Notices. Proposed rule

18,365 words·~83 min read·/register/2007/07/03/07-3248·

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011; FRL-8333-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Particulate Matter From Pulp and Paper Mills AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The revisions pertain to amendments to an existing regulation to control particulate matter from pulp and paper mills. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: cripps.christopher@epa.gov* C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011, Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief, Air Quality and Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *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 *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 *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 *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy 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 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia N. Robertson,

(215)814-2113, or by e-mail at *robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 21, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan

(SIP)plan for Pulp and Paper mills. The revisions pertain to the control of particulate matter (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13). I. Background The revisions consist of amendments to existing regulations that implement emission standards for particulate matter from pulp and paper mills (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13.) The changes will control particulate matter emissions. II. Summary of SIP Revision The following provisions consist of changes to the Commonwealth of Virginia's regulation for the control and abatement of air pollution (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13). The modifications below are the subject of this rulemaking. Revision 1: 9 VAC 5-40-1660. Applicability and designation of affected facilities. Section A is revised to read as follows: The affected facilities in pulp and paper mills to which the provisions of this article apply are: Each recovery furnace each smelt dissolving tank, each lime kiln, each slaker tank, and each kraft wood pulping operation. For the purpose of this article, a kraft wood pulping operation is comprised only of any combination of the following units: Recovery furnaces, lime kilns, digester systems, multiple-effect evaporator systems, condensate stripper systems and smelt dissolving tanks. Revision 2: 9 VAC 5-40-1670. Definitions. Section C: The definition of agreement is deleted and the following terms are added:

(1)Neutral sulfite semichemical pulping operation means any operation in which pulp is produced from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solution of sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate, followed by mechanical defibrating (grinding);

(2)new design recovery furnace means a straight kraft recovery furnace that has both membrane wall or welded wall construction and emission control designed air systems. A new design furnace shall have stated in its contract a TRS performance guarantee or that it was designed with air pollution control as an objective;

(3)pulp and paper mill means any kraft pulp mill or any paper mill using a semichemical pulping process; and

(1)has been revised to include the language “Part” to reference information used in the regulation. Revision 6: 9 VAC5-40-1810. Permits. The paragraph which states the permit requirements shall read as follows: A permit may be required prior to beginning any of the activities specified below if the provisions of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 (9 VAC 5-50-10 *et seq.* ) apply. Owners contemplating such action should review those provisions and contact the appropriate regional office for guidance on whether those provisions apply. Also, under the numeric rationale for permits, an additional activity, which is number “6” is added to read as follows: Operation of a facility. III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information

(1)that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment;

(2)that are prepared independently of the assessment process;

(3)that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or

(4)that are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law,Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. IV. Proposed Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP submitted on June 21, 2005 to control particulate matter emissions. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed 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. This proposed rule, pertaining to Virginia's control of particulate matter from pulp and paper mills, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: June 22, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-12838 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and Part 97 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2007-0233; FRL-8334-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey: Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing action on a revision to New Jersey's State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted on February 6, 2007. EPA is proposing to fully approve its incorporation into the SIP provided New Jersey's final rule is consistent with the modifications discussed herein. This revision incorporates provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (CAIR FIPs) concerning sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and annual and ozone season oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emissions. EPA is not proposing to make any changes to the CAIR FIPs, but is proposing to the extent EPA approves New Jersey's SIP revision, to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated CAIR FIPs for States covered by CAIR as a backstop to implement the requirements of CAIR until States have obtained fully approved SIPs to replace the FIPs. The FIPs require certain electric generating units

(EGUs)to participate in the Federal CAIR cap-and-trade programs addressing SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. The CAIR FIPs also provide that States may submit “abbreviated” SIP revisions to replace or supplement specific elements of the FIPs, leaving the remainder of the overall FIPs in place, rather than submitting full SIP revisions that replace the FIPs. The New Jersey SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve is an abbreviated SIP revision that will replace two provisions of the CAIR FIP that allow the State to:

(1)Use a methodology chosen by the State for allocation of annual and ozone season NO X allowances and;

(2)use a methodology chosen by the State for allocation of NO X annual allowances from the NO X annual Compliance Supplemental Pool (CSP). The revision retires, rather than allocates allowances from the NO X annual CSP. The SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve will also satisfy New Jersey's 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations to submit a SIP revision that contains adequate provisions to prohibit air emissions from adversely affecting another State's air quality through interstate transport. The intent of this proposed revision is to approve a State specific CAIR program which will result in emission reductions necessary to prevent the interstate transport of air pollutants. The revision also shows that the interstate transport of pollutants from the State has been adequately addressed in the applicable implementation plan. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2007-0233, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(212)637-3901. 4. *Mail:* Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2007-0233, Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business is Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2007-0233. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *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 *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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *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 *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Kenneth Fradkin, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. The telephone number is

