Rules and Regulations. Final rule

19,511 words·~89 min read·/register/2007/05/08/07-2283

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection 19 CFR Part 123 [CBP Dec. 07-25] Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information for Truck Carriers Required To Be Transmitted Through ACE Truck Manifest at Ports in the States of Idaho and Montana AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 and implementing regulations, truck carriers and other eligible parties are required to transmit advance electronic truck cargo information to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)through a CBP-approved electronic data interchange. In a previous document, CBP designated the Automated Commercial Environment

(ACE)Truck Manifest System as the approved interchange and announced that the requirement that advance electronic cargo information be transmitted through ACE would be phased in by groups of ports of entry. This document announces that at all land border ports in Idaho and Montana truck carriers will be required to file electronic manifests through the ACE Truck Manifest System. DATES: Trucks entering the United States through land border ports of entry in the states of Idaho and Montana will be required to transmit the advance information through the ACE Truck Manifest system effective August 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Swanson, via e-mail at *james.d.swanson@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended (the Act; 19 U.S.C. 2071 note), required that CBP promulgate regulations providing for the mandatory transmission of electronic cargo information by way of a CBP-approved electronic data interchange

(EDI)system before the cargo is brought into or departs the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck). The cargo information required is that which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified for purposes of ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. On December 5, 2003, CBP published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 68140) a final rule to effectuate the provisions of the Act. In particular, a new § 123.92 (19 CFR 123.92) was added to the regulations to implement the inbound truck cargo provisions. Section 123.92 describes the general requirement that, in the case of any inbound truck required to report its arrival under § 123.1(b), if the truck will have commercial cargo aboard, CBP must electronically receive certain information regarding that cargo through a CBP-approved EDI system no later than 1 hour prior to the carrier's reaching the first port of arrival in the United States. For truck carriers arriving with shipments qualified for clearance under the FAST (Free and Secure Trade) program, § 123.92 provides that CBP must electronically receive such cargo information through the CBP-approved EDI system no later than 30 minutes prior to the carrier's reaching the first port of arrival in the United States. ACE Truck Manifest Test On September 13, 2004, CBP published a notice in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 55167) announcing a test allowing participating Truck Carrier Accounts to transmit electronic manifest data for inbound cargo through ACE, with any such transmissions automatically complying with advance cargo information requirements as provided in section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002. Truck Carrier Accounts participating in the test were given the ability to electronically transmit the truck manifest data and obtain release of their cargo, crew, conveyances, and equipment via the ACE Portal or electronic data interchange messaging. A series of notices announced additional deployments of the test, with deployment sites being phased in as clusters. Clusters were announced in the following notices published in the **Federal Register** : 70 FR 30964 (May 31, 2005); 70 FR 43892 (July 29, 2005); 70 FR 60096 (October 14, 2005); 71 FR 3875 (January 24, 2006); 71 FR 23941 (April 25, 2006); 71 FR 42103 (July 25, 2006), 71 FR 77404 (December 26, 2006); 72 FR 7058 (February 14, 2007); and 72 FR 14127 (March 26, 2007). CBP continues to test ACE at various ports. CBP will continue, as necessary, to announce in subsequent notices in the **Federal Register** the deployment of the ACE truck manifest system test at additional ports. Designation of ACE Truck Manifest System as the Approved Data Interchange System In a notice published October 27, 2006 (71 FR 62922), CBP designated the Automated Commercial Environment

(ACE)Truck Manifest System as the approved EDI for the transmission of required data and announced that the requirement that advance electronic cargo information be transmitted through ACE would be phased in by groups of ports of entry. ACE will be phased in as the required transmission system at some ports even while it is still being tested at other ports. However, the use of ACE to transmit advance electronic truck cargo information will not be required in any port in which CBP has not first conducted the test. The October 27, 2006, document identified all land border ports in the states of Washington and Arizona and the ports of Pembina, Neche, Walhalla, Maida, Hannah, Sarles, and Hansboro in North Dakota as the first group of ports where use of the ACE Truck Manifest System is mandated. Subsequently, CBP announced on January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2435) that, after 90 days notice, the use of the ACE Truck Manifest System will be mandatory at all land border ports in the states of California, Texas and New Mexico. On February 23, 2007 (72 FR 8109), CBP announced that, after 90 days notice, the ACE Truck Manifest System will be mandatory at all land border ports in Michigan and New York. On April 13, 2007 (72 FR 18574), CBP announced that after 90 days notice at all land border ports in Vermont and New Hampshire, and at the land border ports in North Dakota in which ACE had not been required, the ACE Truck Manifest System will be mandatory. ACE Mandated at Land Border Ports of Entry in Idaho and Montana Applicable regulations (19 CFR 123.92(e)) require CBP, 90 days prior to mandating advance electronic information at a port of entry, to publish notice in the **Federal Register** informing affected carriers that the EDI system is in place and fully operational. Accordingly, CBP is announcing in this document that, effective 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, truck carriers entering the United States through land border ports of entry in the states of Idaho and Montana will be required to present advance electronic cargo information regarding truck cargo through the ACE Truck Manifest System. Although other systems that have been deemed acceptable by CBP for transmitting advance truck manifest data will continue to operate and may still be used in the normal course of business for purposes other than transmitting advance truck manifest data, use of systems other than ACE will no longer satisfy advance electronic cargo information requirements at the ports of entry announced in this document as of August 6, 2007. Compliance Sequence CBP will be publishing subsequent notices in the **Federal Register** as it phases in the requirement that truck carriers utilize the ACE system to present advance electronic truck cargo information at other ports. ACE will be phased in as the mandatory EDI system at the ports identified below in the sequential order in which they are listed. Although further changes to this order are not currently anticipated, CBP will state in future notices if changes do occur. In any event, as mandatory ACE is phased in at these remaining ports, CBP will always provide 90 days' notice through publication in the **Federal Register** prior to requiring the use of ACE for the transmission of advance electronic truck cargo information at a particular group of ports. The remaining ports at which the mandatory use of ACE will be phased in, listed in sequential order, are as follows: 1. All land border ports in the state of Maine. 2. All land border ports in the states of Alaska and Minnesota. Dated: May 2, 2007. Deborah J. Spero, Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection. [FR Doc. E7-8707 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. CGD13-07-014] RIN 1625-AA08 National Maritime Week Tugboat Races, Seattle, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the annual National Maritime Week Tugboat Races Special Local Regulations in Elliot Bay from 12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 12, 2007. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and spectators during the National Maritime Week Tugboat Races. During the enforcement period, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives. DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1306 will be enforced from 12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Steve Kee, c/o Captain of the Port Puget Sound, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134 at

