40 CFR Part 52
County, Ohio, the 2009 MVEBs are 2.60
Environmental protection, Air [EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0046; FRL–8464–3] tons per day of VOC and 4.69 tons per
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, day of NOX and the 2018 MVEBs are
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting Determination of Attainment, Approval 1.52 tons per day of VOC and 1.91 tons
and recordkeeping requirements. and Promulgation of Implementation per day of NOX. West Virginia develops
Plans and Designation of Areas for Air MVEBs for its portion of the area.’’
Dated: August 22, 2007. Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; EPA is revising 40 CFR Section
Ira Leighton, Correction 52.1885(ff)(2) to reflect this corrected
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 2009 MVEB for NOX for Belmont
England. AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). County, Ohio.
■ Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Section 553 of the Administrative
Code of Federal Regulations is amended ACTION: Final rule; correcting Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
as follows: amendment. provides that, when an agency for good
SUMMARY: This document corrects an cause finds that notice and public
PART 52—[AMENDED] procedure are impracticable,
error pertaining to the Motor Vehicle
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Belmont unnecessary or contrary to the public
continues to read as follows: County, Ohio (Wheeling, WV–OH). The interest, the agency may issue a rule
2009 MVEB for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) without providing notice and an
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. opportunity for public comment. We
from the proposed rule was incorrect in
Subpart EE—New Hampshire the final action. This final rule corrects have determined that there is good
that error. cause for making today’s rule final
■ 2. Section 52.1528 is amended by without prior proposal and opportunity
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: for comment because we are merely
effective on September 10, 2007.
correcting an error in a previous action.
§ 52.1528 Control strategy: Carbon FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thus, notice and public procedure are
monoxide. Steve Marquardt, Environmental unnecessary. We find that this
* * * * * Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
(d) Approval—On May 30, 2007, the Programs Branch (AR–18J), 553(b)(B).
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Services submitted a Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
modification to the Nashua maintenance Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–3214, Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
plan approved in paragraph (c) of this (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
section. New Hampshire will not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
conduct CO monitoring in Nashua, but published four notices of final action’’ and is, therefore, not subject to
instead commits to continue to collect rulemaking to redesignate Washington review by the Office of Management and
and review CO monitoring data from County (Parkersburg-Marietta, WV–OH), Budget. For this reason, this action is
nearby Manchester, NH on an on-going Jefferson County (Steubenville-Weirton, also not subject to Executive Order
basis. In the event the second highest WV–OH), Belmont County (Wheeling, 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
CO concentration in any calendar year WV–OH), Stark County (Canton, OH) That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES

monitored in Manchester reaches 75 and Allen County (Lima, OH) areas to Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
percent of the federal 1-hour or 8-hour attainment for the 8-hour ozone 22, 2001)). Because the agency has made
national ambient air quality standard for standard. For each of these counties a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action
CO, New Hampshire will, within 9 EPA had proposed approval of the 2009 is not subject to notice-and-comment
months of recording such and 2018 MVEBs. In each of the final requirements under the Administrative

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:16 Sep 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1