(212)637-3702. Mr. Fradkin can also be reached via electronic mail at *fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? V. What Is the Result of EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's CAIR SIP Submittal? A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGUs NO X SIP Call Sources D. NO X Allowance Allocations E. Allocation of NO X Allowances From the Compliance Supplement Pool F. Individual Opt-In Units G. Satisfying Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act VI. Conclusion VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? CAIR SIP and 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Approval EPA is proposing to approve a revision to New Jersey's SIP, submitted on February 6, 2007, which was published in the New Jersey Register on February 5, 2007. The revision modifies the application of certain provisions of the CAIR FIP which requires emission reductions of SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. (As discussed later, this less comprehensive CAIR SIP is termed an abbreviated SIP.) This revision includes a new proposed regulation, N.J.A.C. 7:27-30, Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)NO X Trading Program. As part of the revision, New Jersey has also proposed at N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 the date when New Jersey's CAIR NO X Trading Program will replace New Jersey's NO X Budget Trading Program (Subchapter 31). This action is being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing. Under parallel processing, EPA proposes action on a State submission before it has been formally adopted and submitted to EPA, and will take final action on its proposal if the final submission is substantially unchanged from the submission on which the proposal is based, or if significant changes in the final submission are anticipated and adequately described in EPA's proposal as a basis for EPA's proposed action. This proposed approval is contingent upon New Jersey making the necessary changes to New Jersey's proposed CAIR rule in order to address EPA's concerns discussed in section V, Part D (NO X Allowance Allocations). If EPA determines New Jersey's final submission is consistent with the necessary changes outlined in this proposed action, EPA may proceed to publish its full approval of New Jersey's CAIR SIP in the **Federal Register** . The final rule that New Jersey submits to EPA must be consistent with the changes discussed in this action for EPA to fully approve its incorporation into the SIP. If New Jersey is unable to make the required changes upon adoption, and must repropose their rule, EPA will finalize a partial approval in lieu of a full approval. Under the partial approval alternative, EPA would approve those portions of the rule consistent with EPA requirements into the SIP and disapprove those not consistent. EPA believes the approvable portions of the rule strengthen New Jersey's SIP by allowing the State to be the implementing authority, and make allocations consistent with New Jersey's air quality goals. EPA recognizes that the Clean Air Act assigns first responsibility to the States, and it is EPA's preference to defer, wherever possible, to States the decisions about control mechanisms to prevent significant contribution, including States' decisions about allocation of NO X allowances. If EPA finalizes a partial approval, EPA would concurrently disapprove those portions of the rule for not meeting those applicable requirements. New Jersey is subject to the CAIR FIPs that implement the CAIR requirements by requiring certain Electric Generating Units

(EGUs)to participate in the EPA-administered Federal CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season cap-and-trade programs. The SIP revision provides a methodology for allocating NO X allowances for the NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. The CAIR FIPs provide that this methodology, if approved as EPA is proposing, will be used to allocate NO X allowances to sources in New Jersey, instead of the Federal allocation methodology otherwise provided in the FIPs. The SIP revision also retires rather than allocates allowances from the NO X annual Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP). Consistent with the flexibility provided in the FIPs, these provisions, if approved, will also be used to replace or supplement, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIPs for New Jersey. EPA is not proposing to make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is proposing, to the extent EPA approves New Jersey's SIP revision, to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. New Jersey's proposed rule does not modify the CAIR FIP regarding SO 2 . Because New Jersey's CAIR Program will replace the State's NO X Budget Program (subchapter 31) beginning with the 2009 control period, it is necessary for New Jersey to establish at N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 a transition date for the NO X Budget Trading Program to prevent an overlap of ozone season cap and trade programs for NO X . The NO X Budget Trading Program's non-electric generating units and small electric generating units

(EGUs)that are not covered under New Jersey's CAIR NO X Trading Program will be subject to New Jersey's Reasonable Available Control Technology

(RACT)or state of the art rules. EPA will propose a separate rulemaking on New Jersey's RACT at a later date. In addition, EPA is also proposing to approve a revision to New Jersey's SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act. This section of the Act requires each State to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that could adversely affect another State. The SIP must prevent sources in the State from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:

(1)Contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS,

(2)interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS,

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

(4)interfere with efforts to protect visibility. II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? The Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM 2.5 ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to PM 2.5 formation, and/or NO X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM 2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM 2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements ( *i.e.* , budgets) for SO 2 and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, States may implement these emission budgets by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures. CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. These May 25, 2005 findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan

(FIP)to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated. On August 17, 2006 EPA issued guidance for SIP submissions states should make to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. On April 28, 2006 EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require certain EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone-season model trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR FIP SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The integration of the CAIR FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading programs will work together to create effectively a single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season) in all States covered by a CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement the corresponding CAIR FIP provisions ( *e.g.* , the methodology for allocating NO X allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP remains in place for all other provisions. On April 28, 2006, EPA published two more CAIR-related final rules that added the State of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of States subject to CAIR for PM 2.5 and announced EPA's final decisions on reconsideration of five issues without making any substantive changes to the CAIR requirements. The five issues addressed SO 2 allocation methodology; fuel adjustment factors used in establishing State NO X budgets; inputs to the fine particle (PM 2.5 ) modeling used to determine whether Minnesota should be included in the CAIR region for PM 2.5 ; EPA's determination that Florida should be included in the CAIR region for ozone; and the potential impact of a judicial opinion, *New York* v. *EPA,* 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005), on EPA's previous determination that CAIR is highly cost-effective and timing of compliance dates. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO 2 and NO X and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO 2 reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO X and SO 2 starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:

(1)Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs: or,

(2)adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO 2 and NO X budgets. The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their NO X SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO X ozone season trading programs. IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs ( *e.g.* , the NO X allowance allocation methodology). A State submitting an abbreviated SIP revision, may submit limited SIP revisions to tailor the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs to the State submitting the revision. Specifically, an abbreviated SIP revision may establish certain applicability and allowance allocation provisions that will be used instead of or in conjunction with the corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIP rules in that State. Specifically, the abbreviated SIP revisions may: 1. Include all NO X SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR FIP NO X ozone season trading program; 2. Provide for allocation of NO X annual or ozone season allowances by the State, rather than the Administrator, and use a methodology chosen by the State; 3. Provide for allocation of NO X annual allowances from the CSP by the State, rather than by the Administrator, and use the State's choice of allowed, alternative methodologies; or 4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually into the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs under the opt-in provisions in the CAIR FIP rules. With approval of an abbreviated SIP revision, the CAIR FIP remains in place, as tailored to sources in the State by that approved SIP revision. Abbreviated SIP revisions can be submitted in lieu of, or as part of, CAIR full SIP revisions. States may want to designate part of their full SIP as an abbreviated SIP for EPA to act on first when the timing of the State's submission might not provide EPA with sufficient time to approve the full SIP prior to the deadline for recording NO X allocations. This will help ensure that the elements of the trading programs, where flexibility is allowed, are implemented according to the State's decisions. Submission of an abbreviated SIP revision does not preclude future submission of a CAIR full SIP revision. In this case, the February 6, 2007 submittal from New Jersey has been submitted as an abbreviated SIP revision. V. What Is the Result of EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's CAIR SIP Submittal? A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations The CAIR NO X annual and ozone season budgets were developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data, EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were multiplied by 0.15 lb/mmBtu, for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2, to obtain regional NO X budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NO X annual and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data adjusted by fuel factors. The CAIR State SO 2 budgets were derived by discounting the tonnage of emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations under the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA. Under CAIR, each allowance allocated under the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase 1 of CAIR (2010 through 2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO 2 emissions in the CAIR trading program, and each Acid Rain Program allowance allocated for the years in phase 2 of CAIR (2015 and thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO 2 emissions in the CAIR trading program. The CAIR FIP established the EGU budgets for New Jersey as 12,670 tons for the years 2009-2014 (Phase I) and 10,558 tons for the years 2015 and beyond (Phase II) for NO X annual emissions; 6,654 tons for the years 2009-2014 (Phase I) and 5,545 tons for the years 2015 and beyond (Phase II) for NO X ozone season emissions; and 32,392 tons for the years 2010-2014 (Phase I) and 22,674 tons for the years 2015 and beyond (Phase II) for SO 2 emissions. New Jersey's SIP revision, proposed for approval in today's action, does not affect these budgets, which are the total amount of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program under the CAIR FIP. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of allowances under the established budgets. B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO X annual and ozone-season FIPs both largely mirror the structure of the NO X SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone-season FIPs are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO X annual FIP (but not the NO X ozone season FIP) provides for a CSP, which is discussed below and under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NO X annual emissions. As a further example, the NO X ozone season FIP reflects the fact that the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program replaces the NO X SIP Call trading program for EGUs after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO X SIP Call program. States also have the option of continuing to meet their NO X SIP Call non-EGU reduction obligations by participating in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program and including all their NO X SIP Call trading sources in that program. In addition the NO X ozone season FIP provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO X SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO X ozone-season trading program. The provisions of the CAIR SO 2 FIP are also similar to the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone season FIPs. However, the SO 2 FIP is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO 2 cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The SO 2 FIP uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program. EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for Federal rather than State implementation. The CAIR model SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. New Jersey is subject to the CAIR FIPs for ozone and PM 2.5 and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season applies to sources in New Jersey. Consistent with the flexibility it gives to States, the CAIR FIPs provide that States may submit abbreviated SIP revisions that will replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain provisions of the CAIR FIP trading programs. New Jersey has elected to propose these rules for its EGU sources as part of the abbreviated SIP which was submitted on February 6, 2007. C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NO X SIP Call Sources In general, the CAIR FIP trading programs apply to any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil- fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale. States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO X ozone season program only, those units in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA advises States exercising this option to use provisions for applicability that are substantively identical to the provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 and add the applicability provisions in the State's NO X SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program all units required to be in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NO X ozone season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs ( *i.e.* units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less), that the State currently requires to be in the NO X SIP Call trading program. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIP, New Jersey has not chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program to include all non-EGUs in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. New Jersey's non-EGUs and small electric generating units