(206)217-6002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6, 2005, the Coast Guard published a final rule (70 FR 23936-23938) modifying the regulations in 33 CFR 100.1306 for the safe execution of the Seattle Maritime Festival Tugboat Races on the waters of Elliot Bay. This Special Local Regulation

(SLR)provides for a regulated area to protect spectators while providing unobstructed vessel traffic lanes to ensure timely arrival of emergency response craft. Movements are regulated for all vessels in the area as described under 33 CFR 100.1306 or unless otherwise regulated by the Captain of the Port or his designee. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this SLR. The Coast Guard will enforce the SLR for the annual National Maritime Week Tugboat Races, Seattle, WA in 33 CFR 100.1306 on May 12, 2007, from 12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1306, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designee. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of race participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1306(c) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Dated: April 20, 2007. Mark J. Huebschman, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, Acting. [FR Doc. E7-8727 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD13-07-015] RIN 1625-AA00 Security Zone: Portland Rose Festival on Willamette River AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of Rose Festival Security Zone. SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port Portland, Oregon will begin enforcing the Portland Rose Festival Security Zone from June 6th, 2007 until June 11, 2007. This zone provides for the security of public vessels on a portion of the Willamette River during the fleet week of the 2007 Rose Festival. DATES: This notice of enforcement for 33 CFR 165.1312 will be enforced from 12:01 a.m., June 6, 2007 until 11:59 p.m., June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Michelle Duty , c/o Captain of the Port Portland, OR, 6767 North Basin Avenue, Portland, OR 97217 at

(503)240-9301 to obtain information concerning enforcement of this rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 29, 2003, the Coast Guard published a final rule (68 FR 31979 as amended by 70 FR 33352 published on June 8, 2005) establishing a security zone, in 33 CFR 165.1312, for the security of public vessels on a portion of the Willamette River during the fleet week of the Rose Festival. This security zone provides for the regulation of vessel traffic in the vicinity of the moored vessels. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designee. The Captain of the Port Portland will begin enforcing the Rose Festival Security Zone established by 33 CFR 165.1312 on June 6, 2007. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies in enforcing this security zone. This security zone will be enforced until June 11, 2007. Dated: April 20, 2007. Patrick G. Gerrity, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Portland. [FR Doc. E7-8725 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817; FRL-8309-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Redesignation of the Parkersburg, WV, Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is requesting that the Parkersburg, West Virginia (Parkersburg) portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH area (herein referred to as the “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the State submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Parkersburg that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is approving the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act

(CAA)175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Parkersburg 8-hour maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request and the maintenance plan revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0817. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* website. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,

(215)814-2156, or by e-mail at *caprio.amy@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On January 12, 2007 (72 FR 1474), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the State of West Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of West Virginia's redesignation request and a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for Parkersburg that sets forth how Parkersburg will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the WVDEP on September 8, 2006. Other specific requirements of West Virginia's redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. On February 9, 2007, EPA received a comment, from the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, in support of its January 12, 2007 NPR. Also, on February 15, 2007, EPA received a comment, from the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, in support of its January 12, 2007 NPR. EPA recognizes the support provided in these comments but does not believe any specific response to comments is necessary with respect to these comments. Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently vacated EPA's April 30, 2004 “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Standard” (the Phase 1 implementation rule). *South Coast Air Quality Management District* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). EPA issued a supplemental proposed rulemaking that set forth its views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling on this and other proposed redesignation actions. 72 FR 13452 (March 22, 2007). EPA proposed to find that the Court's ruling does not alter any requirements relevant to the proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these redesignations, for the reasons fully explained in the supplemental notice. EPA provided a 15-day review and comment period on this supplemental proposed rulemaking. The public comment period closed on April 6, 2007. EPA received six comments, all supporting EPA's supplemental proposed rulemaking, and supporting redesignation of the affected areas. EPA recognizes the support provided in these comments as well, but again, we do not believe any specific response to comments is necessary with respect to these comments. In addition, several of these comments included additional rationale for proceeding with these proposed redesignations. EPA had not requested comment on any additional rationale, does not believe any additional rationale is necessary, and similarly does not believe any specific response to these comments is necessary, and thus has not provided any. II. Final Action EPA is approving the State of West Virginia's September 8, 2006 redesignation request and maintenance plan because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated West Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on September 8, 2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that Parkersburg has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Parkersburg, West Virginia portion of the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8- hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for Parkersburg, submitted on September 8, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for Parkersburg because it meets the requirements of section 175A and 175A(b) with respect to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan update. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by West Virginia in conjunction with its redesignation request. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for NO X and VOCs in the Parkersburg portion of the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, Wood County must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons Per Day

(TPD)Budget year NO X VOC 2009 4.1 3.0 2018 2.0 1.9 Parkersburg is subject to the CAA's requirements for basic ozone nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final 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 final rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General 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** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review 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 July 9, 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, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan and adequacy determination for MVEBs for Parkersburg, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: April 26, 2007. Judith Katz, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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 XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph

(e)is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area Wood County 09/08/06 05/08/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. In § 81.349 the table entitled “West Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area to read as follows: § 81.349 West Virginia. West Virginia—Ozone [8-Hour Standard] Designated Area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/Classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Area Wood County 05/08/07 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E7-8678 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0677a; FRL-8303-2] Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Washoe County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Washoe County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter

(PM)emissions from fugitive dust sources, such as open areas, unpaved roads, and construction activities. We are approving this local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 7, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0677a, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail* : *steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver* : Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions* : All comments 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 Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either

(415)947-4111, or *wamsley.jerry@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action. A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date that it was adopted by Washoe County and submitted by Nevada. Table 1.—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted Washoe Co 040.030 Dust Control 07/26/02 08/05/02 On February 5, 2003, this Rule 040.030 submittal became complete by operation of law because EPA did not make a formal finding that it met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. These criteria must be met before formal EPA review may begin. B. Are there other versions of this rule? We approved a prior version of this rule into the Nevada SIP on July 27, 1972; please see 37 **Federal Register**

(FR)15086. On October 30, 1991, Nevada submitted a revised version of Regulation 040.030 to EPA as part of its moderate PM-10 nonattainment area plan. Nevada submitted additional revisions to Regulation 040.030 to EPA on September 18, 1992, and March 25, 1994, as “addenda” to its moderate PM-10 area nonattainment plan. EPA did not act on these submitted versions of the rule, but they have been in effect under state law since their adoption. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? Washoe County Regulation 040.030—Dust Control is designed to limit the emissions of fugitive dust or particulate matter from a variety of activities and sources such as construction sites, bulk material hauling, unpaved parking lots, and disturbed soil in open areas and vacant lots. Regulation 040.030 is a significant part of the Washoe County serious area PM-10 attainment plan control strategy for the Truckee Meadows Air Basin (TMAB). The Washoe County serious area PM-10 attainment plan (submitted August 2002) identified fugitive dust from construction activity and disturbed land as significant sources of PM-10 emissions. EPA's technical support document

(TSD)has more information about this rule. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action. A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? On January 8, 2001, EPA determined TMAB had failed to attain the annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1994 based on monitored air quality data during the years 1992-94. Consequently, the area was reclassified under CAA 188(b)(2) by operation of law as a serious nonattainment area, effective February 7, 2001. See 66 FR 1268 (January 8, 2001). States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas that are reclassified as serious under CAA section 188(b)(2) are required under section 189(b)(2) to submit a serious PM-10 nonattainment plan within 18 months of the reclassification. A serious PM-10 nonattainment plan must provide for, among other things, implementation of best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT). Also, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not interfere with existing requirements contributing towards meeting air quality standards (section 110(l)) or relax control requirements existing before November 15, 1990 (see section 193). We have listed below the guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate this rule for enforceability, RACM, and BACM requirements. 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. 2. “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency”, September 23, 1987. 3. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 **Federal Register** Notice,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 **Federal Register** . 4. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 5. “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” at 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. 6. “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” at 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992. 7. “Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available control Measures,” EPA 450/2-92-004, September 1992. 8. General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” at 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994. B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, BACM, and SIP relaxations. Regulation 040.030 contains specific well-defined requirements that are enforceable. The rule also contains new control measures that achieve substantially greater emission reductions compared to the 1972 rule in the SIP. Consequently, EPA finds that the submitted rule does not interfere with progress toward air quality standards and does not relax any SIP control requirements existing before November 15, 1990. The TSD provides more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule We have no recommendations. D. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by June 7, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on July 9, 2007. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. III. 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 (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 a state rule 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 is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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. 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 July 9, 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) of the CAA.) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 15, 2007. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on May 2, 2007. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(55)(i)(A)( *2* ) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(55)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)* * * ( *2* ) Regulation 040.030 adopted on July 26, 2002. [FR Doc. E7-8695 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0635; FRL-8308-2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter Rules AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing full approval of revisions to the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the **Federal Register** on March 12, 2007 (72 FR 10960), and approves amended visible emissions and particulate matter regulations as well as requests for rescission of certain regulations related to visible emissions and particulate matter. The intended effect is to approve regulations for inclusion into the applicable plan and to rescind unnecessary provisions from the applicable plan. We are approving these regulations and rescissions in order to regulate emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act) and to update the applicable SIP. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on June 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0635 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *http://regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4126, *rose.julie@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. I. Proposed Action On March 12, 2007 (72 FR 10960), EPA proposed approval of the provisions of chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code

(NAC)listed below. Table 1.—Amended Rules Submitted for Approval Into the SIP NAC No. NAC title Adopted Submitted 445B.22017 Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination. (Effective April 1, 2006.) 10/04/05 01/12/06 445B.2202 Visible emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources. (Effective April 1, 2006.) 10/04/05 01/12/06 445B.22027 Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates 01/22/98 01/12/06 445B.2203 Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-burning equipment 09/09/99 01/12/06 445B.22033 Emissions of particulate matter: Sources not otherwise limited 01/22/98 01/12/06 445B.22037 Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive dust 10/03/95 01/12/06 Table 2 lists two related rules in the existing SIP for which the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