(EGUs)will be subject to Reasonable Available Control Technology

(RACT)or state of the art rules. D. NO X Allowance Allocations Under the NO X allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO X annual and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated at least for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. The CAIR FIP provides States the flexibility to establish a different NO X allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO X allowance allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to: 1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned; 2. The frequency of allocations; 3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and 4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIP, New Jersey has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual and ozone season FIP concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. New Jersey will distribute NO X annual and ozone season allowances to CAIR units based upon historical electrical and thermal output. Allowances, which will be distributed (not auctioned), will be based on three years of data. For control periods 2009-2011, NO X annual and ozone season allowances will be calculated based on data from years 2003, 2004, and 2005. New Jersey will submit 2009-2011 NO X allocations to EPA by April 30, 2007. For control periods in years 2012 and thereafter, the calculation of the allocation shall be based on data from the three most recent years prior to the year the allocation is due to the EPA ( *i.e.* 2012 calculations which is due October 31, 2008 will be calculated based on data from years 2005 through 2007). The allocations for the control periods beginning in 2012 are due to EPA by October 31, 2008 and October 31 of each year thereafter for the fourth year after the year of the notification deadline. New Jersey has established set-asides for new source/growth (“New Source/ Growth Reserve”), and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs or techniques (“Incentive Reserve”). New Jersey is allocating ten percent of the State's CAIR NO X annual and CAIR NO X ozone season budgets to the New Source/Growth Reserve, and five percent of the State's CAIR NO X annual and CAIR NO X ozone season budgets to the Incentive Reserve each year. The priority of the New Source/Growth Reserve is to hold aside allowances for distribution to new CAIR units. Any remaining allowances would be available for distribution to low NO X emission rate units that emit more tons of NO X than the number of allowances allocated for the control period. The purpose of the incentive reserve is to hold aside allowances so that they are available for distribution after the control period to persons who claim incentive allowances, based on their energy savings or the generation of electricity through the implementation of environmentally beneficial techniques. If the New Source/Growth Reserve or Incentive Reserve is under-allocated, allowances will be distributed to units in equal proportion to the number of allowances available in the reserve. New Jersey will allow allowances from both reserves to be used interchangeably if one reserve is over-allocated while the other is under-allocated. Any allowances remaining in the reserves will remain in the Incentive Reserve or the New Source/Growth Reserve to be available for allocation in the following year. Unallocated allowances from the existing New Source/Growth and Incentive Reserves from New Jersey's NO X Budget Trading Program (Subchapter 31) for the 2008 control period will be carried over for use in the 2009 CAIR NO X ozone season. New Jersey is allocating to the New Source/Growth Reserve 1,267 CAIR NO X annual allowances and 665 CAIR NO X ozone season allowances of the State budget each year for vintage years 2009 through 2014. For years 2015 and thereafter, New Jersey will allocate 1,056 CAIR NO X annual allowances and 555 CAIR NO X ozone season allowances of the State budget each year into the reserve. New Jersey is allocating to the Incentive Reserve 634 CAIR NO X annual allowances and 333 CAIR NO X ozone season allowances of the State budget each year into this reserve for vintage years 2009 through 2014. For years 2015 and thereafter, New Jersey will allocate 528 CAIR NO X annual allowances and 277 CAIR NO X ozone season allowances of the State budget each year into the reserve. Several provisions of New Jersey's NO X allocation proposal are inconsistent with the NO X allocation timing requirements of the abbreviated SIP revision requirements and the CAIR FIP trading programs. Full approval of New Jersey's proposed regulation by EPA is contingent upon New Jersey modifying the proposed rule in order to clarify that EPA's NO X allocation timing requirements will be met under New Jersey's program as discussed in this section. Sections 51.123(p)(1)(ii)(B) and (ee)(2)(ii)(C) of CAIR require that the State determines and notifies the Administrator of each existing unit's allowance allocation at least 3 years in advance of the CAIR FIP NO X annual and ozone season programs. Sections 51.123(p)(1)(ii)(C) and (ee)(2)(ii)(D) require that the State determines, and notifies the Administrator of each new unit's allowances by October 31 (for the CAIR NO X annual trading program) or July 31 (for the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program) of the year for which the allowances are being allocated. New Jersey's proposed regulation does not meet NO X allocation timing requirements for existing or new units that must surrender and transfer allowances to EPA for retirement for the year in which the unit shuts down and any year thereafter. As currently written in the proposed rule, the owner or operator of an existing unit that is required to surrender allowances will no longer be able to buy or sell allowances, or undertake other allowance market activities, that were provided three years in advance and already recorded into their compliance account. Additionally, the owner or operator of a new unit could not buy or sell allowances, or undertake other allowance market activities, in reliance on its allocations provided in advance in October or July. It is not clear from New Jersey's proposal what the timing would be for surrendering the allowances, and whether the State intended for recorded allowances to be surrendered. New Jersey should clarify the provisions of the appropriate section regarding permanently shut down units to be retired, section 7:27-30.3(g), by either removing this section from the rule, or by clarifying that the State can discontinue making future allocations to units that permanently shut down. New Jersey's proposed regulation does not meet NO X allocation timing requirements with regard to the provision in New Jersey's proposed rule which provides that the Department may determine that allocations for existing (or new) units for current or past years had erroneously allocated too many or too few allowances based on inaccurate data or projections. As currently written in the proposed rule, it is unclear how long after determination and recordation of an allocation the Department may determine that the allocation was incorrect. The inclusion of the word “projection” also suggests New Jersey will be correcting allocations that were based on projections. New Jersey should correct this problem by either removing the allocation correction provision, 7:27-30.3(h), from the rule, or modify this section in order to address NO X allocation timing requirements. If NJ chooses to retain the provision, New Jersey may limit this provision to errors of calculation, errors in the allowable emission rates used, and/or errors in data on actual operations and that does not correct allocations once the allocations are recorded by the Administrator. New Jersey's proposed rule also provides that if the sum of new unit allocations (determined by October 31 or July 31 of the year for which allocations are made) and the existing unit growth allocations (determined by the end of the year for which allocations are made) exceeds the total amount of the New Source/Growth Reserve for the year, all the allocations from the reserve will be reduced on a pro-rata basis so that the total amount allocated to these new and existing units does not exceed the reserve. New Jersey should clarify that the allocation-proration provisions will be applied to new unit allocations before the October 31 deadline or July 31 deadline for submission of new unit allocations to EPA and applied to the existing unit growth allocations before the March 1 deadline for submission of those allocations to EPA. E. Allocation of NO X Allowances From the Compliance Supplement Pool The CSP provides an incentive for early reductions in NO X annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NO X annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the State's share of the projected emission reductions under CAIR. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources that make NO X reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or Federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls. The CAIR NO X annual FIP establishes specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP allowances to sources in those States. EPA has allocated to New Jersey allowances equal to 660 tons of NO X annual emissions for possible distribution. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIP, New Jersey has chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP. New Jersey has chosen to retire the CSP allowances budgeted for New Jersey by not allocating them to CAIR units. New Jersey has maintained in their rule that the CSP allowances, if allocated, would delay attainment in New Jersey of the NAAQS for ozone and PM 2.5 . New Jersey anticipates that New Jersey CAIR units will be able to meet their emission limits without risk to the reliability of the energy supply without resorting to the CSP. F. Individual Opt-In Units The opt-in provisions allow for certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in ( *i.e.* , opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015. States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. The rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading programs include opt-in provisions that are essentially the same as those in the respective CAIR SIP model rules, except that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions become effective in a State only if the State's abbreviated SIP revision adopts the opt-in provisions. The State may adopt the opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the allowance allocation methodologies. The State also has the option of not adopting any opt-in provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision and thereby providing for the CAIR FIP trading program to be implemented in the State without the ability for units to opt into the program. Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, New Jersey has chosen not to allow non-EGUs meeting the FIP-specified requirements to participate in the CAIR NO X annual trading program, the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program, and the SO 2 trading program. Therefore, non-EGUs in New Jersey cannot opt into either the CAIR trading program under EPA's CAIR FIP or New Jersey's abbreviated SIP. G. Satisfying Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires each State to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that could adversely affect another State. The SIP must prevent sources in the State from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:

(1)Contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS,

(2)interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS,

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

(4)interfere with efforts to protect visibility. 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, New Jersey's SIP revision with respect to the statutory requirements is consistent with the guidance. New Jersey addresses the first two of these four elements by complying with the requirements of CAIR. New Jersey satisfies these requirements either by relying on the existing CAIR FIPs, or through approval of this SIP revision. The third element New Jersey addresses was prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). In accordance with the guidance issued on August 15, 2006, States may continue to rely on their existing Nonattainment New Source Review

(NNSR)and PSD permitting programs to prevent significant deterioration of air quality within their own boundaries and in adjacent States. For 8-hour ozone, the State has met the obligation by confirming that the existing ozone Nonattainment New Source Review

(NNSR)permitting program remains in effect and applies to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS standard for the State's major stationary sources. New Jersey has noted that the State's current NNSR program retains the lower applicability levels and higher off-set ratios previously required under the States 1-hour ozone classification and therefore is more stringent than required under the 8-hour ozone classification. The State has indicated that it's on track to meet its June 15, 2007 obligations to submit a final attainment demonstration for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by that date. For PM 2.5 , the State has confirmed that the State's NNSR and PSD programs are being implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM 2.5 . New Jersey commits to revising its NNSR program and adopting a PSD program after EPA finalizes its PM 2.5 implementation rule. It should be noted that the entire State of New Jersey is nonattainment for 8-hour ozone necessitating only a NNSR program (not PSD) for ozone. For PM 2.5 the State has both attainment and non-attainment areas necessitating both NNSR and PSD programs. Consistent with EPA's August 15, 2006 guidance, at this time, it is impossible for New Jersey 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. New Jersey has indicated that it will address the visibility protection requirements once the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to EPA in December of 2007. VI. Conclusion New Jersey is covered by the CAIR FIPs, which require participation in the EPA-administered CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. Under this abbreviated SIP revision and consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, New Jersey has proposed to adopt under N.J.A.C. 7:27-30, Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)NO X Trading Program, provisions for allocating allowances under the CAIR FIP NO X annual and ozone season trading programs. In addition, New Jersey has also proposed at N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 the date when New Jersey's CAIR NO X Trading Program will replace New Jersey's NO X Budget Trading Program (Subchapter 31). In addition, New Jersey has proposed to adopt in the abbreviated SIP revision provisions that retire CSP allowances. EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision. This proposed approval is contingent upon New Jersey making the necessary changes to New Jersey's proposed CAIR rule in order to address EPA's concerns discussed in section V, Part D (NO X Allowance Allocations) concerning shutdown units, correction of allocations to new and existing units, and prorating for the New Source/ Growth Reserve. If EPA determines New Jersey's final submission is consistent with the necessary changes outlined in this proposed action, EPA may proceed to publish its full approval of New Jersey's CAIR SIP in the **Federal Register** , and approve its incorporation into the SIP. To the extent EPA approves New Jersey's SIP revision, EPA would not make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but would amend the appropriate appendices of 40 CFR part 97 in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note approval. Although EPA expects New Jersey to make the necessary changes to their proposed rule upon final adoption, EPA will finalize a partial approval/ disapproval should New Jersey be unable to do so. Although the rule does not currently meet all of the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and