(NDEP)has requested rescission. On March 12, 2007 we also proposed to approve these rescissions, deleting these rules from the applicable SIP. Table 2.—Related SIP Rules for Which the State Has Requested Rescission SIP provision Title Submittal date Approval date NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 Opacity from kilns 12/29/78 06/18/82 NAC 445.535 Kilogram-calorie 10/26/82 03/27/84 We proposed to approve these regulations and rescissions because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the regulations and our evaluation. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from Jennifer L. Carr, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), by letter dated April 10, 2007. In its comment letter, NDEP calls for correction of two specific errors found in EPA's Technical Support Document

(TSD)(dated February 9, 2007) for the proposed rule. With respect to the first error noted by NDEP, we agree that the correct effective date for the second of the three submitted versions of NAC 445B.2202 is March 1, 2006, not March 2, 2006 as incorrectly cited in the TSD. With respect to the second error, we agree that the correct units for power plant particulate matter emissions standards under the applicable NSPS are “lb/MMBtu,” not “MMBtu/hour” as incorrectly cited in the TSD. While we agree with the technical corrections identified by the commenter, they do not substantively affect the basis for our action. III. EPA Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is finalizing the approval of the provisions listed in Table 1 and also finalizing the approval of the rescission requests for the provisions listed in Table 2. This action incorporates the six submitted rules into the federally-enforceable SIP 1 and rescinds NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 and NAC 445.535 therefrom. 1 Final approval of these rules supersedes the following rules in the applicable SIP (superseding rule shown in parentheses): NAC 445.721 (NAC 445B.22017); NAQR Article 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 (NAC 445B.2202); NAC 445.731 (NAC 445B.2203), NAC 445.732 (NAC 445B.22033), and NAC 445.734 (NAC 445B.22037). NAC 445.729 is not superseded by the corresponding submitted rule NAC 445B.22027 because the former is relied upon by certain SIP rules (e.g., NAC 445.730) that are being retained in the SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state rules 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 rules 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 a state rule 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. 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 July 9, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 19, 2007. Jane Diamond, 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 DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by: a. Adding paragraphs (c)(14)(x) and (c)(25)(iv); b. Revising paragraphs (c)(56)(i)(A)( *3* )( *i* ), ( *ii* ), and ( *iii* ); and c. Adding paragraph (c)(56)(i)(A)( *3* )( *viii* ) to read as follows: § 52.1470 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(14)* * *

(x)Previously approved on June 18, 1982 in paragraph (c)(14)(viii) of this section and now deleted without replacement: Article 16: Rules 16.3.3.1.

(25)* * *

(iv)Previously approved on March 27, 1984 in paragraph (c)(25)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement: Nevada Administrative Code

(NAC)section: 445.535.

(56)* * *

(i)* * *

(A)* * * ( *3* ) * * * ( *i* ) October 3, 1995: 445B.005, 445B.059, 445B.077, 445B.112, 445B.116, 445B.130, 445B.145, 445B.152, 445B.177, 445B.180, and 445B.22037. ( *ii* ) January 22, 1998: 445B.011, 445B.0425, 445B.058, 445B.22027, and 445B.22033. ( *iii* ) September 9, 1999: 445B.2203 and 445B.22047. ( *viii* ) October 4, 2005: 445B.22017 (effective April 1, 2006) and 445B.2202 (effective April 1, 2006). [FR Doc. E7-8693 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0827; FRL-8302-9] Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from open burning. We are approving a local rule under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 7, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0827, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. • *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* • *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. *Instructions:* All comments 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 Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4118, *petersen.alfred@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revision? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that the rule was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Table 1.—Submitted Rule Local agency Rule # Rule title Revised Submitted MCESD 314 Open Outdoor Fires 04/20/05 06/08/06 On December 7, 2006, the submittal of MCESD Rule 314 was determined by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these rules? A version of MCESD Rule 314 was approved into the SIP on August 12, 2002 (67 FR 52416). C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revision? Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of local air districts' programs to control these pollutants. The purposes of the submitted MCESD Rule 314 revision are as follows: • *(314.200)* : The rule revises various definitions in order to improve clarity. • *(314.302.6 and 314.302.7)* : The rule adds the requirements that an air curtain destructor

(a)be used to burn vegetative material greater than 6 inches diameter and

(b)not operate closer than 500 feet from the nearest dwelling. • *(314.402.3 and 314.402.4)* : The rule adds the requirements that

(a)a permittee must comply with the regulations of the local fire agency and

(b)Maricopa County must obtain a permit for its own burning from ADEQ. EPA's technical support document

(TSD)has more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). SIP rules in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas must require for significant sources best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology

(BACT)(see section 189(b)). MCESD regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so MCESD Rule 314 must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT. Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules consistently include the following: • *Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans* , U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51. • *PM-10 Guideline Document* (EPA-452/R-93-008). B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? We believe MCESD Rule 314 is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, BACM/BACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by June 7, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on July 9, 2007. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP. III. 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 (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 a state rule 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 a state rule 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. 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 July 9, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 23, 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)(135) to read as follows: § 52.120 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(135)An amended regulation was submitted on June 8, 2006, by the Governor's designee.

(i)Incorporation by reference.

(A)Maricopa County Environmental Services Department. ( *1* ) Rule 314, adopted on July 13, 1988 and amended on April 20, 2005. [FR Doc. E7-8689 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0249; FRL-8310-6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Missouri; Interstate Transport of Pollution AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revising the Missouri State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for the purpose of approving the Missouri Department of Natural Resources'

(MDNR)actions to address requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. MDNR has adequately addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include prohibiting significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), interference with maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with plans in another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and interference with efforts of other states to protect visibility. The requirements for public notification were also met by MDNR. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 9, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 7, 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-R07-OAR-2007-0249, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0249. 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 through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 p.m. to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at

(CAA)section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In its request to revise the SIP, Missouri has also outlined the other provisions of section 110(a)(2) (the infrastructure SIP, to support the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS) and described how the state implements the infrastructure requirements. In this rule, EPA is only acting on the portion of the SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA is taking separate action on this portion of the submission because EPA is obligated to promulgate a Federal plan if the state plan is not approved by May 27, 2007. EPA intends to act on the other portion of the submission in the near future. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:

(1)Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS,

(2)interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state,

(3)interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and

(4)interfere with efforts to protect visibility. The EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, relating to SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As discussed below, Missouri's analysis of its SIP with respect to the statutory requirements is consistent with the guidance. The MDNR has addressed the first two of these elements by the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)model rules that require Missouri sources to participate in the EPA-administered cap and trade program for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and sulfur dioxide. Participation in this program will prohibit emissions from the state that would contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of the particulate matter and ozone NAAQS in any downwind state. As previously determined by EPA, submittal of a SIP revision to satisfy CAIR (submitted to EPA on March 13, 2007) also fulfills the state's obligations that pertain to “significant contribution” and “interference with maintenance” (70 FR 25162). It should be noted that EPA will act on Missouri's CAIR SIP in a separate rulemaking, and this action makes no conclusion with respect to approvability of that submittal. The third element MDNR addressed was prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). For 8-hour ozone, the state has met the obligation, consistent with EPA's guidance described previously, by confirming that major sources in the state are currently subject to PSD programs that implement the 8-hour ozone standard and that the state is on track to meet the June 15, 2007, deadline for SIP submissions adopting any relevant requirements of the Phase II ozone implementation rule. For PM 2.5 , the state has confirmed that the state's PSD program is being implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for the use of PM 10 as a surrogate for PM 2.5 for the purposes of PSD and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR). Controlling PM 10 emissions and analyzing impacts on the environment serves as a surrogate approach for reducing PM 2.5 emissions and minimizing impacts to air quality. Although EPA has finalized major portions of the PM 2.5 implementation rule, we have not yet finalized the portion relating to New Source Review. Once the NSR portion of the PM 2.5 implementation rule is finalized by EPA, MDNR commits to transitioning from use of the interim PM 2.5 guidance to the final PM 2.5 implementation requirements after approval of the PM 2.5 SIP revision (The submittal is due April 5, 2008). It should be noted that most of Missouri is currently designated attainment/unclassifiable for both the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. However, St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Franklin County, and Jefferson County are designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone and annual fine particulate matter NAAQS. At this time, it is not possible for MDNR to accurately determine whether there is interference with measures in another state's SIP designed to protect visibility, which is the fourth element that was addressed. Technical projects relating to visibility degradation source-receptor relationships are under development. Missouri will be in a more advantageous position to address the visibility projection requirements once the initial regional haze SIP has been developed. MDNR intends to meet the December 17, 2007, submittal deadline for the regional haze SIP. A public hearing with regard to this action was held by the state, and only EPA provided comments on this SIP revision. With this action, the non-regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.1320(e) is revised to reflect that MDNR addressed the elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). What action is EPA taking? The EPA is taking direct final action to approve this revision as MDNR has adequately addressed the required elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA intends to act on the portion of Missouri's submittal addressing all other elements of section 110(a)(2), which addresses the infrastructure necessary to implement the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS in the state of Missouri, in a future rulemaking. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule, and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 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 action 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 action 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 action 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 CAA. This action 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 a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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 action 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 9, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 30, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. 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 AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(e) the table is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * *

(51)CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Statewide 2/27/07 5/8/07 SIP—Interstate Transport [insert FR page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E7-8774 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0258; FRL-8310-8] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; States of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Other Solid Waste Incineration

(OSWI)section 111(d) negative declarations submitted by the states of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. These negative declarations certify that OSWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)do not exist in these states. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 9, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 7, 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-R07-OAR-2007-0258, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *hamilton.heather@ep.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0258. 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 through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at