(ee)with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions, EPA believes that the approvable portions of the rule strengthen New Jersey's SIP by allowing the State to be the implementing authority, and making allocations consistent with New Jersey's air quality goals. Partial approval/disapproval will result in EPA approval of New Jersey's initial NO X allocations for existing units for the 2009-2011 control periods. EPA would not make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but would amend the appropriate appendices of 40 CFR part 97 in the CAIR FIP trading rules to note partial approval. If New Jersey is unable to make the necessary changes, EPA proposes partial approval/disapproval of New Jersey's proposed rule as follows: Subchapter 30 approval of all sections except “7:27-30.3 Allocation of CAIR NO X annual allowances and CAIR NO X ozone season allowances”. EPA is approving portions of 7:27-30.3 which address the allocation of NO X allowances to existing units and to the incentive reserve, rounding allowances to the nearest whole number, and consideration of other data by the department if the data is unusable. (7:27-30.3(a), (b), (c)2, (c)3, (c)4ii(1), (c)4ii(3), (e), and (f)). EPA is disapproving provisions for the allocation to the new source/growth reserve, post control period allocations, provisions that require any unit (existing or new) that permanently shuts down to surrender and transfer allowances to EPA for retirement, and correction of allowances allocated erroneously or were allocated based on data or projections that are determined to be inaccurate. (7:27-30.3(c)1, (c)4i, (c)4ii(2), (c)4iii, (d), (g), and (h). EPA is proposing approval of “7:27-31.23 Replacement of the NO X Budget Program”, and “7:27A-3.10 Civil administrative penalties for violation of the rules adopted pursuant to the Act”. EPA is also proposing that this revision adequately addresses the required elements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with the exception of the protect visibility requirement. This requirement will be re-evaluated after the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to EPA in December 2007. VII. 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 proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would 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 proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and would 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 proposal also does not have tribal implications because it would 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 proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it would 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 proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard and to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules to note that approval. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed 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 would approve 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 proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 40 CFR Part 97 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: June 25, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E7-12874 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012; FRL-8333-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Total Reduced Sulfur From Pulp and Paper Mills AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to a Section 111(d) regulation submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The revisions pertain to amendments to an existing regulation to control total reduced sulfur

(TRS)from pulp and paper mills. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: *cripps.christopher@epa.gov.* C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012, Christopher Cripps, Acting Chief, Air Quality and Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0012. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(215)814-2113, or by e-mail at *robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 20, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted revisions to its plan for Pulp and Paper mills. The revisions pertain to the control total reduced sulfur

(TRS)(9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13). I. Background The revisions consist of amendments to existing regulations that implement emission standards for particulate matter from pulp and paper mills (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13.) The changes will control total reduced sulfur from stationary sources. II. Summary of SIP Revision The following provisions consist of changes to the Commonwealth of Virginia's regulation for the control and abatement of air pollution (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13). The modifications below are the subject of this rulemaking. Revision 1: 9 VAC 5-40-1660. Applicability and designation of affected facilities. Section A is revised to read as follows: The affected facilities in pulp and paper mills to which the provisions of this article apply are: Each recovery furnace, each smelt dissolving tank, each lime kiln, each slaker tank, and each kraft wood pulping operation. For the purpose of this article, a kraft wood pulping operation is comprised only of any combination of the following units: Recovery furnaces, lime kilns, digester systems, multiple-effect evaporator systems, condensate stripper systems and smelt dissolving tanks. Revision 2: 9 VAC 5-40-1670. Definitions. Section C: The definition of agreement is deleted and the following terms are added:

(3)pulp and paper mill means any kraft pulp mill or any paper mill using a semichemical pulping process; and

(4)semichemical pulping process means any pulp manufacturing process in which the active chemicals of the liquor used in cooking (digesting) wood chips to their component parts in a pressurized vessel (digester) are primarily a liquor of sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate. The major difference between all semichemical techniques and those of kraft and acid sulfite processes is that only portion of the lignin is removed during the cooking (digesting), after which the pulp is further reduced by mechanical disintegration. In addition, these terms were amended: Cross recovery furnace; straight kraft recovery furnace; and total reduced sulfur. Revision 3: 9 VAC 5-40-1690. Standard for total reduced sulfur. Section A is revised to read as follows: No owner or other person shall cause or permit to be discharged into the atmosphere from any kraft wood pulping operation unit specified below any total reduced sulfur emissions in excess of the following limits. Section B is deleted and replaced by Section C. In addition, Section D is deleted. Revision 4: 9 VAC 5-40-1750. Compliance. In Section A, the letter A is deleted and the provision remains the same. Sections B through D are deleted and no longer relevant to the regulation. Revision 5: 9 VAC5-40-1770. Monitoring. Section B clarifies that the owner of a kraft pulp mill shall comply with monitoring provisions by October 1, 1990. Section C(1) has been revised to include the language “Part” to reference information used in the regulation. Revision 6: 9 VAC5-40-1810. Permits. The paragraph which states the permit requirements shall read as follows: A permit may be required prior to beginning any of the activities specified below if the provisions of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 (9 VAC 5-50-10 et seq.) apply. Owners contemplating such action should review those provisions and contact the appropriate regional office for guidance on whether those provisions apply. Also, under the numeric rationale for permits, an additional activity, which is number “6” is added to read as follows: Operation of a facility. III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information

(1)that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment;

(2)that are prepared independently of the assessment process;

(3)that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or

(TRS)from stationary sources. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed 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. This proposed rule, pertaining to Virginia's control of total reduced sulfur from pulp and paper mills, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: June 22, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-12854 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0510; FRL-8334-3] RIN 2060-AO46 Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Copper Smelting and Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the national emission standards for primary copper smelting area sources and secondary copper smelting area sources published on January 23, 2007. The amendments to the national emission standards for primary copper smelting area sources clarify when plants must exhaust gases to a control device and what control devices may be used for this requirement; numbering errors are also corrected. The amendments to the national emission standards for secondary copper smelting area sources clarify the date which defines a new copper smelter and correct a cross-referencing error. DATES: Written comments must be received by August 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0510 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Four Area Source Categories Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:

(919)541-2825; fax number:

(919)541-3207; e-mail address: *nizich.sharon@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this document is organized as follows: I. Why is EPA issuing the proposed rule? II. Does this action apply to me? III. Where can I get a copy of this document? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Why is EPA issuing the proposed rule? In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , we are issuing these corrections as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. On January 23, 2007 (72 FR 2944; 72 FR 2952), we issued the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for primary copper smelting area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEE) and the NESHAP for secondary copper smelting area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFFF). This document proposes to make certain technical and editorial corrections to both rules. We have published a direct final rule correcting the area source NESHAP in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on the proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For information about commenting on the rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. II. Does this action apply to me? Categories and entities potentially regulated by the proposed rule include: Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities Industry 331411 Primary copper smelting area source facilities that produce copper from copper sulfide ore concentrates using pyrometallurgical techniques. 331423 Secondary copper smelting area source facilities that process copper scrap in a blast furnace and converter or use another pyrometallurgical purification process to produce anode copper from copper scrap, including low-grade copper scrap. 1 North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11146 of subpart EEEEEE (NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources) or 40 CFR 63.11153 of subpart FFFFFF (NESHAP for Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). III. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web

(WWW)through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.* The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* EPA is proposing this action to make certain technical and editorial corrections in the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources. These proposed corrections do not include any information collection requirement. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 1,000 employees for primary copper smelting and less than 750 employees for secondary copper smelting);

(2)a government jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that small businesses in these area source categories will not incur any adverse impacts because EPA is taking this action to make certain technical and editorial corrections in the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources, and these corrections would not create any new requirements or burdens. No costs are associated with the proposed corrections to the two NESHAP. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed corrections on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. EPA is taking this action to make certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources. No costs are associated with these proposed corrections. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this proposed action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The technical and editorial corrections proposed in this action contain no requirements that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon them, and would not result in any expenditures by them or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. The proposed rule makes certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for primary and secondary smelting area sources. These proposed corrections do not impose requirements on State or local governments. They have no 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule makes certain technical and editorial corrections to the NESHAP for primary and secondary copper smelting area sources. These proposed corrections do not impose requirements on tribal governments. They also have no direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the NESHAP for the primary and secondary copper smelting area sources are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when EPA decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12848 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The technical and editorial corrections in the proposed rule do not change the level of control required by the NESHAP. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 27, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-12848 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 127 Tuesday, July 3, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY: Modoc Resource Advisory Committee, Alturas, California, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Modoc National Forest's Modoc Resource Advisory Committee will meet Monday, July 9, and August 13, 2007 in Alturas, California for business meetings. The meetings are open to the public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The business meeting January 8th begins at 4 p.m., at the Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, CA 96104. Agenda topics will include existing and future projects that meet the intent of Public Law 106-393. Time will also be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Stan Sylva, Forest Supervisor and Designated Federal Officer, at