(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a 111(d) Plan? What are the regulatory requirements for OSWI units? Why is this action necessary? What action are we taking in this document? What is a 111(d) Plan? Section 111(d) of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources for certain designated pollutants. What are the regulatory requirements for OSWI units? On December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74870), EPA finalized the section 111(d) emission guidelines for existing OSWI units. The emission guidelines are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE. Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. Part 62 of the CFR provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When designated facilities are located in a state, a state must develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 62.06 provides that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect, or negative declaration, in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirements of subpart B for that designated pollutant. Why is this action necessary? The states of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri have determined there are no existing sources in their states subject to the OSWI emission guidelines. Consequently, each state has submitted a letter of negative declaration certifying this fact. We are announcing our approval of these negative declarations. If at a later date such sources are identified, they will be subject to a Federal plan until a state has an approved 111(d) plan. What action are we taking in this document? We are processing this action as a direct final action because we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision is severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 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 negative declarations as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves state negative declarations and does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state negative declarations relating to a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 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 merely approves state negative declarations relating to a Federal standard. In reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 state submissions for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews state submissions, to use VCS in place of state submissions that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 9, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this direct 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 62 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Metals, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal. Dated: April 30, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 62—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart Q—Iowa 2. Subpart Q is amended by adding an undesignated center heading and § 62.3917 to read as follows: Air Emissions From Existing “Other” Solid Waste Incineration Units § 62.3917 Identification of plan—negative declaration. Letter from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted March 8, 2007, certifying that there are no commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE. Subpart R—Kansas 3. Subpart R is amended by adding an undesignated center heading and § 62.4182 to read as follows: Air Emissions From Existing “Other” Solid Waste Incineration Units § 62.4182 Identification of plan—negative declaration. Letter from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment submitted December 7, 2006, certifying that there are no “other” solid waste incineration units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE. Subpart AA—Missouri 4. Subpart AA is amended by adding an undesignated center heading and § 62.6361 to read as follows: Air Emissions From Existing “Other” Solid Waste Incineration Units § 62.6361 Identification of plan—negative declaration. Letter from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted April 7, 2006, certifying that there are no “other” solid waste incineration units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE. [FR Doc. E7-8807 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0322; FRL-8309-7] Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; State of Arizona, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; State of Nevada, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is amending certain regulations to reflect the current delegation status of national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) in Arizona and Nevada. Several NESHAP were delegated to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on March 16, 2007, and to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection on January 12, 2007. The purpose of this action is to update the listing in the Code of Federal Regulations. DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 7, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0322, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail or delivery:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location ( *e.g.* , copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location ( *e.g.* , CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4124, *wang.mae@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Background A. Delegation of NESHAP B. ADEQ Delegations C. NDEP delegations II. EPA Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. Delegation of NESHAP Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA), authorizes EPA to delegate to state or local air pollution control agencies the authority to implement and enforce the standards set out in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), Part 63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories. On November 26, 1993, EPA promulgated regulations, codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart E (hereinafter referred to as “Subpart E”), establishing procedures for EPA's approval of state rules or programs under section 112(l) (see 58 FR 62262). Subpart E was later amended on September 14, 2000 (see 65 FR 55810). Any request for approval under CAA section 112(l) must meet the approval criteria in 112(l)(5) and Subpart E. To streamline the approval process for future applications, a State or local agency may submit a one-time demonstration that it has adequate authorities and resources to implement and enforce any CAA section 112 standards. If such demonstration is approved, then the state or local agency would no longer need to resubmit a demonstration of these same authorities and resources for every subsequent request for delegation of CAA section 112 standards. However, EPA maintains the authority to withdraw its approval if the State does not adequately implement or enforce an approved rule or program. B. ADEQ Delegations On July 17, 1998, EPA published a direct final action delegating to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ)several NESHAP and approving ADEQ's delegation mechanism for future standards (see 63 FR 38478). That action explained the procedure for EPA to grant future delegations to ADEQ by letter, with periodic **Federal Register** listings of standards that have been delegated. On February 21, 2007, ADEQ requested delegation of the following NESHAP contained in 40 CFR Part 63: • Subpart J—NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production • Subpart MM—NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills • Subpart XX—National Emission Standards for Ethylene Manufacturing Process Units: Heat Exchange Systems and Waste Operations • Subpart OOO—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins • Subpart QQQ—National Emission Standards for Primary Copper Smelting • Subpart RRR—National Emission Standards for Secondary Aluminum Production • Subpart UUU—National Emission Standards for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking, Catalytic Reforming, and Sulfur Plan Units • Subpart VVV—NESHAP: Publicly Owned Treatment Works • Subpart AAAA—National Emission Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills • Subpart CCCC—National Emission Standards for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast • Subpart EEEE—National Emission Standards for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) • Subpart FFFF—NESHAP: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing • Subpart GGGG—National Emission Standards for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production • Subpart HHHH—National Emission Standards for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production • Subpart IIII—NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks • Subpart JJJJ—NESHAP: Paper and Other Web Coating • Subpart KKKK—NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Cans • Subpart MMMM—NESHAP for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products • Subpart NNNN—National Emission Standards for Large Appliances • Subpart OOOO—NESHAP: Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles • Subpart PPPP—NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products • Subpart QQQQ—National Emission Standards for Wood Building Products • Subpart RRRR—National Emission Standards for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture • Subpart SSSS—National Emission Standards for Surface Coating of Metal Coil • Subpart TTTT—National Emission Standards for Leather Finishing Operations • Subpart UUUU—National Emission Standards for Cellulose Products Manufacturing • Subpart VVVV—National Emission Standards for Boat Manufacturing • Subpart WWWW—National Emission Standards for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production • Subpart XXXX—National Emission Standards for Tire Manufacturing • Subpart YYYY—NESHAP for Stationary Combustion Turbines • Subpart ZZZZ—NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines • Subpart AAAAA—NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing Plants • Subpart BBBBB—National Emission Standards for Semiconductor Manufacturing • Subpart CCCCC—National Emission Standards for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks • Subpart EEEEE—NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries • Subpart FFFFF—National Emission Standards for Integrated Iron and Steel • Subpart GGGGG—NESHAP: Site Remediation • Subpart HHHHH—NESHAP: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing • Subpart IIIII—NESHAP: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants • Subpart JJJJJ—National Emission Standards for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing • Subpart KKKKK—NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing • Subpart LLLLL—National Emission Standards for Asphalt Roofing and Processing • Subpart MMMMM—National Emission Standards for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations • Subpart NNNNN—NESHAP: Hydrochloric Acid Production • Subpart PPPPP—National Emission Standards for Engine Test Cells/Stands • Subpart QQQQQ—National Emission Standards for Friction Products Manufacturing • Subpart RRRRR—NESHAP: Taconite Iron Ore Processing • Subpart SSSSS—National Emission Standards for Refractory Products Manufacturing • Subpart TTTTT—NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining On March 16, 2007, EPA granted delegation to ADEQ for these NESHAP, along with any amendments to previously-ndash;delegated NESHAP, as of July 1, 2004. Today's action is serving to notify the public of the March 16, 2007, delegation and to codify these delegations into the Code of Federal Regulations. ADEQ also included a request for delegation of the federal List of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Petitions Process, Lesser Quantity Designations, Source Category List codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart C. This Subpart does not need to be delegated under the Clean Air Act section 112(l) approval process. EPA does not delegate to state or local agencies the authority to make changes to this federal list of pollutants, and Subpart C does not contain any provisions or authorities requiring implementation by state or local agencies. As a result, EPA is not taking action to delegate 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart C or its amendments to ADEQ. C. NDEP Delegations On May 27, 1998, EPA published a direct final action delegating to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

(NDEP)several NESHAP and approving NDEP's delegation mechanism for future standards (see 63 FR 28906). That action explained the procedure for EPA to grant delegations to NDEP by letter, with periodic **Federal Register** listings of standards that have been delegated. On October 26, 2006, NDEP requested delegation of the NESHAP for Plywood and Composite Wood Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. On January 12, 2007, EPA granted delegation to NDEP for this NESHAP, along with any amendments to previously-ndash;delegated NESHAP, as of July 1, 2006. Today's action is serving to notify the public of the January 12, 2007, delegations and to codify these delegations into the Code of Federal Regulations. NDEP also included a request for delegation of the Federal list of hazardous air pollutants, codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart C. There are no authorities to delegate in this Subpart, and EPA does not delegate to States the ability to make modifications to the list. As a result, EPA is not taking action to delegate 40 CFR part 63, subpart C or its amendments to NDEP. II. EPA Action Today's document serves to notify the public of the delegation of NESHAP to ADEQ on March 16, 2007, and to NDEP on January 12, 2007. Today's action will codify these delegations into the Code of Federal Regulations. III. 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 updates the list of approved delegations in the Code of Federal Regulations and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule 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 updates the list of already-ndash;approved delegations, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 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 a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing State delegation submissions, our role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 State submissions for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State submission, to use VCS in place of a State submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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. 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 July 9, 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 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 412. Date Signed: April 19, 2007. Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, Region IX. Title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart E—Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities 2. Section 63.99 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(28)(i) to read as follows: § 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a)* * *

(3)The following table lists the specific part 63 standards that have been delegated unchanged to the air pollution control agencies in the State of Arizona. The

(X)symbol is used to indicate each category that has been delegated. Delegation Status for Part 63 Standards—Arizona Subpart Description ADEQ 1 MCAQD 2 PDEQ 3 PCAQCD 4 A General Provisions X X X X F Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry X X X X G Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater X X X X H Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants: Equipment Leaks X X X X I Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants: Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks X X X X J Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production X X L Coke Oven Batteries X X X X M Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning X X X X N Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks X X X X O Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Facilities X X X X Q Industrial Process Cooling Towers X X X X R Gasoline Distribution Facilities X X X X S Pulp and Paper X X X T Halogenated Solvent Cleaning X X X X U Group I Polymers and Resins X X X X W Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production X X X X X Secondary Lead Smelting X X X X AA Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants X X X BB Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants X X X CC Petroleum Refineries X X X X DD Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations X X X X EE Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations X X X X GG Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities X X X X HH Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities X X X JJ Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations X X X X KK Printing and Publishing Industry X X X X LL Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants X X MM Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills X X OO Tanks—Level 1 X X X X PP Containers X X X X QQ Surface Impoundments X X X X RR Individual Drain Systems X X X X SS Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process X X X TT Equipment Leaks—Control Level 1 X X X UU Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 X X X VV Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators X X X X WW Storage Vessels (Tanks)—Control Level 2 X X X XX Ethylene Manufacturing Process Units: Heat Exchange Systems and Waste Operations X X YY Generic MACT Standards X X X CCC Steel Pickling X X X DDD Mineral Wool Production X X X EEE Hazardous Waste Combustors X X X GGG Pharmaceuticals Production X X X HHH Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities X X X III Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production X X X JJJ Group IV Polymers and Resins X X X X LLL Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry X X X MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient Production X X X NNN Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing X X X OOO Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins X X X PPP Polyether Polyols Production X X X QQQ Primary Copper Smelting X X X RRR Secondary Aluminum Production X X X TTT Primary Lead Smelting X X X UUU Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking, Catalytic Reforming, and Sulfur Recovery Units X X X VVV Publicly Owned Treatment Works X X X XXX Ferroalloys Production X X X AAAA Municipal Solid Waste Landfills X X X CCCC Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast X X X EEEE Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline) X X X FFFF Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing X X X GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production X X X HHHH Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production X X X IIII Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks X X JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating X X X KKKK Surface Coating of Metal Cans X X X MMMM Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products X X X NNNN Large Appliances X X X OOOO Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles X X X PPPP Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products X X QQQQ Wood Building Products X X X RRRR Surface Coating of Metal Furniture X X X SSSS Surface Coating of Metal Coil X X X TTTT Leather Finishing Operations X X X UUUU Cellulose Products Manufacturing X X X VVVV Boat Manufacturing X X X WWWW Reinforced Plastics Composites Production X X X XXXX Tire Manufacturing X X X YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines X X X ZZZZ Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines X X AAAAA Lime Manufacturing Plants X X X BBBBB Semiconductor Manufacturing X X X CCCCC Coke Oven: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks X X X EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries X X X FFFFF Integrated Iron and Steel X X X GGGGG Site Remediation X X X HHHHH Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing X X X IIIII Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants X X X JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing X X X KKKKK Clay Ceramics Manufacturing X X X LLLLL Asphalt Roofing and Processing X X X MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operation X X X NNNNN Hydrochloric Acid Production X X X PPPPP Engine Test Cells/Stands X X X QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing X X X RRRRR Taconite Iron Ore Processing X X X SSSSS Refractory Products Manufacturing X X X TTTTT Primary Magnesium Refining X X X 1 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2 Maricopa County Air Quality Department. 3 Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. 4 Pinal County Air Quality Control District.

(28)* * *

(i)The following table lists the specific part 63 standards that have been delegated unchanged to the air pollution control agencies in the State of Nevada. The

(X)symbol is used to indicate each category that has been delegated. Delegation Status for Part 63 Standards—Nevada Subpart Description NDEP 1 WCAQMD 2 CCDAQM 3 A General Provisions X X F Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry X G Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater X H Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants: Equipment Leaks X I Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants: Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks X J Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production X L Coke Oven Batteries X M Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning X X N Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks X X O Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Facilities X X Q Industrial Process Cooling Towers X R Gasoline Distribution Facilities X X S Pulp and Paper X T Halogenated Solvent Cleaning X X U Group I Polymers and Resins X W Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production X X Secondary Lead Smelting X Y Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations X AA Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants X BB Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants X CC Petroleum Refineries X DD Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations X EE Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations X GG Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities X HH Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities X II Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) X JJ Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations X KK Printing and Publishing Industry X X LL Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants X MM Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills X OO Tanks—Level 1 X PP Containers X QQ Surface Impoundments X RR Individual Drain Systems X SS Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process X TT Equipment Leaks—Control Level 1 X UU Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 X VV Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators X WW Storage Vessels (Tanks)—Control Level 2 X XX Ethylene Manufacturing Process Units: Heat Exchange Systems and Waste Operations X YY Generic MACT Standards X CCC Steel Pickling X DDD Mineral Wool Production X EEE Hazardous Waste Combustors X GGG Pharmaceuticals Production X HHH Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities X III Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production X JJJ Group IV Polymers and Resins X LLL Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry X MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient Production X NNN Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing X OOO Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins X PPP Polyether Polyols Production X QQQ Primary Copper Smelting X RRR Secondary Aluminum Production X TTT Primary Lead Smelting X UUU Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking, Catalytic Reforming, and Sulfur Recovery Units X VVV Publicly Owned Treatment Works X XXX Ferroalloys Production X AAAA Municipal Solid Waste Landfills X CCCC Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast X DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products X EEEE Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline) X FFFF Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing X GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production X HHHH Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production X JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating X KKKK Surface Coating of Metal Cans X MMMM Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products X NNNN Large Appliances X OOOO Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles X QQQQ Wood Building Products X RRRR Surface Coating of Metal Furniture X SSSS Surface Coating of Metal Coil X TTTT Leather Finishing Operations X UUUU Cellulose Products Manufacturing X VVVV Boat Manufacturing X WWWW Reinforced Plastics Composites Production X XXXX Tire Manufacturing X YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines X ZZZZ Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines X AAAAA Lime Manufacturing Plants X BBBBB Semiconductor Manufacturing X CCCCC Coke Oven: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks X DDDDD Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boiler and Process Heaters X EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries X FFFFF Integrated Iron and Steel X JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing X KKKKK Clay Ceramics Manufacturing X LLLLL Asphalt Roofing and Processing X MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operation X NNNNN Hydrochloric Acid Production X PPPPP Engine Test Cells/Stands X QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing X SSSSS Refractory Products Manufacturing X 1 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2 Washoe County Air Quality Management Division. 3 Clark County Department of Air Quality Management. [FR Doc. E7-8686 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 88 Tuesday, May 8, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 1000, 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1030, 1032, 1033, 1124, 1126 and 1131 [Docket Nos. AMS-DA-07-0026; AO-14-A77, et al.; DA-07-02] Milk in the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas; Reconvening of Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Tentative Marketing Agreements and Orders AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of reconvened public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice announces the reconvening of the hearing which began on February 26, 2007, in Strongsville, Ohio, and initially reconvened on April 9, 2007, in Indianapolis, Indiana, to consider proposals to amend the Class III and Class IV product price formulas applicable to all Federal milk marketing orders. DATES: The hearing will reconvene at 1 p.m. on Monday, July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: The reconvened hearing will be held at the Sheraton Station Square Hotel, 300 West Station Square Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-1122, *telephone:*

(412)261-2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Rower, Marketing Specialist, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231—Room 2971, 1400 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250-0231,

(202)720-2357, e-mail address *jack.rower@usda.gov* . Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should contact Paul Huber, Assistant Market Administrator, at

(330)225-4758; e-mail *phuber@fmmaclev.com* before the hearing begins. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior Documents in This Proceeding *Notice of Hearing* : Issued February 5, 2007; published February 9, 2007 (72 FR 6179). *Supplemental Hearing Notice* : Issued February 14, 2007; published February 20, 2007 (72 FR 7753). *Initial Reconvened Hearing Notice* : Issued March 15, 2007; published March 21, 2007 (72 FR 13219). Notice is hereby given that the hearing which was adjourned in Indianapolis, Indiana, April 9, 2007, by the Administrative Law Judge designated to hold said hearing and preside thereof, will reconvene in session at 1 p.m., July 9, 2007, at the Sheraton Station Square Hotel, 300 West Station Square Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. At the reconvened hearing, additional testimony will be received only on proposed amendments 1 through 20, listed in the hearing notice (72 FR 6179) and the supplemental hearing notice (72 FR 7753) to the tentative marketing agreements and to the orders regulating the handling of milk in the Northeast and other marketing areas. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1000, 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1030, 1032, 1033, 1124, 1126 and 1131 Milk marketing orders. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253. Dated: May 2, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 07-2283 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents

U.S. Code