(530)233-8700; or Grants Coordinator Dina McElwain at

(530)233-8723. Stanley G. Sylva, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E7-12814 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)will meet at the Snoqualmie Ranger District Office in North Bend, WA to review and select Title II projects for FY 2008. DATES: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Snoqualmie Ranger District, North Bend Office, 42404 SE., North Bend Way, North Bend, WA 98045. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Franzel, Designated Federal Official, or Sandy Podbreggar, Assistant, USDA Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Snoqualmie Ranger District, 42404 SE., North Bend Way, WA 98045-0545 (phone 425-888-1421, Extension 230). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie RAC meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie RAC reviews project proposals, and makes recommendations to the Forest Supervisor for projects to be funded by Title II dollars, under Public Law 106-393, H.R. 2389, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, also called the “Payments to States” Act. Dated: June 26, 2007. Y. Robert Iwamoto, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E7-12823 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Snohomish County Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Snohomish County Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)will meet at the Snohomish County Administration Building in Everett, Washington to review and recommend Title II projects for FY 2008. DATES: Thursday, August 2, 2007 from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Snohomish County Administration Building, Willis Tucker Conference Room (third floor), 3000 Rockefeller Ave., Everett, WA 98201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Busse, Designated Federal Official, USDA Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 74920 NE. Stevens Pass Highway, P.O. Box 305, Skykomish, WA 98288 (phone: 360-677-2414). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Snohomish County RAC meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The Snohomish County RAC reviews project proposals, and makes recommendations to the Forest Supervisor for projects to be funded by Title II dollars, under Public Law 106-393, H.R. 2389, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, also called the “Payments to States” Act. Dated: June 26, 2007. Y. Robert Iwamoto, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E7-12824 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: The North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)will meet at the Mt. Baker Ranger District Office in Sedro Woolley, Washington. The first meeting will include electing this year's chairperson, followed by reviewing proposed Title II projects. The second meeting will be to complete the review, and prioritize proposal to recommend for FY 2008. DATES: August 13, 2007 and August 23, 2007 from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Mt. Baker Ranger District Office, 810 State Route 20, Sedro Woolley, Washington. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Vanderheyden, Designated Federal Official, USDA Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mt. Baker Ranger District, 810 State Route 20, Sedro Woolley, WA 98284-1263 (phone: 360-856-5700 extension 201). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie RAC meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The North Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie RAC reviews project proposals, and makes recommendations to the Forest Supervisor for projects to be funded by Title II dollars, under Public Law 106-393, H.R. 2389. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, also called the “Payments to States” Act. Dated: June 26, 2007. Y. Robert Iwamoto, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E7-12826 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for 7 CFR part 4284, subpart J. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by September 4, 2007 to be assured of consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deputy Administrator, Cooperative Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 3250, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: 202-720-7558. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Value-Added Producer Grants. *OMB Number:* 0570-0039. *Expiration Date of Approval:* November 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The purpose of this information collection is to obtain information necessary to evaluate grant applications to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the project for the program and to qualitatively assess the project to determine which projects should be funded. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 43 hours per grant application. *Respondents:* Independent producers, agriculture producer groups, farmer- or rancher-cooperatives, and majority-controlled producer-based business ventures. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 535. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 2. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 1,320. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 57,145 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at

(202)692-0043. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: June 27, 2007. Ben Anderson, Acting Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E7-12813 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202)482-4697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, may request, in accordance with section 351.213

(2002)of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation. Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of July 2007, interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in July for the following periods: Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period CHILE: IQF Red Raspberries A-337-806 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 FINLAND: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose A-405-803 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 GERMANY: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-428-825 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate

(Pet)Film A-533-824 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 IRAN: In-Shell Pistachio Nuts A-507-502 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 ITALY: Certain Pasta A-475-818 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 ITALY: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-475-824 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 JAPAN: Clad Steel Plate A-588-838 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 JAPAN: Polyvinyl Alcohol A-588-861 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 JAPAN: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-588-845 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 MEXICO: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose A-201-834 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 MEXICO: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-201-822 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-580-834 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 RUSSIA: Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium A-821-807 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 RUSSIA: Solid Urea A-821-801 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 SWEDEN: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose A-401-808 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 TAIWAN: Polyethylene Terephthalate

(Pet)Film A-583-837 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 TAIWAN: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils A-583-831 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 THAILAND: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings A-549-807 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 THAILAND: Canned Pineapple A-549-813 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 THE NETHERLANDS: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose A-421-811 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings A-570-814 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Persulfates A-570-847 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Saccharin A-570-878 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 TURKEY: Certain Pasta A-489-805 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 UKRAINE: Solid Urea A-823-801 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 Countervailing Duty Proceedings INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate

(Pet)Film C-533-825 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 ITALY: Certain Pasta C-475-819 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 TURKEY: Certain Pasta C-489-806 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 Suspension Agreements RUSSIA: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products A-821-809 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 In accordance with section 351.213(b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover. As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department has clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders. See also the Import Administration web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Operations, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of July 2007. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of July 2007, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered. This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Dated: June 26, 2007. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 07-3248 Filed 6-28-07; 3:40 pm]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents