Notices. Final special conditions; request for comments

51,959 words·~236 min read·/register/2007/09/12/07-4463

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE266; Special Conditions No. 23-206-SC] Special Conditions: Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC, Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P; Installation of a Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) Engine AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC modified Piper Model PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P airplanes.

The airplanes, as modified by Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC, will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with the installation of a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) engine. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is September 5, 2007. We must receive your comments by October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attn: Rules Docket No. CE266, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. You may deliver two copies to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Mark your comments: Docket No. CE266. You may inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter L. Rouse, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone

(816)329-4135; facsimile

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel about these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want us to let you know we received your comments on these special conditions, send us a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On November 11, 2003, Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC applied for a supplemental type certificate for the Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P to install a full authority digital engine control in the Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P. The Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P, currently approved under Type Certificate No. A25SO, are six-place, pressurized, turbocharged, single-engine airplanes. Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC plans to use an electronic engine control instead of a traditional mechanical control system on the Piper Model PA-46-310P (Malibu) and PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage) airplane. The electronic engine control system performs critical functions, such as the control of the ignition and fuel injection functions, throughout the operational envelope. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC must show that the Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A25SO, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A25SO are as follows: PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P: 14 CFR part 23, effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendment 23-25, effective March 6, 1980; 14 CFR part 25, § 25.783(e) as amended by Amendment 25-54, effective October 14, 1980; § 25.831(c) and

(d)as amended by Amendment 25-41, effective September 1, 1977; and 14 CFR part 36, Appendix F through Amendment 36-15, effective May 6, 1988, when equipped with 2 blade propeller or part 36, Appendix G through Amendment 36-16, effective December 18, 1988, when equipped with optional 3 blade propeller. No equivalent safety findings. Special Conditions No. 23-ACE-53, Docket No. 082CE. For PA-46-350P aircraft equipped with Piper factory installed Avidyne Entegra system (See Piper Report VB-1954), the additional certification basis for installation specific items only is: 14 CFR part 23, § 23.1529 as amended by Amendment 23-26, effective 14 October 1980; § 23.1523 as amended by Amendment 23-34, effective 17 February 1987; §§ 23.1322, 23.1331, 23.1357(a)(2), (b), (c), and

(d)as amended by Amendment 23-43, effective 10 May 1993; §§ 23.305, 23.613, 23.773(a)(2), 23.1525, 23.1549(a) as amended by Amendment 23-45, effective 7 September 1993; §§ 23.301, 23.337(a)(1) and (b)(1), 23.341(a), 23.473, 23.561(b)(3) and (e), 23.571(a), 23.607, 23.611, as amended by Amendment 23-48, effective 11 March 1996; § 23.1303(a), (b), and (f), §§ 23.1307, 23.1309(a), (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), and (e), 23.1311(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (b), and (c), 23.1321(a), (c), (d), and (e), 23.1323(a) and (c), 23.1329, 23.1351(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (b)(2), and (b)(3), 23.1353(d) and (h), 23.1359(c), 23.1365(a), (b), (d), (e), and (f), 23.1431(a) and

(b)as amended by Amendment 23-49, effective 11 March 1996; § 23.1325(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(3), (c), and (e), 23.1543(b) and (c), 23.1545(a), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c), 23.1555

(a)and (b), 23.1563, 23.1581(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (f), 23.1583(m), 23.1585(j) as amended by Amendment 23-50, effective 11 March 1996; § 23.777(a) and (b), 23.1337 as amended by Amendment 23-51, effective 11 March 1996; § 23.1305(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6)(i) as amended by Amendment 23-52, effective 25 July 1996; Special Condition for HIRF (Docket No. CE215, Special Condition 23-154-SC), January 7, 2005. Eligible Serial Numbers: 4636375 and up. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23, § 23.1309) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” The FAA issues special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, as required by § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101. The Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC modified Piper Model PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P airplanes will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, an engine that includes a digital electronic engine control system with FADEC capability. The control system will be certificated as part of the engine. However, the installation of an engine with an electronic control system requires evaluation due to the possible effects on or by other airplane systems (e.g., radio interference with other airplane electronic systems, shared engine and airplane power sources). The regulatory requirements in 14 CFR part 23 for evaluating the installation of complex systems, including electronic systems, are contained in § 23.1309. However, when § 23.1309 was developed, the use of electronic control systems for engines was not envisioned; therefore, the § 23.1309 requirements were not applicable to systems certificated as part of the engine (reference § 23.1309(f)(1)). Electronic control systems often require inputs from airplane data and power sources and outputs to other airplane systems (e.g., automated cockpit powerplant controls such as mixture setting). The parts of the system that are not certificated with the engine could be evaluated using the criteria of § 23.1309. However, the integral nature of systems such as these makes it unfeasible to evaluate the airplane portion of the system without including the engine portion of the system. Section 23.1309(f)(1) prevents complete evaluation of the installed airplane system since evaluation of the engine system's effects is not required. Therefore, special conditions are proposed for the Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC modified Piper Model PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P airplanes to evaluate the installation of the electronic engine control system for compliance with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through

(e)at Amendment 23-49. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC modified Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC modified Piper Models PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P will incorporate a digital electronic engine control system. Applicability Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1). Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Malibu Power & Propeller Int'l, LLC modified Piper Model PA-46-310P and PA-46-350P airplanes. The installation of the electronic engine control system must comply with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through

(e)at Amendment 23-49. The intent of this requirement is not to reevaluate the inherent hardware reliability of the control itself, but rather determine the effects, including environmental effects addressed in § 23.1309(e), on the airplane systems and engine control system when installing the control on the airplane. When appropriate, engine certification data may be used when showing compliance with this requirement; however, the effects of the installation on this data must be addressed. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on September 5, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18013 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28351; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-074-AD; Amendment 39-15192; AD 2007-19-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11, MD-11F, DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, and MD-10-30F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11, MD-11F, DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, and MD-10-30F airplanes. This AD requires measuring the electrical resistance of the bond between the No. 2 fuel transfer pump adapter surface of the fuel tank and the fuel transfer pump housing flange, and performing corrective and other specified actions as applicable. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate bonding between the No. 2 fuel transfer pump adapter surface of the fuel tank and the fuel transfer pump housing flange. Inadequate bonding could result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank if the fuel transfer pump and structure interface are not submerged in fuel, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 17, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of October 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5254; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11, MD-11F, DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, and MD-10-30F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 5, 2007 (72 FR 31003). That NPRM proposed to require measuring the electrical resistance of the bond between the No. 2 fuel transfer pump adapter surface of the fuel tank and the fuel transfer pump housing flange, and performing corrective and other specified actions as applicable. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 573 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 399 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required measurement takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $31,920, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-19-02 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-15192. Docket No. FAA-2007-28351; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-074-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 17, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11, MD-11F, DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, and MD-10-30F airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletins DC10-28-250 and MD11-28-129, both dated July 26, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate bonding between the No. 2 fuel transfer pump adapter surface of the fuel tank and the fuel transfer pump housing flange. Inadequate bonding could result in a potential ignition source inside the fuel tank if the fuel transfer pump and structure interface are not submerged in fuel, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Measure Electrical Resistance/Corrective & Other Specified Actions

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Measure the electrical resistance of the bond between the No. 2 fuel transfer pump adapter surface of the fuel tank and the fuel transfer pump housing flange in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-250 or MD11-28-129, both dated July 26, 2006, as applicable.

(1)If the resistance measurement is 2.5 milliohms or less: No further action is required by this paragraph.

(2)If the resistance measurement is more than 2.5 milliohms: Before further flight, electrically bond the fuel tank No. 2 fuel transfer pump housing surfaces in accordance with the service bulletin.

(3)Before further flight thereafter, do an electrical resistance bonding test to verify the electrical resistance between the fuel transfer pump housing and the structure is 2.5 milliohms maximum. If that electrical resistance is not achieved, rework the electrical bond until the electrical resistance is achieved. Do the actions in accordance with the service bulletin. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-250, dated July 26, 2006; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-129, dated July 26, 2006; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 31, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17829 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27865 Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-039-AD; Amendment 39-15191; AD 2007-19-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. Model 750XL Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: To prevent the cockpit door windows separating from their frames, * * * We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 17, 2007. On October 17, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4146; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37124). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: To prevent the cockpit door windows separating from their frames, * * * The MCAI requires you to inspect the windscreen and cockpit door windows for signs of disbonding of the adhesive between the transparency and the composite window frame. If disbonding is evident, you must do the required modification. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 40 work-hours per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $50 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $22,750 or $3,250 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-19-01 Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd:** Amendment 39-15191; Docket No. FAA-2007-27865; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-039-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective October 17, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category, that have not incorporated Pacific Aerospace Limited Service Letter PACSL/XL/07-1, dated April 18, 2007, with Pacific Aerospace LTD Drawing, 11-03129, Issue B or subsequent, in its entirety. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 56: Windows. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: To prevent the cockpit door windows separating from their frames, * * * The MCAI requires you to inspect the windscreen and cockpit door windows for signs of disbonding of the adhesive between the transparency and the composite window frame. If disbonding is evident, you must do the required modification. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)Within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after October 17, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the windscreen and cockpit door windows for signs of disbonding of the adhesive between the transparency and the composite window frame following Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/024 (embodiment of modification PAC/XL/0276) and PAC Drawing No. 11-03137, both dated February 20, 2007 (undated). If you find disbanding during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight, modify the windscreen and cockpit windows to incorporate mechanical fasteners following Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/024 (embodiment of modification PAC/XL/0276) and PAC Drawing No. 11-03137 both dated February 20, 2007.

(2)Within the next 150 hours TIS after October 17, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after October 17, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, modify the windscreen and cockpit windows to incorporate mechanical fasteners following Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/024 (embodiment of modification PAC/XL/0276) and PAC Drawing No. 11-03137 both dated February 20, 2007. The requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to do repetitive inspections is no longer necessary when the modification of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is done. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4146; fax:

(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/750XL/10, dated March 29, 2007; Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/024 (embodiment of modification PAC/XL/0276) and PAC Drawing No. 11-03137 both dated February 20, 2007; and Pacific Aerospace Limited Service Letter PACSL/XL/07-1, dated April 18, 2007, with Pacific Aerospace LTD Drawing, 11-03129, Issue B or subsequent, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/024 (embodiment of modification PAC/XL/0276) and PAC Drawing No. 11-03137 both dated February 20, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Hamilton Airport, Private Bag, 3027 Hamilton, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7-843-6144; facsimile: +64 7-843-6134.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 4, 2007. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17828 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD; Amendment 39-15193; AD 2007-19-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This AD requires inspecting the power conversion distribution unit

(PCDU)to determine its part number, and modifying certain PCDUs. This AD results from reports of failed PCDUs, the loss of an electrical bus, and the presence of a strong electrical burning odor in the flight deck and forward cabin. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of an electrical bus due to PCDU failure, resulting in the loss of all flight displays for an unacceptable time period, and consequent emergency landing. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 17, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of October 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Phan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5342; fax

(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31206). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require inspecting the power conversion distribution unit

(PCDU)to determine its part number, and modifying certain PCDUs. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to re-identify the part number reference for the proposed corrective action. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 137 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet, of which about 108 airplanes are U.S. registered. The following tables provide the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The total fleet cost could be as high as $434,592. Estimated Costs for Primary Actions Primary actions Work hours Labor rate per hour Parts cost Cost per airplane Part number identification 1 $80 $0 $80 Modification (Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028) 12 80 0 960 Estimated Costs for Concurrent Actions Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin Work hours Labor rate per hour Parts cost Cost per airplane 40EGS22P-24-3 6 $80 $154, per airplane $634. 40EGS22P-24-4 3 80 0 240. 40EGS22P-24-6 3 80 0 240. 40EGS22P-24-7 1 per PCDU, maximum 3 PCDUs per airplane 80 10 per PCDU, maximum 3 PCDUs per airplane 270 (maximum). 40EGS22P-24-8 10 80 0 800. 40EGS22P-24-9 10 80 0 800. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-19-03 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-15193. Docket No. FAA-2006-26043; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-010-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 17, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of failed power conversion distribution units (PCDUs), the loss of an electrical bus, and the presence of a strong electrical burning odor in the flight deck and forward cabin. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of an electrical bus due to PCDU failure, resulting in the loss of all flight displays for an unacceptable time period, and consequent emergency landing. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Identification of PCDU Part Number

(f)Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the PCDU to determine its part number. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number can be conclusively determined from that review.

(1)If the part number is below 762904E, do the actions specified in paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of this AD.

(2)If the part number is 762904E or higher, no further work is required by this AD. Modification

(g)Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the PCDU in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2005. A modification done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028, dated November 24, 2004, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028 refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-10, Revision 1, dated May 11, 2005, as an additional source of service information for the modification. Concurrent Requirements

(h)Before or concurrently with the modification required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Concurrent Requirements Do the following— In accordance with Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin— Rework the transformer rectifier unit assembly

(TRU)40EGS22P-24-3, dated June 30, 2000. Rework the W3 wiring harness assembly to install direct lead wires to the TRU Add a ground wire to the TRU transformer Add an insulated spacer to the PCDU top cover Install new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-4, Revision 1, dated January 2, 2002. Install new PCDU 186 firmware 40EGS22P-24-6, dated July 25, 2002. Modify the top cover of the PCDU 40EGS22P-24-7, dated September 3, 2003. Modify printed wiring board

(PWB)assemblies A4 and A5 40EGS22P-24-8, dated September 4, 2003. Check and apply torque seal to fasteners on the TRU assembly and to PCDU internal fasteners, as applicable Modify PWB assembly A4 40EGS22P-24-9, dated November 19, 2003. Credit for Accomplishment of Earlier Service Bulletin

(i)Installation of new PCDU 186 firmware before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-4, dated April 26, 2001, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph

(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference

(k)You must use the service documents identified in Table 2 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision level Date Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-24A0028 1 December 20, 2005. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-3 Original June 30, 2000. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-4 1 January 2, 2002. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-6 Original July 25, 2002. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-7 Original September 3, 2003. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-8 Original September 4, 2003. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-9 Original November 19, 2003. Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 40EGS22P-24-4, Revision 1, dated January 2, 2002, has the following effective pages: Page Nos. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1 January 2, 2002. 2 Original April 26, 2001. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 4, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17844 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 738, 740, 745, 772, and 774 [Docket No. 070705267-7492-01] RIN 0694-AE08 Implementation of the Understandings Reached at the June 2007 Australia Group

(AG)Plenary Meeting; Addition to the List of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC)AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)is publishing this final rule to amend the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)to implement the understandings reached at the June 2007 plenary meeting of the Australia Group (AG). This final rule amends the EAR to reflect changes to the AG “Control List of Biological Agents” that the countries participating in the AG adopted at the plenary meeting. Specifically, this rule revises the Commerce Control List

(CCL)entry that controls animal pathogens on the AG “Control List of Biological Agents” by revising the listing for mycoplasma mycoides to include only the specific subspecies and strains of mycoplasma mycoides that are of most concern as the causative agents of disease in animals, i.e., Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies mycoides SC (small colony) and Mycoplasma capricolum subspecies capripneumoniae (“strain F38”). In addition, this rule makes conforming changes to the CCL entry that controls certain select agents not included on any of the AG Common Control Lists. This rule also amends the EAR to reflect the admission of Croatia to the Australia Group and updates the definition of “Australia Group” in the EAR by adding Croatia to the list of participating countries. In addition to the AG plenary meeting changes described above, this rule amends the EAR by revising the CCL entry that controls certain equipment capable of being used in handling biological materials. This rule revises a Technical Note in the CCL entry by updating the edition of the World Health Organization

(WHO)“Laboratory Biosafety Manual” referenced therein to to identify the current edition of the manual. This WHO manual contains safety requirements for P3 or P4 (BL3, BL4, L3, L4) complete containment facilities. Finally, this rule amends the list of countries that currently are States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC)by adding “Barbados,” which recently became a State Party. As a result of this change, the CW (Chemical Weapons) license requirements and policies in the EAR that apply to Barbados now conform with those applicable to other CWC States Parties. This rule also clarifies the scope of the entry for “China” on the list of CWC States Parties by revising the footnote to this entry to indicate that, for CWC purposes only, China includes “Macau,” as well as “Hong Kong.” DATES: This rule is effective September 12, 2007. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AE08, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: publiccomments@bis.doc.gov.* Include “RIN 0694-AE08” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*

(202)482-3355. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division, by calling

(202)482-2440, if you are faxing comments. • *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* Willard Fisher, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, ATTN: RIN 0694-AE08. Send comments regarding this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov,* or by fax to

(202)395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. Comments on this collection of information should be submitted separately from comments on the final rule (i.e., RIN 0694-AE08)—all comments on the latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Scott, Director, Chemical and Biological Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone:

(202)482-3343. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)is amending the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)to implement the understandings reached at the annual plenary meeting of the Australia Group

(AG)that was held in Paris on June 4-7, 2007. The Australia Group is a multilateral forum, consisting of 40 participating countries, that maintains export controls on a list of chemicals, biological agents, and related equipment and technology that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons program. The AG periodically reviews items on its control list to enhance the effectiveness of participating governments' national controls and to achieve greater harmonization among these controls. The understandings reached at the June 2007 annual plenary meeting included a decision to revise the AG “Control List of Biological Agents” by narrowing the scope of the listing for mycoplasma mycoides to include only the specific subspecies and strains of mycoplasma mycoides that are of most concern as the causative agents of disease in animals. This rule amends the EAR to reflect that decision by revising Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C352, which controls certain animal pathogens, to narrow the scope of the listing for mycoplasma mycoides in this ECCN to include only the following subspecies and strains: Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies mycoides SC (small colony) and Mycoplasma capricolum subspecies capripneumoniae (“strain F38”). Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies mycoides SC (small colony) causes severe respiratory disease primarily in cattle (i.e., contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP)), while Mycoplasma capricolum subspecies capripneumoniae (“strain F38”) causes severe respiratory disease primarily in goats (i.e., contagious caprine pleuropneumonia (CCPP)). Prior to the publication of this rule, ECCN 1C352 controlled all subspecies and strains of mycoplasma mycoides. Mycoplasma capricolum and F38-type caprine mycoplasma (i.e., mycoplasma F38), however, were listed separately under ECCN 1C360, which contains unilaterally controlled select agents not included on any of the AG Common Control Lists. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, maintain controls on the possession, use, and transfer within the United States of the unilaterally controlled select agents listed in ECCN 1C360, as well as certain AG agents and toxins listed in ECCN 1C352. Since mycoplasma F38 (i.e., Mycoplasma capricolum subspecies capripneumoniae (“strain F38”)) is now specifically identified and controlled under ECCN 1C352 and the select agent mycoplasma mycoides capri is no longer controlled under this ECCN, this rule makes conforming changes to the list of unilaterally controlled select agents in ECCN 1C360 by removing mycoplasma F38 from the listing of mycoplasma controlled under this ECCN and adding mycoplasma mycoides capri. All Mycoplasma capricolum, except subspecies capripneumoniae, continues to be controlled under ECCN 1C360. The EAR license requirements that apply to the specific items affected by the amendments to ECCN 1C352 and 1C360 (described above) remain unchanged. The affected items in these ECCNs continue to require a license for export or reexport to all countries or destinations indicated under CB Column 1 or AT Column 1 on the Commerce Country Chart (Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 of the EAR). This rule also amends the EAR to reflect the addition of Croatia as the newest participating country in the Australia Group (which now includes a total of 40 countries). Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 (Commerce Country Chart) is revised by removing the license requirements indicated for Croatia, under CB Column 2, to conform with the country scope of the CB license requirements that apply to other AG participating countries (see Section 742.2 of the EAR). Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 (Country Groups) is revised to add Croatia to Country Group A:3 (Australia Group). The definition of “Australia Group” in Section 772.1 of the EAR is updated by adding Croatia to the list of participating countries. In addition to the AG plenary meeting changes described above, this rule amends the EAR by revising the Technical Note to ECCN 2B352.a to update a reference therein to the World Health Organization

(WHO)“Laboratory Biosafety Manual” to identify the current edition of the manual (i.e., 3rd edition, Geneva, 2004). This WHO manual contains safety requirements for P3 or P4 (BL3, BL4, L3, L4) complete containment facilities. Finally, this rule amends Supplement No. 2 to Part 745 of the EAR (titled “States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction”) by adding “Barbados,” which became a State Party to the CWC on April 6, 2007. As a result of this change, the CW (Chemical Weapons) license requirements and policies that apply to Barbados now conform with those applicable to other CWC States Parties, as described in Section 742.18 of the EAR. This rule also clarifies the scope of the entry for “China” in the list of CWC States Parties by revising the footnote to this entry to indicate that, for CWC purposes only, China includes “Macau,” as well as “Hong Kong.” Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Saving Clause Shipments of items removed from eligibility for export or reexport under a license exception or without a license (i.e., under the designator “NLR”) as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on October 12, 2007, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previously applicable license exception or without a license

(NLR)so long as they are exported or reexported before October 29, 2007. Any such items not actually exported or reexported before midnight, on October 29, 2007, require a license in accordance with this regulation. “Deemed” exports of “technology” and “source code” removed from eligibility for export under a license exception or without a license (under the designator “NLR”) as a result of this regulatory action may continue to be made under the previously available license exception or without a license

(NLR)before October 29, 2007. Beginning at midnight on October 29, 2007, such “technology” and “source code” may no longer be released, without a license, to a foreign national subject to the “deemed” export controls in the EAR when a license would be required to the home country of the foreign national in accordance with this regulation. Rulemaking Requirements 1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this rule. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. 4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (Sec. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 738 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade. 15 CFR Part 740 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 745 Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 772 Exports. 15 CFR Part 774 Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, parts 738, 740, 745, 772, and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-799) are amended as follows: PART 738—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 738 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 2. Supplement No. 1 to part 738 is amended by revising the entry for “Croatia” to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 738—Commerce Country Chart [Reason for control] Countries Chemical & biological weapons CB 1 CB 2 CB 3 Nuclear nonproliferation NP 1 NP 2 National security NS 1 NS 2 Missile tech MT 1 Regional stability RS 1 RS 2 Firearms convention FC 1 Crime control CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Anti-terrorism AT 1 AT 2 * * * * * * * Croatia X X X X X X X X X * * * * * * * PART 740—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 740 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 4. In Supplement No. 1 to part 740, Country Groups, Country Group A is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a new entry for “Croatia” to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 740—Country Groups Country Group A Country [A:1] Missile technology control regime [A:2] Australia group [A:3] Nuclear suppliers group [A:4] * * * * * * * Croatia X * * * * * * * PART 745—[AMENDED] 5. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 745 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; Notice of October 27, 2006, 71 FR 64109 (October 31, 2006). Supplement No. 2 to Part 745 [Amended] 6. Supplement No. 2 to part 745 is amended: a. By revising the undesignated center heading “List of States Parties as of November 1, 2006” to read “List of States Parties as of August 1, 2007”; b. By adding, in alphabetical order, the country “Barbados”; and c. By revising the footnote for China to read “* For CWC purposes only, China includes Hong Kong and Macau.” PART 772—[AMENDED] 7. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 772 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 8. In § 772.1, the definition of “Australia Group” is revised to read as follows: § 772.1 Definitions of terms as used in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). *Australia Group.* The countries participating in the Australia Group have agreed to adopt harmonized controls on certain dual-use chemicals (i.e., precursor chemicals), biological agents, related manufacturing facilities and equipment, and related technology in order to ensure that exports of these items do not contribute to the proliferation of chemical or biological weapons. Countries participating in the Australia Group as of July 1, 2007, include: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea (South), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States. See also § 742.2 of the EAR. PART 774—[AMENDED] 9. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 774 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* , 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec. 221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—[Amended] 10. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms” & “Toxins,” ECCN 1C352 is amended by revising paragraph

(b)under “ *Items* ” in the List of Items Controlled to read as follows: **1C352 Animal pathogens, as follows (see List of Items Controlled).** List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* * * * *Related Definitions:* * * * *Items:* b. Bacteria, as follows: b.1. Mycoplasma mycoides, as follows: b.1.a. Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies mycoides SC (small colony) (a.k.a. contagious bovine pleuropneumonia); b.1.b. Mycoplasma capricolum subspecies capripneumoniae (“strain F38”). b.2. [RESERVED.] Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—[Amended] 11. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms” & “Toxins,” ECCN 1C360 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) under “ *Items* ” in the List of Items Controlled to read as follows: **1C360 Select agents not controlled under ECCN 1C351, 1C352, or 1C354.** List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* * * * *Related Definitions:* * * * *Items:* b. * * * b.2. Mycoplasma, as follows: b.2.a. Mycoplasma capricolum, except subspecies capripneumoniae (see ECCN 1C352.b.1.b); b.2.b. Mycoplasma mycoides capri; Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—[Amended] 12. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 2—Materials Processing, ECCN 2B352 is amended by revising parenthetical phrase “(Geneva, 1983)” to read “(3rd edition, Geneva, 2004)” in the Technical Note immediately following paragraph

(a)in the List of Items Controlled. Dated: September 6, 2007. Christopher A. Padilla, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E7-18018 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9338] RIN 1545-BE47 Information Returns Required With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations and Certain Foreign-Owned Domestic Corporations; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9338) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Friday, July 13, 2007 (72 FR 38475) providing guidance under sections 6038 and 6038A of the Internal Revenue Code. The final regulations clarify the information required to be furnished regarding certain related party transactions of certain foreign corporations and certain foreign-owned domestic corporations. DATES: The correction is effective September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Y. Hwa at

(202)622-6070 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations that are the subject of the correction are under Sections 6038 and 6038A of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9338) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9338), which were the subject of FR Doc. E7-13587, is corrected as follows: On page 38475, in the document heading, the language “RIN 1545- BG11” is corrected to read “RIN 1545-BE47.” LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-17820 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2509 RIN 1210-AB22 Amendment to Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Interim final rule. SUMMARY: This document contains an interim final rule that amends Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 to limit the application of the Bulletin to the selection of annuity providers for defined benefit plans. This interim final rule implements section 625 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Also appearing in today's **Federal Register** is a proposed regulation, entitled “Selection of Annuity Providers for Individual Account Plans”, which, in the form of a safe harbor, provides guidance concerning the fiduciary considerations attendant to the selection of annuity providers and contracts for purposes of benefit distributions from individual account plans. The amendment to Interpretive Bulletin 95-1, as well as the proposed safe harbor for annuity selections, will affect plan sponsors and fiduciaries of individual account plans, and the participants and beneficiaries covered by such plans. DATES: This interim final rule is effective November 13, 2007. Written comments on the interim final rule should be received by the Department of Labor on or before November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: To facilitate the receipt and processing of comments, the Department encourages interested persons to submit their comments electronically to *www.regulations.gov* (follow instructions for submission of comments) or *e-ORI@dol.gov* . Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies. Persons interested in submitting comments on paper should send or deliver their comments to: Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5669, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Interpretive Bulletin 95-1. Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided, to *www.regulations.gov* and *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa* , and also available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet A. Walters or Allison E. Wielobob, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210

(202)693-8510. This is not a toll-free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background In 1995, the Department issued Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 (29 CFR 2509.95-1) (the IB), providing guidance concerning the fiduciary standards under Part 4 of Title I of ERISA applicable to the selection of annuity providers for purposes of pension plan benefit distributions. In general, the IB makes clear that the selection of an annuity provider in connection with benefit distributions is a fiduciary act governed by the fiduciary standards of section 404(a)(1), including the duty to act prudently and solely in the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries. In this regard, the IB provides that plan fiduciaries must take steps calculated to obtain the safest annuity available, unless under the circumstances it would be in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries to do otherwise. The IB also provides that fiduciaries must conduct an objective, thorough and analytical search for purposes of identifying providers from which to purchase annuities and sets forth six factors that should be considered by fiduciaries in evaluating a provider's claims paying ability and creditworthiness. In Advisory Opinion 2002-14A (Dec. 18, 2002) the Department expressed the view that the general fiduciary principles set forth in the IB with regard to the selection of annuity providers apply equally to defined benefit and defined contribution plans. The opinion recognized that, the selection of annuity providers by the fiduciary of a defined contribution plan would be governed by section 404(a)(1) and, therefore, such fiduciary, in evaluating claims paying ability and creditworthiness of an annuity provider, should take into account the six factors set forth in 29 CFR 2509.95-1(c). During 2005, the ERISA Advisory Council created the Working Group on Retirement Distributions & Options to study, in part, the nature of the distribution options available to participants of defined contribution plans. In November 2005, after public hearings and testimony, the Advisory Council issued a report, entitled Report of the Working Group on Retirement Distributions & Options, 1 concluding that many defined contribution plan distributions tend to be paid out in lump sums which “expose retirees to a wide range of risks including the possibility of outliving assets, investment losses, and inflation risk.” The Advisory Council recommended that the Department revise Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 to facilitate the availability of annuity options in defined contribution plans. 1 A copy of the Report can be found on the About EBSA page under the heading ERISA Advisory Council at *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/AC_1105A_report.html.* The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the PPA) (Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780) was enacted on August 17, 2006. Section 625 of the PPA directs the Secretary to issue final regulations within one year of the date of enactment, clarifying that the selection of an annuity contract as an optional form of distribution from an individual account plan is not subject to the safest available annuity standard under Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 and is subject to all otherwise applicable fiduciary standards. Consistent with section 625 of the PPA, the Department is amending Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 to limit its application only to defined benefit plans. The Department is also proposing the adoption of a regulation, published in today's **Federal Register** , which, in the form of a safe harbor, provides guidance concerning the fiduciary considerations attendant to the selection of annuity providers and contracts for purposes of benefit distributions from individual account plans. B. Overview of Interim Final Rule In order to implement the Congressional mandate of section 625 of the PPA and to eliminate any confusion regarding the applicability of the fiduciary standards set forth in IB 95-1 to the selection of annuity providers for the purpose of benefit distributions from individual account plans, the Department is amending Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 to provide that Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 is applicable only to the selection of annuity providers for the purpose of benefit distributions from a defined benefit pension plan. C. Good Cause Finding That Proposed Rulemaking Unnecessary Rulemaking under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)ordinarily involves publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the **Federal Register** and the public is given an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The APA authorizes agencies to dispense with proposed rulemaking procedures, however, if they find both good cause that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporate a statement of the finding with the underlying reasons in the interim final rule issued. In this case, the Department finds that it is unnecessary to undertake proposed rulemaking with regard to the amendment of Interpretive Bulletin 95-1. The Department believes such rulemaking is unnecessary because section 625 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 specifically directs the Secretary to issue final regulations within one year clarifying that the selection of an annuity contract as an optional form of distribution from an individual account plan is not subject to the safest available annuity standard under the Interpretive Bulletin 95-1. The amendment to Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 contained in this document does nothing more than limit, consistent with the statutory directive, the application of the Bulletin to defined benefit plans, thereby establishing that the “safest available” standard does not apply to individual account plans. To avoid any confusion on the part of the regulated community, the amendment includes a reference to separate guidance for the selection of annuity providers for individual account plans. For the foregoing reason, the Department finds that proposed rulemaking procedures are unnecessary and is publishing the rule as an interim final rule. Nevertheless, the Department is affording interested persons the opportunity to comment on the amendment. Because the Department exercised very limited discretion in implementing the directive contained in section 625 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, the Department is limiting the comment period to 60 days. D. Request for Comments The Department invites comments from interested persons. To facilitate the receipt and processing of comments, EBSA encourages interested persons to submit their comments electronically to *www.regulations.gov* (follow instructions for the submission of comments) or *e-ORI@dol.gov.* Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies. Persons interested in submitting comments on paper should send or deliver their comments to: Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5669, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Interpretive Bulletin 95-1. All comments will be available to the public, without charge, online at *www.regulations.gov* and *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa,* and at the Public Disclosure Room, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Monday-Friday). E. Effective Date This interim final rule is effective 60 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . F. Regulatory Impact Analysis Executive Order 12866 Statement Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Department must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of the Executive Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule

(1)having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”);

(2)creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(1)an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

(2)a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or

(3)significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), the interim final rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector. Federalism Statement Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999) outlines fundamental principles of federalism and requires Federal agencies to adhere to specific criteria in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This interim final rule does not have federalism implications because it has no substantial direct effect 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. Section 514 of ERISA provides, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated, that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA supersede any and all laws of the States as they relate to any employee benefit plan covered under ERISA. The requirements implemented in the interim rule do not alter the fundamental provisions of the statute with respect to employee benefit plans, and as such would have no implications for the States or the relationship or distribution of power between the national government and the States. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2509 Employee benefit plans, Pensions. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends Chapter XXV of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 2509—INTERPRETIVE BULLETINS RELATING TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 1. The authority citation for part 2509 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135. Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2003, 68 FR 5374 (Feb. 3, 2003). Sections 2509.75-10 and 2509.75-2 issued under 29 U.S.C. 1052, 1053, 1054. Sec. 2509.75-5 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1002. Sec. 2509.95-1 also issued under sec. 625, Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780. 2. Section 2509.95-1 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 2509.95-1 Interpretive bulletin relating to the fiduciary standards under ERISA when selecting an annuity provider for a defined benefit pension plan.

(a)*Scope.* This Interpretive Bulletin provides guidance concerning certain fiduciary standards under part 4 of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1104-1114, applicable to the selection of an annuity provider for the purpose of benefit distributions from a defined benefit pension plan (hereafter “pension plan”) when the pension plan intends to transfer liability for benefits to an annuity provider. For guidance applicable to the selection of an annuity provider for benefit distributions from an individual account plan see 29 CFR 2550.404a-4. Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of August, 2007. Bradford P. Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-17744 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-132] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the NJTRO Lower Hack Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 3.4, at Jersey City, New Jersey. Under this temporary deviation, the NJTRO Lower Hack Bridge may remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. on Saturday, September 22, 2007 through 7 p.m. on Sunday, September 23, 2007. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a bridge opening may do so at all times. In the event of inclement weather, the rain dates will be September 29, 2007 and September 30, 2007. This deviation is necessary to facilitate aerial cable installation at the bridge. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on September 22, 2007 through 7 p.m. on September 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is

(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(212)668-7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NJTRO Lower Hack Bridge, across the Hackensack River, mile 3.4, at Jersey City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 40 feet at mean high water and 45 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723(b). On July 26, 2007, the Coast Guard authorized a temporary deviation [CGD01-07-093] to facilitate aerial cable installation at the bridge. Under that deviation the NJTRO Lower Hack Bridge remained closed for vessel traffic for four weekends, July 28 and 29, August 4 and 5, August 11 and 12, and August 18 and 19, 2007, from 7 a.m. each Saturday morning through 7 p.m. each Sunday evening. The owner of the bridge, New Jersey Transit Rail Operation (NJTRO), requested a second temporary deviation to facilitate the completion of the aerial cable installation at the bridge. The aerial cable installation was unexpectedly not finished during the previously authorized temporary deviation, making additional time necessary for the completion of this project. Under this temporary deviation the NJTRO Lower Hack Bridge need not open for the passage of vessel traffic for from 7 a.m. Saturday, September 22, 2007 through 7 p.m. on Sunday, September 23, 2007. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times. In the event of inclement weather, the rain dates will be September 29, 2007 and September 30, 2007. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: September 4, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-17996 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-07-089] RIN 1625-AA-09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland and Virginia AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. This deviation allows the new drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation from 7 a.m. beginning on September 17, 2007 until and including 11:59 p.m. on October 19, 2007, to facilitate completion of concrete pours for the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge construction project. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on September 17, 2007, until 11:59 p.m. on October 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is

(757)398-6222. Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at

(757)398-6222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The new Woodrow Wilson

(lift)Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 75 feet, above mean high water. Coordinators for the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR part 117.255(a) to close the drawbridge to navigation to facilitate concrete pours at the rear and finger joints of the movable span. To facilitate the concrete pours, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on Monday, September 17, 2007 until and including 11:59 p.m. on Friday, October 19, 2007. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. Dated: September 5, 2007. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-18017 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-129] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Jamaica Bay, New York, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Beach Channel Railroad Bridge across Jamaica Bay, mile 6.7, at New York, New York. Under this temporary deviation, in effect for four weekends in September, the Beach Channel Railroad Bridge may remain in the closed position on Saturdays and Sundays from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. This deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge track repairs. DATES: This deviation is effective from September 8, 2007 through September 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is

(617)223-8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(617)223-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Beach Channel Railroad Bridge, across Jamaica Bay, mile 6.7, at New York, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 26 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5. The owner of the bridge, New York City Transit Authority, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate repairs to the bridge rails. Under this temporary deviation, in effect for four successive weekends, the Beach Channel Railroad Bridge need not open for the passage of vessel traffic on Saturday and Sunday between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. on September 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, and 30, 2007. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: September 4, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-17994 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 40 [EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0419; FRL-8466-9] RIN 2080-AA12 Revising the Budget Period Limitation for Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on Revising the Budget Period Limitation for Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements. This amendment will remove the budget period limitation for research and demonstration grants and cooperative agreements. This change is administrative in nature. The current rule sets forth a maximum budget period of 24 months for all grants and cooperative agreements awarded for research and demonstration projects, which can be extended on a case-by-case basis. Extensions are often requested creating an administrative burden for the EPA. All research and demonstration grants will continue to adhere to the project period limitation of five years. This change will not adversely affect any current or future research or demonstration efforts. DATES: This rule is effective on November 13, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 12, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0419 by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ord.docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:* 202-566-9744. • *Mail:* Office of Research and Development

(ORD)Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0419. Deliveries are only accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0419. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is

(202)566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Nanartowicz III, Office of Research and Development

(ORD)Mail Code 8102R, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is

(202)564-4756; facsimile number is

(202)565-2904; and e-mail is *Nanartowicz.John@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Constituency Effected: All Office of Research and Development award recipients for research grants and cooperative agreements. I. Background Forty CFR part 40 establishes the applicable policies and procedures governing the award of research and demonstration grants by the EPA. The provisions found in part 40 are the principal mechanisms that ORD uses to provide grant assistance. This direct final rule will address an issue that has become an administrative burden for the EPA. The current regulation at § 40.125-1(a) restricts the budget period for research and demonstration projects to 24 months. This restriction is in conflict with 40 CFR Part 30 (Subpart A, Section 30.2(z)), which stipulates that the project period for grants is established through the award document, during which Federal sponsorship begins and ends. This section allows for the creation of project periods of up to 5 years through the award document (grant or cooperative agreement). Project period definitions are historically based on grantee applications. The budget period limitation specified at § 40.125-1(a) has become a burden for EPA in both programmatic and administrative terms. This self imposed restriction has impacted active assistance agreements by requiring that grantees apply for budget period extensions for their project grants. Accordingly, the Agency is compelled to respond to these requests. Due to the unpredictability of research, many projects fail to adhere to the two-year time limitation set forth in part 40. These deviation requests have become a routine occurrence for many research grants. A recent procedures and policy review by the Grants Administration Division

(GAD)identified this issue to the Agency and highlighted the administrative burden that has accompanied the processing of these rule deviations. EPA's amendment of the rule is the final solution for the restrictive budget period limitation. This change will substantially reduce the administrative burden for the Agency and grantees by minimizing the number of administrative actions (i.e., deviations) that will be processed during the life of a grant or cooperative agreement. This change will not adversely affect any current or future research efforts. II. Additional Supplementary Information This action announces EPA's amendment of 40 CFR 40.125. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. 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.* , since the proposed change addresses an administrative requirement, which is internal to the Agency. No information will be collected from either current or future grantees by way of this proposed change. 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act This direct final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)or any other statute. This direct final rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because this rule pertains to grant award and administration matters which the APA expressly exempts from notice and comment rulemaking requirements (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). 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 that EPA 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. The EPA has determined that this rule change contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Additionally, the rule change does not contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. UMRA does not apply to rules that govern the award and administration of grants. Thus, today's direct final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (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.” Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Further, because this rule regulates the use of federal financial assistance, it will not impose substantial direct compliance costs to the states. F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation And Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This proposed direct final rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule applies to the terms that define the availability of use for federal financial assistance for research and demonstration grants. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that is determined to be:

(1)“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 the Agency. 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. This proposed direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) This 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 and Advancement Act Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), EPA is required 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, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards. This proposed direct final rule does not involve any technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order

(EO)12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 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 this proposed direct final 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. This rule change pertains to grant award and administration matters. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective November 13, 2007. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 40 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Research and demonstration grants, Grant programs—environmental protection, Grant limitations, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 6, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 40 is amended as follows: PART 40—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 40 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1857 *et seq.* § 40.125-1 [Amended] 2. Section 40.125-1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a). [FR Doc. E7-18000 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0004-200704(a); FRL-8465-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans North Carolina: Mecklenburg County Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). On February 16, 2005, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources submitted revisions to the Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control Ordinance (MCAPCO) to be incorporated into the Mecklenburg County portion of the North Carolina SIP. The revisions include changes to MCAPCO 2.0902, “Applicability,” and 2.0933, “Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks.” These changes were made to maintain consistency with State and federal regulations, and are part of Mecklenburg County's strategy to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), by reducing precursors to ozone. EPA is approving this SIP revision pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This direct final rule is effective November 13, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 12, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0004, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *hou.james@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*

(404)562-9019. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0004,” Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0004. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 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 *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at *hou.james@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Analysis of State's Submittal On February 16, 2005, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources submitted a SIP revision including changes to the MCAPCO, to be incorporated into the Mecklenburg County portion of the North Carolina SIP. The SIP revision includes changes to MCAPCO 2.0902, “Applicability,” and 2.0933, “Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks.” Specifically, the changes to MCAPCO 2.0902 consist of a recodification, which is essentially a reorganization of the code, to remove obsolete provisions. The change to MCAPCA 2.0933 rewords a provision that was already incorporated into the SIP, and does not alter the meaning or interpretation of that provision. II. Final Action EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Mecklenburg County portion of the North Carolina SIP, because the revisions are consistent with CAA and EPA regulatory requirements. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective November 13, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by October 12, 2007. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on November 13, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. *Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment* . III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. As a result, the action does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 *note* ) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 27, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart II—North Carolina 2. Section 52.1770(c), Table 3 is amended by revising entries for “2.0902” and “2.0933” to read as follows: § 52.1770 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * Table 3.—EPA Approved Mecklenburg County Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Comments * * * * * * * 2.0902 Applicability 10/16/2004 9/12/07 [Insert citation of publication] * * * * * * * 2.0933 Petroleum Liquid Storage In External Floating Roof Tanks 10/16/2004 9/12/07 [Insert citation of publication] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-17797 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097; FRL-8142-2] Captan, 2,4-D, Dodine, DCPA, Endothall, Fomesafen, Propyzamide, Ethofumesate, Permethrin, Dimethipin, and Fenarimol; Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for captan, 2,4-D, dodine, endothall, propyzamide, permethrin, ethofumesate and dimethipin. Also, EPA is modifying certain tolerances for captan, 2,4-D, dodine, DCPA, endothall, propyzamide, permethrin, ethofumesate, and fomesafen. In addition, EPA is establishing new tolerances for captan, 2,4-D, dodine, propyzamide, permethrin, and ethofumesate. EPA is not taking action on the proposed change to the fenarimol tolerance on apples at this time. The regulatory actions in this document are in follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q) as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. DATES: This regulation is effective September 12, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 13, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-0048; e-mail address: *smith.jane-scott@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the **Federal Register** listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 13, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221) (FRL-8122-7), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke, remove, modify, and establish certain tolerances and/or tolerance exemption for residues for the fungicides captan, dodine, and fenarimol; the herbicides 2,4-D, DCPA, endothall, propyzamide, ethofumesate, dimethipin and fomesafen; and the insecticide permethrin. Also, the proposal of June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221), provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under the FFDCA standards. EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances for residues of the fungicides captan, dodine, and fenarimol; the herbicides 2,4-D, DCPA, endothall, propyzamide, ethofumesate, dimethipin and fomesafen; and the insecticide permethrin in or on the commodities listed in the regulatory text. EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of the FQPA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)and Report of the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision

(TRED)for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend certain tolerance actions to be implemented to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419; telephone: 1

(800)490-9198; fax: 1

(513)489-8695; internet at *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/* and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; telephone: 1

(800)553-6847 or

(703)605-6000; internet at: *http://www.ntis.gov/* . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the internet at: *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* and in the pubic dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097 and also EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0266 (dodine); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0370 (endothall); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0380 (dimethipin); EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0159 (propyzamide); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0346 (ethofumesate); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0385 (permethrin); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0167 (2,4-D); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0296 (captan) and EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0250 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459 (fenarimol) at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and tolerance exemptions because these specific tolerances and exemptions correspond to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the United States. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies: 1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or

(e)order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained. 2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer needed. 3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA. This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In response to the proposal published in the **Federal Register** of June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221), EPA received two comments during the 60-day public comment period, as follows: *Comment--general.* A comment was received from a private citizen that expressed concern with pesticide residues in general, that tolerance levels should be zero, and to disallow the use of numerous toxic chemicals. *Agency Response.* The private citizen's comment did not take issue with the Agency's conclusion that specific tolerances in the proposed rule should be revoked, established and/or modified. The Agency conducts a detailed risk assessment to determine whether establishing and/or increasing tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue in accordance with FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a. Also, it is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist. In developing REDs and TREDs, EPA worked with stakeholders, pesticide registrants, growers and other pesticide users, environmental and public health interests, the States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), other Federal agencies, and others to develop voluntary measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce risks of concern. Such options include voluntary cancellations of pesticide products or deletion of uses, declaring certain uses ineligible or not yet eligible and many other measures. *Comment--permethrin* : A comment was received noting an inconsistency for the permethrin tolerance proposed in/on leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 5.0 ppm. The Agency proposed a tolerance for permethrin in/on leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 5.0 ppm when there is an existing tolerance for vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 20 ppm, which is inclusive of the leaf petiole subgroup 4B. To correct this inconsistency, the commenter suggested either the proposed tolerance for leaf petioles should be dropped or the vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 should be changed to leafy greens subgroup 4A. *Agency Response* : The Agency proposed a tolerance of 5.0 ppm in/on leaf petioles subgroup 4B based on available field trial data that indicate residues of permethrin as high as 4.0 ppm in/on celery. The crop group tolerance in/on vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 20 ppm was already in place and is inclusive of the leaf petioles subgroup 4B. Based on the proposal, tolerances of both 5.0 ppm and 20 ppm would exist on the commodities that are in both the leaf petioles subgroup 4B and the vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4, inadvertently creating an inconsistency. To correct this inconsistency, the Agency agrees with the commenter that the existing permethrin tolerance expression in/on vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 20 ppm should be revised to leafy greens subgroup 4A at 20 ppm and establish the tolerance in/on leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 5.0 ppm as proposed. The Agency did not receive comments on the following chemicals: Captan, 2,4-D, DCPA, dodine, dimethipin, endothall, ethofumesate, fenarimol, and formesafen. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing, with the exception of the fenarimol tolerance, the amendments proposed in the **Federal Register** of June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221). The fenarimol tolerance on apple proposed at 0.3 ppm cannot be finalized at this time due to changes that have occurred that may affect the risk assessment for this chemical. For a detailed discussion of the Agency's rationale for the establishments, revocations, and modifications to the tolerances, refer to the June 6, 2007 proposed rule. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is establishing, modifying, and revoking tolerances to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, and as follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides. As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under FQPA. The safety finding determination is found in detail in each RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. of the proposed rule. EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for 2,4-D, dodine, DCPA, endothall, ethofumesate, permethrin, and dimethipin, and TREDs for captan, propyzamide, and fenarimol, whose REDs were both completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including statements regarding additional data on the active ingredients that may be needed to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FQPA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are made final in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, the Agency gives consideration to possible pesticide residues in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, then tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and 180.6(c)). C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? These actions become effective on the date of publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** because their associated uses have been canceled for several years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:

(1)The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and

(2)the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from a tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food. III. Are the Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance revocations in this final rule are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue levels

(MRLs)established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as required by section 408(b)(4) of the FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level in a notice published for public comment. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs and TREDs, and in the Residue Chemistry document which supports the RED and TRED, as mentioned in Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in this final rule and how they compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in Unit II.A. of the proposed rule. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this final rule, EPA is establishing tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and modifying and revoking specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions (e.g., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this final 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). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this final rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this final rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist that would change EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 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.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this final rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 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.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This final rule will not have substantial 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 27, 2007. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.103 is revised to read as follows: § 180.103 Captan; tolerances for residues. (a)(1) *General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide, captan (N-trichloromethylthio-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide) in or on the following commodities: Commodity Parts per million Almond 0.25 Almond, hulls 75.0 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18 0.05 Apple 25.0 Apricot 10.0 Blueberry 20.0 Caneberry, subgroup 13A 25.0 Cherry, sweet 50.0 Cherry, tart 50.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.05 Dill, seed 0.05 Flax, seed 0.05 Grape 25.0 Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 0.05 Grain, cereal, group 15 0.05 Grass, forage 0.05 Grass, hay 0.05 Nectarine 25.0 Okra 0.05 Peach 15.0 Peanut 0.05 Peanut, hay 0.05 Pear 25.0 Plum, prune, fresh 10.0 Rapeseed, forage 0.05 Rapeseed, seed 0.05 Safflower, seed 0.05 Sesame, seed 0.05 Strawberry 20.0 Sunflower, seed 0.05 Vegetable, brassica leafy, group 5 0.05 Vegetable, bulb, group 3 0.05 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.05 Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 0.05 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.05 Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 0.05 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 0.05 Vegetable, legume, group 6 0.05 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 0.05

(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the fungicide, captan (N-trichloromethylthio-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide) and its metabolite 1,2,3,6-tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI), measured at THPI, in or on the following commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.15 Cattle, meat 0.20 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.30 Goat, fat 0.15 Goat, meat 0.20 Goat, meat byproducts 0.30 Hog, fat 0.15 Hog, meat 0.20 Hog, meat byproducts 0.30 Horse, fat 0.15 Horse, meat 0.20 Horse, meat byproducts 0.30 Milk 0.10 Sheep, fat 0.15 Sheep, meat 0.20 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.30

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 3. Section 180.142 is revised to read as follows: § 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide, plant regulator, and fungicide 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), both free and conjugated, determined as the acid, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Almond hulls 0.1 Asparagus 5.0 Barley, bran 4.0 Barley, grain 2.0 Barley, straw 50 Berry, group 13 0.2 Cattle, fat 0.3 Cattle, kidney 4.0 Cattle, meat 0.3 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.3 Corn, field, forage 6.0 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, field, stover 50 Corn, pop, grain 0.05 Corn, pop, stover 50 Corn, sweet, forage 6.0 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.05 Corn, sweet, stover 50 Fish 0.1 Fruit, citrus, group 10 3.0 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.1 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.1 Goat, fat 0.3 Goat, kidney 4.0 Goat, meat 0.3 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.3 Grain, aspirated fractions 40 Grape 0.1 Grass, forage 360 Grass, hay 300 Hop, dried cones 0.2 Horse, fat 0.3 Horse, kidney 4.0 Horse, meat 0.3 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.3 Millet, forage 25 Millet, grain 2.0 Millet, straw 50 Milk 0.05 Nut, tree, group 14 0.2 Oat, forage 25 Oat, grain 2.0 Oat, straw 50 Pistachio 0.05 Potato 0.4 Rice, grain 0.5 Rice, hulls 2.0 Rice, straw 10 Rye, bran 4.0 Rye, forage 25 Rye, grain 2.0 Rye, straw 50 Sheep, fat 0.3 Sheep, kidney 4.0 Sheep, meat 0.3 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.3 Shellfish 1.0 Sorghum, grain, forage 0.2 Sorghum, grain, grain 0.2 Sorghum, grain, stover 0.2 Soybean, forage 0.02 Soybean, hay 2.0 Soybean, seed 0.02 Strawberry 0.1 Sugarcane, cane 0.05 Sugarcane, molasses 0.2 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 0.1 Vegetable, root and tuber, except potato, group 1 0.1 Wheat, bran 4.0 Wheat, forage 25 Wheat, grain 2.0 Wheat, straw 50

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(m), are established for residues of the herbicide, plant regulator, and fungicide 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), both free and conjugated, determined as the acid, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Rice, wild, grain 0.05

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . Tolerances are established for indirect or inadvertent residues of the herbicide, plant regulator, and fungicide 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), both free and conjugated, determined as the acid, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Animal feed, nongrass, group 18 0.2 Avocado 0.05 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.05 Dill, seed 0.05 Okra 0.05 Vegetable, brassica leafy, group 5 0.4 Vegetable, bulb, group 3 0.05 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.05 Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 0.2 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.05 Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 0.4 Vegetable, legume, group 6 0.05 4. Section 180.172 is revised to read as follows: § 180.172 Dodine; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the fungicide dodine (n-dodecylguanidine acetate) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Apple 5.0 Apple, wet pomace 15.0 Cherry, sweet 3.0 Cherry, tart 3.0 Peach 5.0 Pear 5.0 Pecan 0.3 Strawberry 5.0 Walnut 0.3

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 5. Section 180.185 is revised to read as follows: § 180.185 DCPA; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances for the combined residues of the herbicide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate

(DCPA)and its metabolites monomethyltetrachloroterephthalate

(MTP)and tetrachloroterephthalic acid

(TCP)(calculated as dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate) are established in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cantaloupe 1.0 Garlic 1.0 Ginseng 2.0 Horseradish 2.0 Muskmelon 1.0 Onion, bulb 1.0 Strawberry 2.0 Tomato 1.0 Watermelon 1.0

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(m), are established for the combined inadvertent residues of the herbicide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate

(DCPA)and its metabolites monomethyl tetrachloroterephthalate acid

(MTP)and terachlorophthalic acid

(TCP)(calculated as DCPA) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Radish, roots 2.0 Radish, tops 15.0

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . Tolerances are established for the combined indirect or inadvertent residues of the herbicide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate

(DCPA)and its metabolites monomethyl tetrachloroterephthalate acid

(MTP)and terachlorophthalic acid

(TCP)(calculated as DCPA) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Basil, dried leaves 20.0 Basil, fresh leaves 5.0 Bean, dry 2.0 Bean, mung, seed 2.0 Bean, snap, succulent 2.0 Celeriac 2.0 Chicory, roots 2.0 Chicory, tops 5.0 Chive 5.0 Coriander, leaves 5.0 Corn, field, forage 0.4 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, field, stover 0.4 Corn, pop, forage 0.4 Corn, pop, grain 0.05 Corn, pop, stover 0.4 Corn, sweet, forage 0.4 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.05 Corn, sweet, stover 0.4 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 Cucumber 1.0 Dill 5.0 Eggplant 1.0 Lettuce 2.0 Marjoram 5.0 Parsley, dried leaves 20.0 Parsley, leaves 5.0 Pea, blackeyed, seed 2.0 Pepper 2.0 Pimento 2.0 Potato 2.0 Radicchio 5.0 Radish, oriental, roots 2.0 Radish, oriental, tops 2.0 Rutabaga 2.0 Soybean 2.0 Squash, summer 1.0 Squash, winter 1.0 Sweet potato 2.0 Turnip, roots 2.0 Turnip, tops 5.0 Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 5.0 Yam, true, tuber 2.0 6. Section 180.293 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 180.293 Endothall; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of endothall, 7-oxabicyclo [2, 2, 1] heptane-2, 3-dicarboxylic acid and its monomethyl ester in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cotton, undelinted seed 0.1 Fish 0.1 Hop, dried cones 0.1 Potato 0.1 Rice, grain 0.05 Rice, straw 0.05 7. Section 180.317 is revised to read as follows: § 180.317 Propyzamide; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propyzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, seed 10.0 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18 10.0 Apple 0.1 Artichoke, globe 0.01 Blackberry 0.05 Blueberry 0.05 Boysenberry 0.05 Cattle, fat 0.2 Cattle, kidney 0.4 Cattle, liver 0.4 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.02 Egg 0.02 Endive 1.0 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.1 Goat, fat 0.2 Goat, kidney 0.4 Goat, liver 0.4 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.02 Grape 0.1 Hog, fat 0.2 Hog, kidney 0.4 Hog, liver 0.4 Hog, meat 0.02 Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.02 Horse, fat 0.2 Horse, kidney 0.4 Horse, liver 0.4 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.02 Lettuce, head 1.0 Milk 0.02 Pear 0.1 Poultry, fat 0.02 Poultry, liver 0.2 Poultry, meat 0.02 Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver 0.02 Radicchio 2.0 Raspberry 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.2 Sheep, kidney 0.4 Sheep, liver 0.4 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver 0.02

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . Time-limited tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propyzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2- propynyl)benzamide) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Cranberry 0.05 12/31/09

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(m) are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propyzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Pea, field, seed 0.05 Rhubarb 0.1

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . Tolerances are established for the combined indirect or inadvertent residues of the herbicide propyzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Grain, cereal, forage, group 16 0.6 Grain, cereal, hay, group 16 0.2 Grain, cereal, straw, group 16 0.3 8. Section 180.345 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.345 Ethofumesate; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances for the combined residues of the herbicide ethofumesate (2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate) and its metabolites 2-hydroxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate and 2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-2-oxo-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate both calculated as parent compound in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Beet, garden, roots 0.5 Beet, garden, tops 5.0 Beet, sugar, molasses 0.5 Beet, sugar, refined sugar 0.2 Beet, sugar, roots 0.3 Beet, sugar, tops 4.0 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Garlic 0.25 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Grass, straw 1.0 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Onion, bulb 0.25 Shallot, bulb 0.25 Shallot, fresh leaves 0.25 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 9. Section 180.378 is revised to read as follows: § 180.378 Permethrin; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the insecticide cis- and trans-permethrin isomers [cis-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] and [trans-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] in/on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 20 Alfalfa, hay 45 Almond 0.05 Almond, hulls 20 Artichoke, globe 5.0 Asparagus 2.0 Avocado 1.0 Broccoli 2.0 Brussels sprouts 1.0 Cabbage 6.0 Cattle, fat 1.5 Cattle, meat 0.10 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.10 Cauliflower 0.5 Cherry, sweet 4.0 Cherry, tart 4.0 Corn, field, forage 50 Corn, field, grain 0.05 Corn, field, stover 30 Corn, pop, grain 0.05 Corn, pop, stover 30 Corn, sweet, forage 50 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.10 Corn, sweet, stover 30 Egg 0.10 Eggplant 0.50 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.05 Garlic, bulb 0.10 Grain, aspirated fractions 0.50 Goat, fat 1.5 Goat, meat 0.10 Goat, meat byproducts 0.10 Hazelnut 0.05 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.05 Horse, fat 1.5 Horse, meat 0.10 Horse, meat byproducts 0.10 Horseradish 0.50 Kiwifruit 2.0 Leaf petioles subgroup 4B 5.0 Leafy greens subgroup 4A 20 Lettuce, head 20 Milk, fat (reflecting 0.88 ppm in whole milk) 3.0 Mushroom 5.0 Onion, bulb 0.10 Peach 1.0 Pepper, bell 0.50 Pistachio 0.10 Potato 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.15 Poultry, meat 0.05 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.05 Sheep, fat 1.5 Sheep, meat 0.10 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.10 Soybean, seed 0.05 Spinach 20 Tomato 2.0 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 1.5 Walnut 0.05 Watercress 5.0

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(m) are established for the combined residues of the insecticide cis- and trans-permethrin isomers [cis-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] and [trans-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylate] in/on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Collards 15 Grass, forage 15 Grass, hay 15 Papaya 1.0 Turnip, tops 10 Turnip, roots 0.20

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 10. Section 180.406 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.406 Dimethipin; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Cattle, meat 0.01 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.01 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.50 Goat, meat 0.01 Goat, meat byproducts 0.01 Hog, meat 0.01 Hog, meat byproducts 0.01 Horse, meat 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts 0.01 Sheep, meat 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.01 11. Section 180.433 is amended by revising the entries for “Bean, dry” and “Bean, snap, succulent” in the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.433 Fomesafen; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Bean, dry 0.05 Bean, snap, succulent 0.05 * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-17982 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 72 176 Wednesday, September 12, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2550 RIN 1210-AB19 Selection of Annuity Providers for Individual Account Plans AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Proposed regulation. SUMMARY: This document contains a proposed regulation that, upon adoption, would establish a safe harbor for the selection of annuity providers for the purpose of benefit distributions from individual account plans covered by title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Also appearing in today's **Federal Register** is an interim final rule amending Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 to limit the application of the Bulletin to the selection of annuity providers for defined benefit plans. The proposed regulation, upon adoption, will affect plan sponsors and fiduciaries of individual account plans, and the participants and beneficiaries covered by such plans. DATES: Written comments on the proposed regulation should be received by the Department of Labor on or before November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: To facilitate the receipt and processing of comments, the Department encourages interested persons to submit their comments electronically to *www.regulations.gov* (follow instructions for submission of comments) or *e-ORI@dol.gov.* Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies. Persons interested in submitting comments on paper should send or deliver their comments to: Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5669, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Annuity Regulation. Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided, to *www.regulations.gov* and *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa,* and also available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet A. Walters or Allison E. Wielobob, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210,

(a)of § 2550.404a-4 provides that the scope of the proposed regulation is to provide guidance concerning ERISA's fiduciary standards applicable to the selection of annuity providers for the purpose of benefit distributions from an individual account plan and benefit distribution options made available to participants and beneficiaries under such plans. Paragraph

(a)also includes a reference to § 2509.95-1 for guidance concerning the selection of annuity providers for defined benefit plans. Application of General Fiduciary Standards Paragraph

(b)of § 2550.404a-4 provides that selecting an annuity provider in connection with a benefit distribution, or a benefit distribution option made available to plan participants and beneficiaries, is a fiduciary act governed by the fiduciary standards of section 404(a)(1) of ERISA, pursuant to which fiduciaries must discharge their duties with respect to the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries. Section 404(a)(1)(A) provides that the fiduciary must act for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the participants and beneficiaries and defraying reasonable plan administration expenses. Section 404(a)(1)(B) requires a fiduciary to act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the prevailing circumstances that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use. Selection of Annuity Providers and Contracts Pursuant to paragraph

(c)of § 2550.404a-4, a fiduciary will have acted prudently in selecting an annuity provider and contract for purposes of benefit distributions, or benefit distribution options made available to participants and beneficiaries under the plan, if the conditions of that paragraph are satisfied. The specific conditions of this safe harbor are set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(A)-(F) of the proposal. Consistent with the requirements applicable to the selection of service providers generally, paragraph (c)(1)(A) requires the fiduciary to engage in an objective, thorough and analytical search for the purpose of identifying and selecting providers from which to purchase annuities. Any such process must avoid self dealing, conflicts of interest or other improper influence, and should, to the extent feasible, involve consideration of competing annuity providers. Paragraph (c)(1)(B) requires that the fiduciary responsible for the selection of the annuity provider appropriately determine whether he or she has the expertise or knowledge to meaningfully evaluate the annuity provider consistent with the requirements of the regulation. In those instances where the fiduciary appropriately determines that he or she has such expertise or knowledge, the fiduciary is not required to engage an independent expert (i.e., an expert independent of the annuity provider) to evaluate the annuity provider. Paragraph (c)(1)(C) requires that the fiduciary appropriately consider information sufficient to assess the ability of the annuity provider to make all future payments under the annuity contract. Paragraph (c)(1)(D) requires that the fiduciary appropriately consider the cost of the annuity contract in relation to the benefits and administrative services to be provided under the contract. Paragraph (c)(1)(E) requires that the fiduciary appropriately conclude that, at the time of the selection, the annuity provider is financially able to make all future payments under the annuity contract and the cost of the annuity contract is reasonable in relation to the benefits and services to be provided under the contract. Paragraph (c)(1)(F) requires that, for annuity providers selected to provide multiple annuities over time, the fiduciary periodically review the appropriateness of the conclusion described in paragraph (c)(1)(E), taking into account the factors described in paragraph (c)(1)(C) and (D). However, paragraph (c)(1)(F) does not require the fiduciary to review the appropriateness of an annuity provider with respect to an annuity contract after it is purchased for an individual participant or beneficiary. Paragraph (c)(2) provides additional guidance regarding how the fiduciary can meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)(C) and (D). For example, paragraph (c)(2)(C) requires consideration of the annuity provider's experience and financial expertise. Paragraph (c)(2)(D) requires consideration of the annuity provider's level of capital, surplus, and reserves available to make payments under the annuity contract. Paragraph (c)(2)(E) requires that the fiduciary consider whether an annuity provider's rating (as determined by an appropriate rating service(s)) demonstrate or raise questions regarding the provider's ability to make future payments under the annuity contract. And, paragraph (c)(2)(G) requires that the fiduciary consider the availability of additional protections through state guaranty associations and the extent of their guarantees. In this regard, the type of information that the fiduciary should consider is information that is available to the public and easily accessible through such associations as well as state insurance departments. If known facts call into question the ability of a state association offering guarantees to meet its obligations under the guarantee, it would be incumbent on the fiduciary to weigh that information when selecting an annuity provider. Lastly, paragraph (c)(2)(H) requires consideration of any other information that the fiduciary knows or should know would be relevant to an evaluation of paragraphs (c)(1)(C) and (D). Such information would include that information which may not otherwise be described in paragraph (c)(2) or information surrounding events which, because of timing, may not yet have been reflected in those factors. For example, if a fiduciary learned through public indicators, such as the news media, that a corporate event affecting an annuity provider could call into serious question the provider's ability to make future payments under its contracts, or if the provider publicly stated that it was unlikely to survive the event in a manner that would ensure its ability to meet its financial commitments, the fiduciary would have an obligation to consider that information in evaluating paragraphs (c)(1)(C) and (D). C. Request for Comments The Department invites comments from interested persons on all aspects of the proposed regulation. To facilitate the receipt and processing of comments, EBSA encourages interested persons to submit their comments electronically to *www.regulations.gov* (follow instructions for the submission of comments) or *e-ORI@dol.gov.* Persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies. Persons interested in submitting comments on paper should send or deliver their comments to: Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5669, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Annuity Regulation. All comments will be available to the public, without charge, online at *www.regulations.gov* and *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa,* and at the Public Disclosure Room, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Monday-Friday). D. Effective Date The Department proposes to make the regulation effective 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . E. Regulatory Impact Analysis Executive Order 12866 Statement Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Department must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of the Executive Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule

(2)creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4)raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. For purposes of Executive Order 12866, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to review the proposed regulation contained in this document, which, upon adoption, will provide, in the form of a safe harbor, standards for the selection of annuity providers by fiduciaries of individual account plans, in conjunction with the amendment to Interpretive Bulletin 95-1, also appearing in today's **Federal Register** , that, consistent with Congressional intent, establishes that the standards of the Bulletin no longer apply to individual account plans. These regulatory actions together implement section 625 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Having considered these regulatory actions in the aggregate, the Department believes that these actions are not economically significant within the meaning of section 3(f)(1) the Executive Order. The actions, however, have been determined to be significant within the meaning of section 3(f)(4) of the Executive Order, and the Department accordingly provides the following assessment of the potential benefits and costs. As elaborated below, the Department believes that the benefits of the regulation will justify its costs. There is growing concern that, with increases in life expectancy, many retirees may outlive their retirement savings. In this environment, annuities offer one means by which retirees may ensure a lifetime income. 1 While a number of possible factors may influence a plan sponsor's decision not to offer an annuity distribution option as part of its plan, an often cited factor is concern about the fiduciary liability attendant to selecting the “safest available” annuity, as required by Interpretive Bulletin 95-1. 2 The Department believes that many of those plan sponsors that viewed fiduciary liability attendant to compliance with the “safest available” annuity standard as the primary impediment to including an annuity option in their plan will be more willing to consider the addition of such an option with the amendment of Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 and the establishment of fiduciary standards, in the form of a safe harbor, for the prudent selection of annuity providers for individual account plans. Providing such a safe harbor to plan sponsors is unlikely to discourage plans that currently offer an annuity option from continuing to do so, and it may encourage more plans to offer an annuity alternative. This will give more participants the opportunity to annuitize their retirement savings, while not impeding them from choosing other distribution options. 1 See GAO-03-810 *Private Pensions: Participants Need Information on Risks They Face in Managing Pension Assets at and during Retirement* (July 2003) at *http://www.gao.gov/htext/d03810.html* . Also see *Report of Working Group on Retirement Distributions & Options* (November 2005), Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, at *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/AC_1105A_report.html* . 2 Such factors may include burdens attendant to administering qualified joint and survivor annuity options and spousal consent requirements, complexity of communications, need for participant education, lack of participant interest. See GAO-03-810 *Private Pensions: Participants Need Information on Risks They Face in Managing Pension Assets at and during Retirement* (July 2003) at *http://www.gao.gov/htext/d03810.html* . Also see *Report of Working Group on Retirement Distributions & Options* (November 2005), Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, at *http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/AC_1105A_report.html* . The proposed regulation could affect demand for annuities in two ways: by lowering the price of annuities, and by encouraging more plans to offer annuities by providing a safe harbor. Current research on annuities suggests that individual demand is largely price inelastic, which implies that a lower price would not result in a significant increase in individuals choosing an annuity. Holding the propensity of eligible individuals electing annuities constant but increasing the number of plans offering annuities, however, would result in an increase in the total number of individuals electing annuities. The Department estimates that in response to the safe harbor, the share of participants offered an annuity option for their withdrawal would increase by 1 percentage point, from 25 to 26 percent, 3 while the share of eligible participants electing an annuity would remain at 6 percent. 4 The resulting total amount transferred into annuities by DC participants annually would be $2.41 billion, $93 million of which would be attributable to the regulation. 5 While the estimated annual effect of this regulatory action is not considered “economically significant,” it is sensitive to assumptions regarding average separation rates, election rates and account balances. 6 The Department invites comments from interested persons on the appropriateness of these assumptions. 3 Form 5500 data reports the number of participants in a DC plan that use insurance for at least one method of benefit payouts. This information was used to estimate the share of participants currently offered an annuity option for withdrawal, 25 percent in 2003. 4 Hewitt Associates. “Survey Findings: Trends and Experiences in 401(k) Plans, 2005”. 5 Estimate based on the average total balance of DC withdrawals as reported in Fidelity Investments', “Building Futures: How Workplace Savings are Shaping the Future of Retirement,” A Report on Corporate Defined Contribution Plans: 2006. 6 The reported analysis used separation rates reported in, Poterba, James, Steven Venti and David A. Wise. “Demographic Change, Retirement Saving and Financial Market Returns: Part I,” December 19, 2005. An alternative analysis, using withdrawal rates reported in Fidelity Investments', “Building Futures: How Workplace Savings are Shaping the Future of Retirement,” A Report on Corporate Defined Contribution Plans: 2006 generated an increase of $158 million. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

(RFA)imposes certain requirements with respect to Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency certifies that a proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of the RFA requires that the agency present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on such impact. The Department has considered the likely impact of the proposed regulation on small entities in connection with its assessment under Executive Order 12866, described above, and believes this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. See foregoing analysis. Paperwork Reduction Act This rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.) because it does not contain “collection of information” requirements as defined in 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3). Accordingly, this proposed regulation is not being submitted to the OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), the proposed regulation does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector. Federalism Statement Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999) outlines fundamental principles of federalism and requires Federal agencies to adhere to specific criteria in the process of their formulation and implementation of policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposed regulation does not have federalism implications because it has no substantial direct effect 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. Section 514 of ERISA provides, with certain exceptions specifically enumerated, that the provisions of Titles I and IV of ERISA supersede any and all laws of the States as they relate to any employee benefit plan covered under ERISA. The requirements implemented in the proposed regulation do not alter the fundamental provisions of the statute with respect to employee benefit plans, and as such would have no implications for the States or the relationship or distribution of power between the national government and the States. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2550 Annuities, Employee benefit plans, Fiduciaries, Pensions. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend Chapter XXV of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 2550—RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY 1. The authority citation for part 2550 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135; sec. 657, Pub. L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2003, 68 FR 5374 (Feb. 3, 2003). Sec. 2550.401b-1 also issued under sec. 102, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 43 FR 47713 (Oct. 17, 1978), 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. 332, effective Dec. 31, 1978, 44 FR 1065 (Jan. 3, 1978), 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. 332. Sec. 2550.401c-1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1101. Sections 2550.404c-1 and 2550.404c-5 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1104. Sec. 2550.407c-3 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1107. Sec. 2550.408b-1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(1) and sec. 102, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. p. 332, effective Dec. 31, 1978, 44 FR 1065 (Jan. 3, 1978), and 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. 332. Sec. 2550.412-1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1112. Sec. 2550.404a-4 also issued under sec. 625, Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780. . 2. Add § 2550.404a-4 to read as follows: § 2550.404a-4 Selection of annuity providers for individual account plans.

(a)*Scope.* This section provides guidance concerning the fiduciary standards under part 4 of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1104-1114, applicable to the selection of an annuity provider for the purpose of benefit distributions from an individual account plan or benefit distribution options made available to participants and beneficiaries under such a plan. For guidance concerning the selection of an annuity provider for defined benefit plans see 29 CFR 2509.95-1.

(b)*In general.* When an individual account plan purchases an annuity from an insurer as a distribution of benefits to a participant or beneficiary, the plan's liability for the payment of those benefits is transferred to the annuity provider. The selection of an annuity provider in connection with a benefit distribution, or a benefit distribution option made available to participants and beneficiaries under the plan, is governed by the fiduciary standards of section 404(a)(1) of ERISA. Pursuant to ERISA section 404(a)(1), fiduciaries must discharge their duties with respect to the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries. Section 404(a)(1)(A) provides that the fiduciary must act for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the participants and beneficiaries and defraying reasonable plan administration expenses. In addition, section 404(a)(1)(B) requires a fiduciary to act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the prevailing circumstances that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use.

(c)*Selection of annuity providers and contracts.*

(1)With regard to a fiduciary's selection of an annuity provider for purposes of benefit distributions from an individual account plan or benefit distribution options made available to participants and beneficiaries under such a plan, the requirements of section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA are satisfied if the fiduciary:

(i)Engages in an objective, thorough and analytical search for the purpose of identifying and selecting providers from which to purchase annuities;

(ii)Appropriately determines either that the fiduciary had, at the time of the selection, the appropriate expertise to evaluate the selection or that the advice of a qualified, independent expert was necessary;

(iii)Gives appropriate consideration to information sufficient to assess the ability of the annuity provider to make all future payments under the annuity contract;

(iv)Appropriately considers the cost of the annuity contract in relation to the benefits and administrative services to be provided under such contract;

(v)Appropriately concludes that, at the time of the selection, the annuity provider is financially able to make all future payments under the annuity contract and the cost of the annuity contract is reasonable in relation to the benefits and services to be provided under the contract; and

(vi)In the case of an annuity provider selected to provide multiple contracts over time, periodically reviews the appropriateness of the conclusion described in paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section, taking into account the factors described in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) and

(iv)of this section. For purposes of this paragraph, a fiduciary is not required to review the appropriateness of an annuity provider with respect to an annuity contract purchased for an individual participant or beneficiary.

(2)For purposes of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and

(iv)of this section, a fiduciary shall consider information pertaining to the following:

(i)The ability of the annuity provider to administer the payments of benefits under the annuity to the participants and beneficiaries and to perform any other services in connection with the annuity, if applicable;

(ii)The cost of the annuity contract in relation to the benefits and administrative services to be provided under such contract, taking into account the amount and nature of any fees and commissions;

(iii)The annuity provider's experience and financial expertise in providing annuities of the type being selected or offered;

(iv)The annuity provider's level of capital, surplus and reserves available to make payments under the annuity contract;

(v)The annuity provider's ratings by insurance ratings services. Consideration should be given to whether an annuity provider's ratings demonstrate or raise questions regarding the provider's ability to make future payments under the annuity contract;

(vi)The structure of the annuity contract and benefit guarantees provided, and the use of separate accounts to underwrite the provider's benefit obligations;

(vii)The availability and extent of additional protection through state guaranty associations; and

(viii)Any other information that the fiduciary knows or should know would be relevant to an evaluation of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and

(iv)of this section. Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of August, 2007. Bradford P. Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. [FR Doc. E7-17743 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Revisions to DMM 604.9.2 Postage and Fee Refunds AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise the *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) § 604.9.2 through 604.9.3.6. The proposed revision would establish a minimum for refund of unused postage value in postage meters and PC Postage® accounts; provide a consistent time frame for submission of physical refunds for both PC Postage and postage meter indicia to 60 days; would specify procedures and a time frame for refund of items bearing a Product Identification Code

(PIC)produced by a PC Postage system that must be processed electronically; and would establish refund procedures for undated PC Postage indicia. DATES: Submit comments on or before October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Postage Technology Management, Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., NB Suite 4200, Washington, DC 20260-4200. Written comments may also be submitted via fax to 202-268-4225. Copies of all written comments will be available for inspection and photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Postage Technology Management office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Lord, Manager, Postage Technology Management, Postal Service TM , at 202-268-4281. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed revision would establish a $5 minimum for refund of unused postage value in postage meters and PC postage accounts; would provide 60 days as a consistent time frame for submission of physical refunds for both PC Postage and postage meter indicia; would specify procedures and a 10-day time frame for refund of items bearing a Product Identification Code

(PIC)produced by a PC Postage system that must be processed electronically; and would establish refund procedures for unused, undated PC Postage indicia. Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service. For the reasons set out in this document, the Postal Service proposes to amend 39 CFR part 111 as set forth below: PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3. 2. Revise the following sections of *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows: Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual

(DMM)600 Basic Standards for All Mailing Services 604 Postage Payment Methods 9.0 Refunds and Exchanges 9.2 Postage and Fee Refunds 9.2.8 Ruling on Refund Request Refund requests are decided based on the specific type of postage or mailing: *[Revise items b and c by changing “licensing post office” to “Local Post Office” and changing “licensee” to “authorized user” as follows:]* b. Dated metered postage, except for PC Postage systems, under 9.3. The postmaster at the local Post Office grants or denies requests for refunds for dated metered postage under 9.3. The authorized user may appeal an adverse ruling within 30 days through the manager, Postage Technology Management, USPS Headquarters (see 608.8.0 for address), who issues the final agency decision. The original meter indicia must be submitted with the appeal. c. Undated metered postage under 9.3. The manager, business mail entry at the district Post Office overseeing the mailer's local Post Office, or designee authorized in writing, grants or denies requests for refunds for undated metered postage under 9.3. The customer may appeal a decision on undated metered postage within 30 days through the manager, business mail entry, or designee, to the PCSC manager who issues the final agency decision. The original meter indicia must be submitted with the appeal. *[Revise item d as follows:]* d. PC Postage systems under 9.3. The system provider grants or denies a request for a refund for indicia printed by PC Postage systems under 9.3 using established USPS criteria. The customer may appeal an adverse ruling within 30 days through the manager, Postage Technology Management, USPS Headquarters, who issues the final agency decision. The original indicia must be submitted with the appeal. 9.3 Refund Request for Postage Evidencing Systems and Metered Postage 9.3.1 Unused Postage Value in Postage Evidencing Systems *[Revise 9.3.1 to restrict refunds to amounts of $5 or more as follows:]* The unused postage value remaining in a postage evidencing system when withdrawn from service may be refunded, depending upon the circumstance and the ability of the USPS to make a responsible determination of the actual or approximate amount of the unused postage value. If the postage evidencing system is withdrawn because of faulty operation, a final postage adjustment or refund will be withheld pending the system provider's report of the cause to the USPS and the USPS determination of whether or not a refund is appropriate and, if so, the amount of the refund. No refund is given for faulty operation caused by the authorized user. When a postage evidencing system that is damaged by fire, flood, or similar disaster is returned to the provider, postage may be refunded or transferred when the registers are legible and accurate, or the register values can be reconstructed by the provider based on adequate supporting documentation. When the damaged system is not available for return, postage may be refunded or transferred only if the provider can accurately determine the remaining postage value based on adequate supporting documentation. The authorized user may be required to provide a statement on the cause of the damage and to attest that there has not been reimbursement by insurance, or otherwise, and that the authorized user will not seek such reimbursement. Refunds for unused postage value are granted for postage evidencing systems specified in 4.0 in accordance with the following procedures: a. All postage evidencing systems except for PC Postage systems. Authorized users must notify their provider to withdraw the system and to refund any unused postage value remaining on their system or account. The postage evidencing system must be examined to verify the amount before any funds are cleared from the meter. Based on what is found, a refund or credit is initiated for unused postage value, or additional money is collected to pay for postage value used. The provider forwards the refund request to the USPS for payment or may credit the amount to the authorized users account. Refunds of unused postage value remaining in a postage evidencing system less than $5 will not be paid by the USPS. b. PC Postage systems. Authorized users must notify their provider to withdraw the system and to refund any unused postage value remaining in their account. The provider refunds the unused postage value remaining on the user's system on behalf of the USPS. Refunds of unused postage value remaining in a postage evidencing system less than $5 will not be paid by the USPS. 9.3.2 Unused, Dated Postage Evidencing System Indicia, Except PC Postage Indicia [Revise 9.3.2 as follows:] Unused, dated postage meter indicia are considered for refund only if complete, legible, and valid. PC Postage indicia refunds are processed under 9.3.3. All other metered postage refund requests must be submitted as follows: a. Authorized users must submit the request to their local Post Office. The refund request must include proof that the person or entity requesting the refund is the authorized user of the postage meter that printed the indicia. Acceptable proof includes a copy of the lease, rental agreement, or contract. b. Authorized users must include the items bearing the unused postage with their request to their local Post Office. The items must be sorted by meter used and then by postage value shown in the indicia, and must be properly faced and bundled in groups of 100 identical items when quantities allow. The request is processed by the USPS. The postmaster approves or denies the refund request. c. Authorized users must submit the refund request within 60 days of the date(s) shown in the indicia. d. When unused metered postage is affixed to a mailpiece, the refund request must be submitted with the entire envelope or wrapper. For those items where the postage is affixed to a large container (i.e. cardboard box), a sufficient portion of the container with the postage affixed must be included to validate that the item was never deposited with the USPS. The unused metered postage must not be removed from the mailpiece once applied. e. Indicia printed on labels or tapes not adhered to wrappers or envelopes must be submitted loose and must not be stapled together or attached to any paper or other medium. However, self-adhesive labels printed without a backing may be submitted on a plain sheet of paper. f. If a part of one indicium is printed on one envelope or card and the remaining part on one or more, the envelopes or cards must be fastened together to show that they represent one indicium. g. Refunds are allowable for indicia on metered reply envelopes only when it is obvious that an incorrect amount of postage was printed on them. h. The refund request must be submitted on PS Form 3533. A separate PS Form 3533 must be completed for each meter for which a refund is requested. All identifying information and all sections related to the refund request must be completed. Charges for processing a refund request for unused, dated meter indicia are as follows: 1. If the total face value of the indicia is $350 or less, the amount refunded is 90% of the face value. USPS may process the refund payment locally via a no-fee postal money order. 2. If the total face value is more than $350, the amount refunded is reduced by a figure representing $35 per hour, or fraction thereof, for the actual hours to process the refund, with a minimum charge of $35. The postmaster will submit the approved PS Form 3533 to the USPS Imaging and Scanning Center for payment processing through the Accounting Service Center. 9.3.3 Unused, Dated PC Postage Indicia *[Revise 9.3.3 as follows:]* Unused, dated PC Postage indicia are considered for refund only if complete, legible, and valid. The refund request must be submitted as follows: a. Only authorized PC Postage users may request the refund. Users must submit the request to their system provider. The request is processed by the provider, not the USPS. b. Requests for refund of PC Postage indicia that contain a valid Postal Identification Code

(PIC)must be submitted by authorized users to their provider electronically in accordance with procedures available from their provider. Valid PICs include any form of Delivery Confirmation or Signature Confirmation service, Express Mail service or Confirm® Code. Authorized users must initiate requests for electronic refunds within ten

(10)days of printing the indicia. Refunds for postage associated with a PIC may only be submitted electronically. Physical submissions are not permitted. c. Requests for refund of PC Postage indicia which do not have an associated PIC must be physically submitted by authorized users to their provider, along with the items bearing the unused postage, in accordance with procedures available from their provider. Authorized users must submit the refund request within sixty 60 days of the date(s) shown in the indicia. The refund request must be submitted as required in 9.3.2d. through 9.3.2g. d. The provider may, at its discretion, charge for processing a refund request. *[Revise title, introductory text, and items a and c of 9.3.4 as follows:]* 9.3.4 Unused, Undated Metered Postage Unused, undated postage evidencing system indicia are considered for refund only if complete, legible, and valid. The refund request must be submitted as follows: a. Only the authorized user or the commercial entity that prepared the mailing for the authorized user may request the refund. The request must include a letter signed by the authorized user or the commercial entity that prepared the mailing explaining why the mailpieces were not mailed. c. The authorized user, or the commercial entity that prepared the mailing for the authorized user, must submit the request, along with the items bearing the unused postage and the required documentation, to the manager, business mail entry at the district Post Office overseeing the mailer's local Post Office, or to a designee authorized in writing. The manager or designee approves or denies the refund request. *[Renumber 9.3.5 as new 9.3.6. Add new 9.3.5 to read as follows:]* 9.3.5 Unused, Undated PC Postage Indicia Refunds will not normally be provided for valid, undated, serialized PC Postage indicia containing commonly used postage values. If the authorized user believes there are extraordinary circumstances, requests for such refunds must be made by the authorized user in accordance with the procedures outlined in 9.3.3.c along with a detailed description of the extraordinary circumstances. Requests will be considered by the provider on a case by case basis. 9.3.6 Ineligible Metered Postage Items The following metered postage items are ineligible for refunds: *[Revise item d of renumbered 9.3.6 to change “licensing post office” to “Local Post Office” as follows:]* d. Indicia lacking identification of the local Post Office or other required information. Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E7-18035 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0004-200704(b); FRL-8465-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Mecklenburg County Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). On February 16, 2005, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources submitted revisions to the Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control Ordinance (MCAPCO), to be incorporated into the Mecklenburg County portion of the North Carolina SIP. The revisions include changes to MCAPCO 2.0902, “Applicability,” and 2.0933, “Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks.” These changes were made to maintain consistency with State and federal regulations, and are part of Mecklenburg County's strategy to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, by reducing precursors to ozone. In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , the EPA is approving North Carolina's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0004, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *hou.james@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*

(404)562-9019. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0004,” Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at *hou.james@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: August 27, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-17780 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0479; FRL-8466-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Amendments Extending the Applicability of Four Consumer and Commercial Product Regulations to the Fredericksburg Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC)Emissions Control Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision extends the applicability of four consumer and commercial product regulations—Portable Fuel Container Spillage, Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Operations, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings, and Consumer Products—to the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. These amendments are necessary to implement VOC contingency measures within the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0479 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *powers.marilyn@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0479, Marilyn Powers, Acting Chief, Air Quality 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-2007-0479. 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: Ellen Wentworth,

(215)814-2034 or by e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 14, 2007, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a formal revision to its SIP. This SIP revision consists of amendments to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 20, Part I, Administrative, 9 VAC 5-20-21, Documents Incorporated by Reference, and amendments to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Part II, Emission Standards, Articles 42, 48, 49, and 50. I. Background Chapter 40 of Virginia's Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution contains a number of rules used to enforce control measures designed to attain and maintain the ozone air quality standard. The geographic applicability of these rules is defined by establishing VOC and NO X emissions control areas in a list located in 9 VAC 5-20-206. The Commonwealth of Virginia's regulations establish VOC and nitrogen oxide (NO X ) emissions control areas to provide the legal mechanism to define the geographic areas in which Virginia implements control measures to attain and maintain the air quality standards for ozone. The emissions control areas may or may not coincide with the nonattainment areas found in 9 VAC 5-20-204, depending upon the necessity of the planning requirements. Most of the Chapter 40 regulations automatically apply within all of the VOC emissions control areas. Some Chapter 40 rules (Articles 4, 36, 37, and 53) have provisions that apply only to certain existing VOC and NO X emission control areas. Other Chapter 40 regulations were originally adopted to apply only within certain emission control areas. The original ozone air quality standard was a 1-hour standard. Three VOC and NO X emission control areas, Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond, were established in Virginia in order to implement control measures to attain the 1-hour ozone air quality standard. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated and classified areas for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). For most areas, these designations became effective June 15, 2004. EPA designated, as nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three years of data available at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The 8-hour standard replaced the 1-hour standard on June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23996). Accordingly, the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board promulgated the State 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas that took effect on August 25, 2004. In order to implement control measures to attain and maintain the air quality standards for ozone, the Board proposed to expand the VOC and NO X emissions control areas in 9 VAC 5-20-206, and extend the geographic applicability of the VOC and NO X regulatory rules in Chapter 40 of the regulations into the new 8-hour nonattainment areas. On March 2, 2007 (72 FR 9441), EPA published a final rulemaking which established a new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area, consisting of Spotsylvania County and Fredericksburg City, and expanded the Richmond and Hampton Roads VOC and NO X Emission Control Areas. On December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165) EPA redesignated the 8-hour Fredericksburg nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. This revision consists of regulation amendments that extend the applicability of four consumer and commercial product regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. These amendments are necessary to implement VOC contingency measures of the maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. II. Summary of the SIP Revision The May 14, 2007 SIP revision contains amendments to 9 VAC 5-20-21, which incorporate by reference, two additional test methods and procedures needed for 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 49, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings. These are the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)D3912-95, “Standard Test Method for Chemical Resistance of Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants;” and the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)D 4082-02, “Standard Test Method for Effects of Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.” The May 14, 2007 revision also contains regulation amendments to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40 that extend the applicability of four consumer and commercial product regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area established in 9 VAC 5-20-206 (March 2, 2007, 72 FR 9441). These regulations presently apply only in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area and were based on the Ozone Transport Commission

(OTC)model rules. The OTC developed control measures into model rules for a number of source categories and estimated emission reduction benefits from implementing those model rules. These amendments to Chapter 40 are discussed below.

(1)Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Container Spillage, Article 42 Virginia's Portable Fuel Container Spillage regulation is being amended to apply within the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. At the present time this regulation applies only to sources located in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (June 8, 2004, 69 FR 31893). The provisions of this regulation apply to any source or person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures for sale portable fuel containers or spouts in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206. The regulation does not apply to any portable fuel container or spout manufactured for shipment, sale and use outside of the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emission Control Areas. The regulation requires each portable fuel container or spout sold in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emission Control Areas to meet the following requirements:

(1)Have an automatic shut-off and closure device;

(2)contain one opening for both filling and pouring;

(3)meet minimal fuel flow rate based on nominal capacity;

(4)meet a permeation standard; and

(5)have a manufacturer's warranty against defects. The regulation includes exemptions, standards, testing procedures, recordkeeping, and administrative requirements. Compliance with the provisions of this regulation is required no later than January 1, 2008 in the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.

(2)Emission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing, Article 48 Virginia's Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing regulation is being amended to apply within the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. At the present time, this regulation applies only to sources located in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (June 24, 2004, 69 FR 35253). The provisions of this regulation apply to each mobile equipment repair and refinishing operation located in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206. Certain provisions also apply to each person providing or selling affected coatings. The provisions of this regulation do not apply if the mobile equipment repair and refinishing operation is subject to Article 28 (9 VAC 5-40-3860 et seq.) of Chapter 40, Emission Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Application Systems, or Article 34 (9 VAC 5-40-4760 et seq.) of Chapter 40, Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating Application Systems. The provisions of this regulation also do not apply to persons applying the coatings who do not receive compensation for the application of the coatings, and to mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations that use coatings required to meet military specifications (MILSPEC) where no other existing coating can be used that meets the provisions of this regulation. Also included in the regulation are definitions, standards for VOCs, compliance, test methods and procedures, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with the provisions of this regulation is required no later than January 1, 2008 in the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.

(3)Emission Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings, Article 49 Virginia's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance

(AIM)Coatings regulation is being amended to apply within the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. At the present time, this regulation applies only to sources located in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (May 12, 2005, 70 FR 24970). This regulation applies to any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufacturers any architectural coating for use, as well as any person who applies or solicits the application of any architectural coating, located in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206. The provisions of this regulation do not apply to the following:

(1)Any architectural coating that is sold or manufactured for use exclusively outside of the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emission Control Areas, or for shipment to other manufacturers for reformulation or repackaging;

(2)any aerosol coating product; or

(3)any architectural coating that is sold in a container with a volume of one liter (1.057 quart) or less. The regulation is also being amended to add standards and definitions for six new coating categories: calcimine recoaters, conversion varnishes, concrete surface retarder, impacted immersion coatings; nuclear coatings; and thermoplastic rubber coating and mastic. These new coatings are listed in the Federal AIM regulation (63 FR 48848, September 11, 1998). Virginia's regulation sets specific VOC content limits in grams per liter for architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, and contains administrative requirements for labeling and reporting. There are a number of test methods that would be used to demonstrate compliance with this rule. Some of these test methods include those promulgated by EPA and published by the South Coast and Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts of California, as well as the American Society for Testing and Materials. The test methods used to test coatings must be the most current approved method at the time testing is performed. Compliance with the provisions of this regulation is required no later than January 1, 2008 in the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.

(4)Emission Standards for Consumer Products, Article 50 Virginia's Consumer Products Regulation is being amended to apply within the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. At the present time, this regulation applies only to sources located in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (January 30, 2007, 72 FR 4207). The rule applies to a person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures consumer products that contain VOCs as defined in 9 VAC 5-10-20 throughout the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206. This regulation limits VOC emissions from consumer products such as adhesives, adhesive removers, aerosol products, air fresheners, antiperspirants and deodorants, facial toners and astringents, waxes and polishes (for cars and floors, etc.), tile cleaners, tar removers, bug sprays, rug cleaners, charcoal lighter fluid, disinfectants, cosmetics, and soaps. This regulation does not apply to any consumer product manufactured in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas designated in 9 VAC 5-40-7240 for shipment and use outside of these areas. The provisions also do not apply to a manufacturer or distributor who sells, supplies, or offers for sale a consumer product that does not comply with the VOC standards specified in 9 VAC 5-40-7270 A, as long as the manufacturer or distributor can demonstrate that both the consumer product is intended for shipment and use outside of the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emission Control Areas, and that the manufacturer or distributor has taken reasonable prudent precautions to assure that the consumer product is not distributed to those applicable VOC control areas. The regulation sets specific VOC content limits in percent VOCs by weight for consumer products. Exemptions from the VOC content limits are listed in the rule. Also included in the regulation are definitions, innovative products, standards and exemptions, requirements for waiver requests, administrative requirements for labeling and reporting, test methods for demonstrating compliance, compliance schedules, alternative control plans, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with the provisions of this regulation is required no later than January 1, 2008 in the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. Article 49 is also being amended to revise the definition of “Automotive windshield washer fluid,” to allow the higher VOC automotive windshield washer fluid standards to also be applied to some manual automotive windshield washing systems so that they may be used in winter. 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 proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revision submitted on May 14, 2007 for regulation amendments to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 20 that incorporate by reference test methods and procedures needed for 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 49, Emission Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings, and regulation amendments to Chapter 40 that extend the applicability of four consumer and commercial product regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. These amendments are necessary to implement VOC contingency measures within the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area. 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, extending the applicability of four consumer and commercial product regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area, 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: August 30, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-17977 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0004-200735; FRL-8466-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review Rules AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed conditional approval. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve, disapprove, and conditionally approve specific portions of the proposed revisions to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted by the State of South Carolina on July 1, 2005. The proposed revisions modify South Carolina's Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)program and provide for a new Nonattainment New Source Review

(NNSR)program to be incorporated into the SIP. EPA's proposal to partially approve and disapprove certain portions of the July 1, 2005, SIP submittal is consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA's proposal to conditionally approve other portions of the July 1, 2005, SIP submittal is consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. As part of the conditional approval, which applies only to the NNSR program, South Carolina will have twelve months from the date of EPA's final conditional approval of the SIP revisions in which to revise its NNSR rules, as described herein, to be consistent with existing federal law. In addition to the conditional approval of the NNSR program, EPA is proposing to approve one provision of South Carolina's minor source permitting program, partially approve South Carolina's PSD program, and disapprove two elements of South Carolina's PSD and NNSR rules that relate to provisions that were vacated from the federal program by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) on June 24, 2005. The two elements vacated from the federal rules pertain to pollution control projects

(PCPs)and clean units. These elements exist in the South Carolina rules in both the PSD and NNSR programs, and all references to PCPs and clean units in both programs are being proposed for disapproval. As part of the conditional approval of South Carolina's NNSR program, South Carolina must commit to revise its rules to include requirements for calculating emissions reductions that will be used for offsets and ensure those reductions are surplus to other federal requirements. In the interim, until the State NNSR program changes are in effect, as part of the conditional approval, the State must commit to utilize the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part 51, Appendix S to supplement its NNSR program until it is both State-effective and approved by EPA into the South Carolina SIP. Changes to the federal new source review

(NSR)regulations were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003, (collectively, these two final actions are called the “2002 NSR Reform Rules”). EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules, now proposed for inclusion in the South Carolina SIP, contain provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability limits (PALs), and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0004, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: fortin.kelly@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9019. 4. *Mail:* (Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0004), Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. *Hand Delivery:* Deliver your comments to: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0004. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov.epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official business hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the South Carolina State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Telephone number:

(404)562-9140; e-mail address: *ward.nacosta@epa.gov.* For information regarding New Source Review, contact Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Telephone number:

(404)562-9117; e-mail address: *fortin.kelly@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to “EPA,” “we,” “us,” or “our,” are intended to mean the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is arranged as follows: I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? II. Why Is EPA Proposing this Action? III. What Is EPA's Analysis of South Carolina's NSR Rule Revisions? A. Definitions and General Standards; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1 B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 C. Nonattainment New Source Review; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, StandarI No. 7.1 IV. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing? On July 1, 2005, the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), submitted revisions to the South Carolina SIP. The SIP submittal consists of changes to the South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards (South Carolina Regulations). Specifically, the proposed SIP revisions include changes to South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1 entitled “Definitions and General Standards;” Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration;” and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 entitled “Nonattainment New Source Review.” DHEC submitted this SIP revision in response to EPA's December 31, 2002, changes to the Federal NSR program. EPA is proposing to partially approve and disapprove certain portions of the July 1, 2005, SIP submittal, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve provisions of the July 1, 2005, SIP submittal consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. As part of the conditional approval, South Carolina will have twelve months from the date of EPA's final conditional approval of the SIP revisions in which to further revise its NNSR rules, as described herein, to be consistent with existing Federal law. Consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA may partially approve and disapprove portions of a SIP revision that meet all the applicable requirements and are severable from the remainder of the revision that is being disapproved or conditionally approved. Pursuant to section 110(k)(3), EPA is proposing to

(1)approve one provision of South Carolina's minor source permitting program (discussed more fully below);

(2)partially approve South Carolina's PSD program; and

(3)disapprove all references to PCPs and clean units in South Carolina's PSD and NNSR programs. The PCP and clean unit references are all severable from the other provisions of South Carolina's PSD and NNSR programs. EPA is not approving any portion of South Carolina's rules regarding PCPs and clean units. Further, any use by South Carolina of its State rules on PCPs and clean units is, according to a Federal appeals court, contrary to the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a portion of a SIP revision based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific, enforceable measures no later than twelve months from the approval date of final conditional approval. If the State fails to commit to undertake the necessary changes, or fails to actually make the changes within the twelve month period, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. The necessary revisions to the South Carolina SIP will materially alter the existing SIP-approved rule. As a result, the State must also make a new SIP submittal to EPA for approval that includes the rule changes within twelve months from the date of EPA's final action conditionally approving South Carolina's NNSR program. As with any SIP revision, South Carolina must undergo public notice and comment, and allow for a public hearing (and any other procedures required by State law), on the proposed changes to its rules. If South Carolina fails to adopt and submit the specified measures by the end of one year (from the final conditional approval), or fails to make a SIP submittal to EPA within twelve months following the final conditional approval, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. If South Carolina timely revises its rules and submits the revised SIP submittal, EPA will process that SIP revision consistent with the CAA. More specifically, with regard to the conditional approval of the NNSR program, South Carolina must revise its rules to include a methodology for calculating emissions reductions to be used as offsets that includes a baseline for determining credit for emissions offsets that, at a minimum, meets the requirements set out in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i) and Appendix S section IV.C. The emission offsets provisions must also specify that the reductions must be surplus and cannot be used for offsets if they are otherwise required by the South Carolina SIP or other Federal standards, such as the New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), including the Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT)standards. As part of the conditional approval, South Carolina must commit to make these changes within the twelve month timeframe. Further, in the interim, until the required State NNSR program changes are in effect, South Carolina must commit to utilize the requirements of the Federal NNSR program outlined in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S. II. Why Is EPA Proposing This Action? On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule changes to title 40 CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA's PSD and NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. In that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the definition of “replacement unit,” and clarified an issue regarding PALs. The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.” The purpose of this action is to propose to partially approve, disapprove and conditionally approve certain portions of the SIP submittal from the State of South Carolina, which includes the provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—“attainment” areas—as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable” areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment” areas. Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the “New Source Review” or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, Appendix S. The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full public consideration of the consequences of the decision. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules:

(1)Provided a new method for determining baseline actual emissions;

(2)adopted an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred;

(3)allowed major stationary sources to comply with PALs to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program;

(4)provided a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and

(5)excluded PCPs from the definition of “physical change or change in the method of operation.” On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, which added a definition for “replacement unit” and clarified an issue regarding PALs. For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and *http://www.epa.gov/nsr* . After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. *New York* v. *United States,* 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In summary, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules pertaining to clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping, 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove from the CFR all provisions pertaining to clean units and the PCP exemption that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. These proposed actions are consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's decision because the vacated portions of the Federal rules will not be approved as part of the South Carolina SIP. Further, EPA notes that use of any PCP and clean unit rules has been deemed contrary to the CAA by a Federal appeals court. With regard to the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to recordkeeping, on March 8, 2007 (45 FR 10445), EPA responded to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand by proposing two alternative options to clarify what constitutes “reasonable possibility” and when the “reasonable possibility” recordkeeping requirements apply. The “reasonable possibility” provision identifies for sources and reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major stationary source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep records. South Carolina's SIP revisions are approvable at this time because the South Carolina rules are at least as stringent as the current Federal rules (see, e.g., South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7). If EPA adopts recordkeeping criteria that are more stringent than the current South Carolina rules on recordkeeping, the State's rules may need to be revised to be at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i), state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions within three years after new amendments are published in the **Federal Register** .) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51 and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules with different but equivalent regulations. However, if a state decides not to implement any of the new applicability provisions, that state is required to, among other things, demonstrate that its existing program is at least as stringent as the federal program. On July 1, 2005, DHEC submitted a SIP revision for the purpose of revising the State's NSR permitting provisions. These changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As discussed in further detail below, EPA believes the revisions contained in the South Carolina submittal are approvable for inclusion into the South Carolina SIP so long as the specific changes described below are made within twelve months of the date of EPA's final conditional approval. As a result, EPA is proposing to partially approve and disapprove, and conditionally approve the South Carolina SIP revisions, consistent with sections 110(k)(3) and 110(k)(4) of the CAA. As part of the conditional approval South Carolina must commit to utilize the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, for its NNSR program until the specified changes to that program are in effect and approved into the SIP by EPA. III. What Is EPA's Analysis of South Carolina's NSR Rule Revisions? South Carolina currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and modified stationary sources. Today, EPA is proposing to partially approve, disapprove, and conditionally approve revisions to South Carolina's existing NSR program. South Carolina's proposed revisions became State-effective on June 24, 2005, and were submitted to EPA on July 1, 2005. Copies of the revised rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ADDRESSES section above. A discussion of the specific changes to South Carolina's rules comprising the SIP revision, as well as the additional changes to be made by South Carolina to its rules as part of the conditional approval, follows. A. Definitions and General Standards; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1 EPA is proposing to approve Section II of South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1 regarding general permit requirements. South Carolina revised Section II, paragraph H.1, of its regulations to allow for synthetic minor permits in nonattainment areas. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), one area in South Carolina was designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which prompted the changes to Section II. The proposed SIP revision recognizes that South Carolina now has a nonattainment area and Section II includes the appropriate requirements for synthetic minor source permits in nonattainment areas. Since the only South Carolina area previously designated as nonattainment prior to the April 2004 designation was redesignated to attainment prior to the due date for NNSR rules, South Carolina's rules only allowed for a major source or major modification, as defined by Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 (PSD), to request federally enforceable permit conditions to limit a source's potential to emit and become a synthetic minor source. EPA is proposing to approve South Carolinas's revisions to Regulation 61-62.1 to allow synthetic minor sources to obtain preconstruction permits in nonattainment as well as attainment areas. This portion of South Carolina's NSR program is severable from the NNSR rules subject to the proposed conditional approval and will not be affected by EPA's proposed disapproval. If South Carolina does not submit the required changes to its NNSR program within the specified time period, and EPA takes action to disapprove the conditionally approved portions of the NNSR program, Regulation 61-62.1 will not be affected because it is being proposed for approval today. B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7 South Carolina Regulation 61.62.5, Standard No. 7, contains the preconstruction review program that provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of ambient air quality as required under Part C of title I of the CAA (the PSD program). The PSD program applies to sources that are major stationary sources or undergoing major modifications in areas that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable with regard to any NAAQS. South Carolina's PSD program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on February 10, 1982, and has been revised several times since then in order to remain consistent with federal rule changes. The current changes to Standard No. 7, which EPA is now proposing to partially disapprove and partially approve into the South Carolina SIP, were submitted to update the existing South Carolina Regulation to be consistent with the current federal PSD rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The SIP revision addresses baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected actual applicability tests, and PALs. South Carolina's SIP revision also includes two portions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court—PCPs and clean units. As a result, EPA is proposing to partially approve the PSD portion of the South Carolina SIP revision with the exception of references to PCPs and clean units which EPA is proposing to disapprove (similar references also exist in South Carolina's NNSR program). The PCP and clean unit references are severable from the PSD and NNSR programs. EPA is disapproving all rules and/or rule sections in the South Carolina PSD rules (and NNSR rules, discussed later in this notice) referencing clean units or PCPs. Specifically, the following South Carolina rules are being proposed for disapproval. Table 1.—PSD PCP and Clean Unit References South Carolina regulation 61-62.5, standard 7 Corresponding vacated federal provision 40 CFR 52.21 Subject (a)(2)(iv)(e) (a)(2)(iv)(e) Clean unit applicability. (a)(2)(iv)(f)—Second sentence (a)(2)(iv)(f)—Second sentence Entire second sentence (“For example * * *”) Reference to clean unit. (a)(2)(vi) (a)(2)(vi) PCP provision. (b)(12) (b)(42) Clean unit definition. (b)(30)(iii)(h) (b)(2)(iii)(h) PCP provision. (b)(34)(iii)(b) (b)(3)(iii)(b) Clean unit provision. (b)(34)(vi)(d) (b)(3)(vi)(d) Clean unit and PCP provisions. (b)(35) (b)(32) PCP definition. (r)(6) 1 (r)(6) Reference to clean unit. (r)(7) 1 NA Reference to clean unit.

(x)Clean unit provision.

(y)Clean unit provision.

(z)PCP provision. 1 Only the reference to the term “clean unit” is being proposed for disapproval. The remainder of this regulatory provision is being proposed for approval. In addition to EPA's proposal to disapprove the South Carolina PSD and NNSR rules regarding PCPs and clean units, EPA notes that any use of such rules has been deemed contrary to the CAA by a Federal appeals court. As part of its evaluation of the South Carolina SIP submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line comparison of the proposed revisions to the federal requirements. During this review it was noted that a typographical error exists in paragraph (b)(41)(ii)(d) of Standard No. 7, South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, where there is a reference to paragraph (a)(41)(ii)(a). This reference should be to paragraph ( *b* )(41)(ii)(a). Although this is a minor issue that does not affect the approvability of this portion of the SIP revision, South Carolina should correct this error the next time this rule is revised. As a general matter, state agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. However, if a state decides not to implement any of the new applicability provisions, that state is required to demonstrate that its existing program is at least as stringent as the federal program. As part of its SIP submittal, South Carolina (through DHEC) provided EPA with an “equivalency demonstration” regarding two differences from the federal rules. One difference relates to the removal of the word “malfunction” from the definitions of “baseline actual emissions” at paragraph (b)(4)(i)(a) and “projected actual emissions” at paragraph (b)(41)(ii)(b) in Standard No. 7, South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5. In justifying the change, DHEC notes the difficulty of predicting malfunction emissions as part of the projected actual emissions. In addition, DHEC is concerned about the possibility that including malfunction emissions may result in the unintended rewarding of the source's poor operation and maintenance by allowing malfunction emissions to be included in baseline emissions that will be used to calculate emissions changes and emissions credits. A second difference involves the inclusion of language in the definition of baseline actual emissions at paragraph (b)(4)(ii) in Standard No. 7, South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, which provides DHEC with the authority to determine if the 24-month look-back period selected by the source is appropriate. In its equivalency determination, DHEC states that it is simply asserting its authority to review the source's calculations, if necessary, to ensure that the time period selected is appropriate. EPA agrees that DHEC may explicitly retain such authority, consistent with EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA concurs with the State that neither this change, nor the difference regarding “malfunctions,” lessens the stringency of South Carolina's NSR program. Therefore, South Carolina's PSD program may be partially approved, with the exception of the PCP and clean unit references, which are subject to disapproval. Notably, EPA has not yet taken final action in response to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. South Carolina's rule contains recordkeeping requirements that are at least as stringent as the federal rule. While final action by EPA with regard to the remand may require South Carolina to take action to revise their rules, at this time, the South Carolina rules are consistent with federal requirements. After conducting the line-by-line evaluation and reviewing the equivalency determinations for certain portions of South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, EPA has determined that the proposed SIP revisions are consistent with the federal program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, set forth at 40 CFR 51.166, with the exception of the PCP and clean unit provisions. Therefore, EPA is now proposing to partially approve and disapprove, pursuant to section 110(k)(3), the PSD portion of the July 1, 2005, SIP revision. C. Nonattainment New Source Review; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 South Carolina's NNSR program, which provides permitting requirements for major sources in or impacting upon nonattainment areas, is set forth at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1. Effective June 15, 2004, one area in South Carolina was designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Since the only area in South Carolina previously designated as nonattainment was redesignated to attainment prior to the due date for the NNSR rules, South Carolina's rules did not contain any provisions for the permitting of sources in nonattainment areas. South Carolina's NNSR program applies to the construction and modification of any major stationary source of air pollution in a nonattainment area, as required by Part D of title I of the CAA. To receive approval to construct, a source that is subject to South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1 must show that it will not cause a net increase in pollution, will not create a delay in the area attaining the NAAQS, and will install and use control technology that achieves the lowest achievable emissions rate. The provisions in the South Carolina rules were established to meet the current federal nonattainment rule, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, which are found at 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, and part 51, Appendix S. As part of its evaluation of the South Carolina submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions, as well as reviewing the equivalency determinations. EPA has determined that South Carolina's NNSR program is not entirely consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for NSR, set forth at 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, and that revisions are necessary for full approval. The required changes relate to requirements for emission reductions that facilities will use to “offset” proposed emissions increases. Consistent with section 110(k)(4), EPA may conditionally approve South Carolina's SIP revision based on the State's commitment to adopt specific, enforceable measures by a date certain, not to exceed one year after the date of the conditional approval. The CAA prohibits the use of emission reductions “otherwise required” by CAA requirements as creditable emission reductions for the purpose of NSR offsets. See CAA section 173(c)(2). In addition, the federal regulations require that emission reductions used for offsets must be “surplus.” See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i). The corresponding State language at 7.1(d)(1)(C)(iii)(a) indicates that reductions may be generally credited if they are permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable, but does not specifically address the “surplus” provision of the federal rules. The State regulation also indicates that reductions can be claimed for use as offsets to the extent the DHEC has not relied upon them for the issuance of permits under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I or in demonstrating attainment or reasonable further progress. See Standard 7.1(d)(viii). EPA believes this provision could be interpreted to allow the use of emissions reductions that have been required by NESHAP or NSPS requirements or may have been required by other SIP provisions not used towards reasonable further progress or in the demonstration of attainment. Hence, it is EPA's determination that the State rule does not explicitly meet the CAA and federal requirements set out at 40 CFR 51.165. The State nonattainment regulations also do not specifically address how the emission reductions used for offsets will be calculated. The federal regulations require each plan to provide that the “offset baseline” shall be the actual emissions of the source from which offset credit is obtained. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i). The Emissions Offset Interpretive Ruling, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, sets forth the conditions upon which a major source or modification would be allowed to construct in a nonattainment area and includes provisions for establishing the baseline for calculating emissions offsets. See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S section IV.C. At a minimum, the State rule should contain the baseline provisions for calculating offsets that meet the requirements of Appendix S. EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the South Carolina SIP revision including the NNSR program and provide South Carolina with twelve months after EPA's final conditional approval in which to effectuate the changes necessary for EPA to approve South Carolina's NNSR program. As discussed earlier, EPA is proposing to disapprove two provisions of South Carolina's NNSR program that relate to provisions that were vacated from the federal program by the D.C. Circuit Court. The two provisions vacated from the federal rules pertain to PCPs and clean units. The PCP and clean unit references are severable from the remainder of the NNSR program. Specifically, the following South Carolina rules are being proposed for disapproval. Table 2.—NNSR PCP and Clean Unit References South Carolina regulation 61-62.5, standard 7.1 Corresponding vacated federal provision 40 CFR 51.165 Subject (b)(5) (a)(2)(ii)(E) Clean unit applicability. (b)(6)—Second Sentence (a)(2)(ii)(F)—Second sentence Entire second sentence (“For example * * *”) Reference to clean unit. (b)(8) (a)(2)(iv) PCP provision. (c)(4) (a)(1)(xxix) Clean unit definition. (c)(6)(C)(viii) (a)(1)(v)(C)(8) PCP provision. (c)(8)(C)(iii) (a)(1)(vi)(C)(3) Clean unit provision. (c)(8)(E)(v) (a)(1)(vi)(E)(5) Clean unit and PCP provisions. (c)(10) (a)(1)(xxv) PCP definition. (d)(1)(C)(ix) (a)(3)(ii)(H) Clean unit and PCP provisions. (d)(1)(C)(x) (a)(3)(ii)(I) Clean unit and PCP provisions. (d)(3) 1 (a)(6) Reference to clean unit. (d)(4) 1 NA Reference to clean unit.

(c)Clean unit provision.

(d)Clean unit provision.

(e)PCP provision. 1 Only the reference to the term “clean unit” is being proposed for disapproval. The remainder of this regulatory provision is being proposed for approval. In addition to EPA's proposal to disapprove the South Carolina PSD and NNSR rules referencing PCPs and clean units, EPA notes that any use of such rules has been deemed contrary to the CAA by a Federal appeals court. As discussed above, South Carolina provided EPA with an equivalency demonstration to show that its program is at least as stringent as the federal program. The two differences from the federal rule for which the State is proposing equivalency are the same as those identified in the State's PSD program. These deviations from the federal rule are acceptable, and may be retained in South Carolina's final NNSR program proposed as part of this conditional approval. The first difference regards the removal of the word “malfunction” from the definitions of “baseline actual emissions” at paragraph (c)(2)(B)(ii) and “projected actual emissions” at paragraph (c)(11)(B)(ii) in Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1. In justifying the difference, DHEC notes the difficulty of predicting malfunction emissions as part of the projected actual emissions. In addition DHEC is concerned about the possibility that including malfunction emissions may result in the unintended rewarding of the source's poor operation and maintenance by allowing malfunction emissions to be included in baseline emissions that will be used to calculate emissions changes and emissions credits. The second difference involves the inclusion of language in the definition of baseline actual emissions at paragraph (c)(2)(B) in Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1, to indicate that DHEC reserves the right to determine if the 24-month look-back period selected by the source is appropriate. In its equivalency determination, DHEC states that it is simply asserting its authority to review the source's calculations, if necessary, to ensure that the time period selected is appropriate. EPA agrees that DHEC may explicitly retain such authority, consistent with EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA believes neither of these differences lessens the stringency of South Carolina's NNSR program. In summary, EPA is proposing to disapprove two elements of South Carolina's new NNSR rules that pertain to PCPs and clean units and which were vacated from the federal program by the D.C. Circuit Court. These two elements include various rules which are listed in Table 2, above. In addition, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the remainder of South Carolinas's new NNSR program into the SIP. As part of the conditional approval mechanism, within twelve months of EPA's final action on the conditional approval, the State must:

(1)Revise the NNSR program to include a provision that emission reductions are surplus and are not to be used as offsets if they are otherwise required by the SIP, NSPS, NESHAP, including MACT, standards or other federal requirements;

(2)revise its rule to include a methodology for the calculation of emissions reductions that includes a baseline for determining credit for emissions offsets that, at a minimum, meet the requirements set out in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S section IV.C.; and

(3)implement the provisions found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S until its revised NNSR program is in effect and approved into the SIP by EPA. If South Carolina fails to comply with the substantive requirements in the specified period of time, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. IV. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? EPA is proposing to partially approve, disapprove, and conditionally approve revisions to the South Carolina SIP (Regulation 61-62.1, Regulation 61-62.5 Standard No. 7, and Regulation 61-62.5 Standard No. 7.1) submitted by DHEC on July 1, 2005, which include changes to South Carolina's PSD and NNSR programs. As part of the partial approval, EPA is approving the entirety of South Carolina's PSD program with the exception of any references to PCPs and clean units, which are proposed for disapproval (see Table 1). EPA is also approving Regulation 61-61.2 regarding synthetic minor sources that is part of the minor source permitting program. As part of the disapproval, EPA is disapproving all rules referencing clean units and PCPs in South Carolina's NNSR program (see Table 2). As part of the conditional approval, South Carolina must

(1)revise the NNSR program to include a provision that emission reductions must be surplus and are not to be used as offsets if they are otherwise required by the SIP, NSPS, NESHAP, including MACT, standards or other federal requirements and submit to EPA a SIP revision within twelve months with the revised rule;

(2)revise its NNSR program to include a methodology for calculating offsets, and submit to EPA a SIP revision within twelve months with the revised rule; and

(3)utilize the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S to supplement its NNSR program until South Carolina's NNSR program is approved by EPA. Consistent with section 110(k), EPA is now proposing to partially approve, disapprove and conditionally approve the July 1, 2005, SIP revision from South Carolina. 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 proposed 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 tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. As a result, 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 is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: September 5, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-17979 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0519; FRL-8466-2] Approval of Implementation Plans of Michigan: Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted on July 16, 2007. This revision incorporates provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006, and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for the state of Michigan, promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised December 13, 2006. EPA is not proposing to make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is proposing, to the extent EPA approves Michigan's SIP revision, to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. The SIP revision that EPA is proposing to conditionally approve is an abbreviated SIP revision that addresses: The applicability provisions for the NO X ozone season trading program under the CAIR FIP and supporting definitions of terms; the methodology to be used to allocate NO X annual and ozone season NO X allowances under the CAIR FIP and supporting definitions of terms; and provisions for opt-in units under the CAIR FIP. Michigan will be submitting additional SO 2 rules in the future. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0519, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. 4. *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0519. 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)353-6960, before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-6960, *aburano.douglas@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 FIP? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIP? IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? V. Analysis of Michigan's CAIR SIP Submittal A. Nature of Michigan's Submittal B. Summary of Michigan's Rules C. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations D. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs E. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NO X SIP Call Sources F. NO X Allowance Allocations G. Allocation of NO X Allowances From the Compliance Supplement Pool H. Individual Opt-in Units I. Conditions for Approval VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? CAIR SIP Approval EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a revision to Michigan's SIP, submitted on July 16, 2007, that would modify the application of certain provisions of the CAIR FIP concerning NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions. (As discussed below, this less comprehensive CAIR SIP is termed an abbreviated SIP.) The CAIR SO 2 FIP will remain in place unaffected. Michigan is subject to the CAIR FIP that implements 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 FIP provides that this methodology, if approved as EPA is proposing, will be used to allocate NO X allowances to sources in Michigan, instead of the federal allocation methodology otherwise provided in the FIP. The SIP revision also provides a methodology for allocating the compliance supplement pool

(CSP)in the CAIR NO X annual trading program, expands the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program, and allows for individual units not otherwise subject to the CAIR trading programs to opt into such trading programs. Consistent with the flexibility provided in the FIP, these provisions, if approved, will also be used to replace or supplement, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIP for Michigan. EPA is not proposing to make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is proposing, to the extent EPA approves Michigan's SIP revision, to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. This SIP revision is being proposed for conditional approval as opposed to a full or complete approval because of several minor deficiencies that must be addressed. If the conditions for full approval are not met within one year of the effective date of EPA approval, this conditional approval will revert to a disapproval, as of the deadline for meeting the conditions, without further action required by EPA. In the event the conditional approval reverts to a disapproval, EPA will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** to inform the public. If Michigan does meet the conditions necessary for a full approval, EPA will publish a **Federal Register** notice finalizing the full approval. II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIP? The 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 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 April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated a FIP 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 FIP until the state fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIP requires 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 CAIR FIP or SIP trading programs for that pollutant. The CAIR FIP also allows 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 states 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. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIP? 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 FIP. Alternatively, states may submit abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIP; however, the CAIR FIP provides 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 FIP (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 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 using a methodology chosen by the state; 3. Provide for allocation of NO X annual allowances from the compliance supplement pool

(CSP)by the state, rather than by the Administrator, and using 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 July 16, 2007, submittal from Michigan has been submitted as an abbreviated SIP revision. V. Analysis of Michigan's CAIR SIP Submittal A. Nature of Michigan's Submittal On July 16, 2007, Michigan submitted draft rules and supporting material for addressing CAIR requirements. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ)held a public hearing on these proposed rules on April 2, 2007. MDEQ also provided a 30-day comment period that ended on April 2, 2007. B. Summary of Michigan's Rules Part 8 of Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules, entitled, “Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Oxides of Nitrogen,” includes provisions limiting the emissions of NO X from stationary sources in Michigan. While Part 8 contains many sections, Michigan submitted only a portion of them to address the CAIR requirements. Specifically, Michigan submitted rules 802a, 803, 821 through 826, and 830 through 834 for federal approval. • Rule 802a, entitled “Adoption by reference,” contains adoption by reference language. Michigan has adopted necessary portions of federal regulations including parts of: EPA's Acid Rain Program (specifically 40 CFR 72.2 and 72.8), Continuous Emission Monitoring Program (the entire 40 CFR part 75), NO X Model Rule Compliance 40 CFR 96.54, and the CAIR SO 2 and NO X FIP rules (specifically 40 CFR 97.2, 97.102, 97.103, 97.104, 97.302, 97.303, 97.304, 97.180 to 97.188, 97.380 to 97.388). • Rule 803, entitled “Definitions,” modifies the existing Michigan definitions section to address the CAIR requirements. In order to incorporate sources affected by the NO X SIP Call into the CAIR NO X trading program, and also to accommodate Michigan's NO X allocation methodology, the state has adopted definitions that did not already exist in the CAIR FIP. • Rule 821, entitled “CAIR NO X ozone season and annual trading programs; applicability determinations,” contains applicability criteria. Michigan has incorporated the CAIR applicability from the CAIR FIP, has included the non-EGU sources from the NO X SIP Call, and also allows sources of renewable energy and renewable energy projects to receive NO X allowances under the state's allocation methodology. Michigan has also included in this section allocation adjustments based on EGU fuel type. • Rule 822, entitled “CAIR NO X ozone season trading program; allowance allocation,” establishes the NO X budgets for the ozone season control period and establishes the allocation methodology procedures for the ozone season. These provisions describe how Michigan sources under the CAIR FIP, non-EGUs formerly affected by the NO X SIP Call, and renewable energy sources will be allocated NO X ozone season allowances. • Rule 823, entitled “New EGUs, new non-EGUs, and newly affected EGUs under CAIR NO X ozone season trading program; allowance allocations,” establishes the provisions for a set-aside ozone season control period allocation pool for new EGUs, new non-EGUS, and newly affected EGUS (which were not included in the original NO X SIP Call program due to geographic location). • Rule 824, entitled “CAIR NO X ozone season trading program; hardship set-aside,” establishes the provisions for a hardship set-aside ozone season control period allocation pool to address issues for small ( *i.e.* , employing fewer than 250 people) businesses that can demonstrate that the controls required for this source result in excessive or prohibitive costs for compliance. • Rule 825, entitled “CAIR NO X ozone season trading program; renewable set-aside,” establishes the provisions for an ozone season control period allocation pool to be allocated to renewable energy sources or renewable energy projects. • Rule 826, entitled “CAIR NO X ozone season trading program; opt-in provisions,” adopts by reference the ozone season control period opt-in provisions under the federal CAIR FIP rules, specifically 40 CFR 97.380 to 97.388. • Rule 830, entitled “CAIR NO X annual trading program; allowance allocations,” establishes the NO X budgets for the annual control period, and establishes the allocation methodology procedures for the annual control period. • Rule 831, entitled “New EGUs under CAIR NO X annual trading program; allowance allocations,” establishes the provisions for a set-aside annual control period allocation pool for new EGUs and the pool allocation methodology. • Rule 832, entitled “CAIR NO X annual trading program; hardship set-aside,” establishes the provisions for a set-aside annual control period allocation pool to address issues for small ( *i.e.* , employing fewer than 250 people) businesses that can demonstrate that the required controls will result in excessive or prohibitive compliance costs. • Rule 833, entitled “CAIR NO X annual trading program; compliance supplement pool,” establishes the provisions for an annual control period compliance supplement pool that provides for allocation for early reduction credit generation for existing sources, and for the newly affected EGUs that were not in the original NO X Budget Program that can demonstrate that compliance during the 2009 control period would create an undue risk to the reliability of the electrical supply. • Rule 834, entitled “Opt-in provisions under the CAIR NO X annual trading program,” adopts by reference the opt-in provisions for the annual control period under the federal CAIR rules. While Michigan has developed an abbreviated SIP, it differs from most other states because of artifacts from the NO X SIP Call. While many states are affected by the NO X SIP Call, Michigan is one of only a few states that is not entirely covered under the NO X SIP Call, due to a modeling boundary that EPA used in atmospheric modeling of pollution sources and downwind effects. Only those Michigan counties that fall, in their entirety, south of 44 º latitude are affected by the NO X SIP Call. This is the result of a decision in *Michigan* v. *EPA* , 213 F.3d 663 (DC Cir. March 3, 2000) that established 44 º (a modeling boundary) as the appropriate northern boundary for the NO X SIP Call. EPA describes both the court decision and how it applies to Michigan in a **Federal Register** notice dated April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21604, 21622-21627). Although only a portion of Michigan is affected by the NO X SIP Call, the entire state is affected by CAIR. In order to transition from the NO X SIP Call trading program to the CAIR ozone season trading program, the Michigan rules include additional definitions and provisions to account for this geographic discrepancy. An additional complication that Michigan has addressed in its rules is that the CAIR requirements for sources of NO X begin in 2009. Under the NO X SIP Call, Michigan has already issued NO X allowances through 2009. Because the 2009 NO X SIP Call allowances have already been allocated to the Michigan sources, Michigan included provisions acknowledging the 2009 NO X SIP Call allowances and provided that they will be treated as CAIR NO X ozone season allowances issued for that year. 2010 will be the first year in which Michigan sources (other than CAIR opt-in units) will be allocated CAIR NO X ozone season allowances that were not previously issued as NO X SIP Call allowances. C. 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 FIP established the NO X budgets for Michigan as 65,304 tons for NO X annual emissions for 2009-2014; 54,420 tons for NO X annual emissions for 2015 and thereafter; 28,971 tons for NO X ozone season emissions for 2009-2014; and 24,142 tons for NO X ozone season emissions for 2015 and thereafter. Michigan's SIP revision, proposed for conditional approval in today's action, does not affect these budgets, which are total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs under the CAIR FIP. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of allowances under the established budgets. D. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO X annual and ozone-season FIP largely mirrors 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 FIP 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 after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO X SIP Call program. 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. In addition, states have the option of continuing to meet their NO X SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program and including all their NO X SIP Call trading sources in that program. EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIP. 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. Michigan is subject to the CAIR FIP for ozone and PM 2.5 , and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season apply to sources in Michigan. Consistent with the flexibility it gives to states, the CAIR FIP provides that states may submit abbreviated SIP revisions that will replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain provisions of the CAIR FIP trading programs. Michigan's July 16, 2007, submission is an abbreviated SIP revision. E. 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, Michigan has 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. F. 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 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, Michigan has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual FIP concerning the allocation of NO X annual allowances with its own methodology. Michigan has chosen to distribute NO X annual allowances based upon a heat input based methodology for existing units, with set-asides for new sources and for existing sources that submit acceptable demonstrations of hardship to MDEQ. Michigan's Rule 830 allocates three years of NO X annual allowances at a time to existing sources on a heat input basis. This begins in 2007 for the annual control periods of 2009, 2010 and 2011. By October 31, 2008, Michigan will submit to EPA allocations for the annual control periods of 2012, 2013 and 2014. By October 31, 2011, and, thereafter, each October 31 of every third year Michigan will submit to EPA allocation for the subsequent three year period. Under Michigan Rule 831, the new source set-aside for new EGUs is 1,000 tons per year for years 2009-2011, and 1,400 tons per year for years 2012 and thereafter. Allowances for the first annual control period under the new source set-aside are allocated based on 70 percent of a unit's projected emissions. After the first annual control period, new EGUs can request allowances equal to (the number of megawatt hours operated during the previous control period divided by 2,000 lb/ton), multiplied by (1.0 lb NO X /megawatt hours). Once a unit has five years of operating data, it is no longer considered a “new” unit and will be allocated allowances as an existing source under Rule 830. Michigan Rule 832 establishes a hardship set-aside of 1,200 allowances per year for existing sources. Existing sources with fewer than 250 employees that are able to submit a demonstration to Michigan that the control level required by CAIR will result in excessive or prohibitive compliance costs can request allowances from this set-aside pool. Michigan Rule 833 establishes a compliance supplement pool of 6,491 allowances for existing EGUs and a pool for newly-affected EGUs of 1,856 allowances. For existing EGUs, allowances can be requested if units have made early reductions during calendar year 2007 and 2008. A newly affected EGU can request hardship allowances if it can demonstrate that compliance with CAIR will result in hardship. Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP, Michigan has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season FIP concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. Michigan has chosen to distribute NO X ozone season allowances using a heat input-based methodology for existing units, with set-asides for new sources, renewable energy sources, and existing sources that submit acceptable demonstrations of hardship to MDEQ. Michigan's Rule 822 establishes trading budgets for existing EGUs, new EGUs, newly affected EGUs, existing non-EGUs, renewable sources and hardship set-asides. Rule 822 also provides for allocation of three years of NO X ozone season control period allowances at a time to existing EGUs and existing non-EGUs on a heat input basis. This begins in 2007 for the ozone season control periods of 2010 and 2011. By October 31, 2008, Michigan will submit to EPA allocations for the ozone control periods of 2012, 2013 and 2014. By October 31, 2011, and thereafter by each October 31 of the year that is three years after the last year of allocation submittal, Michigan will submit the next three years of ozone control period allocations to EPA. Allowances for the 2009 ozone control period are the same as were allocated under the NO X SIP Call Budget Trading Program. Rule 823 establishes a set-aside pool for new EGUs, new non-EGUs and newly affected EGUs. Rule 823 also includes the directions for how sources can apply for the allowances in this set-aside. Most EGUs were allocated NO X allowances for the 2009 ozone control period under the NO X SIP Call. These allowances are now being designated as CAIR NO X ozone season allowances issued for the 2009 ozone control period. Newly affected EGUs that were not subject to the NO X SIP Call never were allocated 2009 ozone control period allowances under the NO X SIP Call, but will need allowances to comply with CAIR in 2009. Therefore, they are being allowed to request allowances from this set-aside. Newly affected sources can request allowances based on their historic heat input. For the first ozone season control period of operation, new EGUs and new non-EGUs can request allowances from this set-aside based on predicted hours of operation. For the four ozone control periods after the first ozone control period of operation, new EGUs may request allowances based on the actual number of megawatt hours of electricity generated during the ozone control period immediately preceding the request. After a new EGU has five ozone control periods of operating data, it is no longer considered a “new” EGU and is allocated ozone control period allowances per the requirements found in Rule 822. Rule 824 creates an annual hardship set-aside pool of 650 allowances beginning in 2010. Both existing EGUs and non-EGUs can request allowances from this pool if the company making the request employs fewer than 250 people and can make a demonstration of financial hardship. The number of allowances a source can request will be based on historical heat input. Rule 825 establishes a set-aside of 200 allowances per year for renewable units. Initially, renewable units can request allowances from this set-aside based on the nameplate capacity of the unit and the predicted hours of operation during the ozone control period. After a renewable unit has been in operation for one ozone control period, the unit can request allowances based on the previous ozone season control period's actual megawatt hours. Renewable units may only request allowances for three consecutive ozone seasons. G. 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. Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP, Michigan has chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP. Michigan Rule 833 establishes an annual compliance supplement pool of 6,491 allowances for existing EGUs and an annual pool for newly-affected EGUs of 1,856 allowances. Existing EGUs can request allowances if the units have made early reductions during calendar years 2007 and 2008. Newly affected EGUs can request hardship allowances if a demonstration of hardship can be made. H. 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 FIP, Michigan has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to participate in the CAIR NO X annual trading program. Michigan has adopted by reference the FIP language regarding opt-ins. Rule 802a incorporates 40 CFR 97.180 to 97.188 by reference, and Rule 834 makes them applicable to units in the State. Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP, Michigan has chosen to permit non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to participate in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program. Michigan has adopted by reference the FIP language regarding opt-ins. Rule 802a incorporates 40 CFR 97.380 to 97.388 by reference, and Rule 826 makes them applicable to units in the State. I. Conditions for Approval EPA notes that it has identified several minor deficiencies that are necessary to correct in Michigan's rules. These minor deficiencies are as follows: 1. In rule 803(3), Michigan needs to add a definition for “commence operation.” This definition, and the revised definition of “commence commercial operation,” are necessary to take account of NO X SIP Call units brought into the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program that do not generate electricity for sale and to ensure that they have appropriate deadlines for certification of monitoring systems under 40 CFR Part 97. 2. In rule 803(3)(c), Michigan needs to revise the definition for “commence commercial operation,” as described in Condition 1, above. 3. In rule 803(3)(d)(ii), Michigan needs to revise the definition of “electric generating unit” or “EGU.” EPA interprets Michigan's current rule 803 as properly including in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program all EGUs in Michigan that were subject to the NO X SIP Call trading program. Michigan must revise the rule to clarify that all EGUs in Michigan that were subject to the NO X SIP Call trading program are included in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program. 4. In rule 823(5)(c), Michigan needs to reference “subrule (1)(a), (b), (c), and (d)” of the rule. While EPA interprets Michigan's current rule as limiting the new unit set-aside allocations to the amount of allowances in the set-aside, Michigan must revise this provision to clarify the mechanism for implementing this limitation on such allocations. These minor deficiencies are described in detail in a technical support document in the docket for this rulemaking. By a letter dated August 15, 2007, Michigan committed to making final and effective revisions to its rules by correcting these deficiencies as discussed above by July 20, 2008. Under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a SIP revision based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain that is no more than one year from the date of conditional approval. In this action, we are proposing to approve the SIP revision that Michigan has submitted on the condition that the minor deficiencies in the SIP revision are corrected as discussed above by the date referenced in Michigan's letter, *i.e.* , by July 20, 2008. If this condition is not met within one year of the effective date of final rulemaking, the conditional approval will automatically revert to a disapproval—as of the deadline for meeting the conditions—without further action from the EPA. A notice will be published in the **Federal Register** informing the public of a disapproval. In the event the conditional approval automatically reverts to a disapproval, the validity of allocations made under the SIP revision (including the treatment, of previously allocated 2009 NO X SIP Call allowances as 2009 CAIR ozone season allowances) before the date of such reversion to disapproval will not be affected. If Michigan submits final and effective rule revisions correcting the deficiencies as discussed above within one year from this conditional approval being final and effective, EPA will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice to acknowledge this and to convert the conditional approval to a full approval. VI. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Michigan's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision submitted on July 16, 2007. Michigan is covered by the CAIR FIP, which requires 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 FIP, Michigan adopts provisions for allocating allowances under the CAIR FIP NO X annual and ozone season trading programs. In addition, Michigan adopts in the abbreviated SIP revision provisions that establish a methodology for allocating allowances in the CSP, expand the applicability provisions for the CAIR FIP NO X ozone season trading program, and allow for individual non-EGUs to opt into the CAIR FIP NO X annual and NO X ozone season cap-and-trade programs. As provided for in the CAIR FIP, these provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision will replace or supplement the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIP in Michigan. The abbreviated SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and (ee), with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions. EPA is not proposing to make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is proposing, to the extent EPA approves Michigan's SIP revision, to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval. 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 dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. 40 CFR Part 97 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Dated: September 4, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-18026 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 176 Wednesday, September 12, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Title II Resource Advisory Committee Meeting Advisory AGENCY: Colville National Forest, USDA, Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Colville National Forest's Resource Advisory Committee has scheduled a meeting to occur in Colville, Washington. The purpose of the meeting is to provide recommendations for Title II projects to be funded by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, more commonly known as Payments to Counties, in Fiscal Year 2008. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 26, 2007, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. A public input session will be provided. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. The Designated Federal Official may choose to cancel this meeting if appropriate. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Colville Campus of Community Colleges of Spokane—Colville Center, 985 South Elm Street, Colville, WA 99114. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Brazell, Forest Supervisory, the Designated Federal Official for the Colville National Forest Resource Advisory Committee. Colville National Forest, 765 South Main Street, Colville, WA 99114, 509-684-7000 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is open to the public. Project discussion will be limited to Resource Advisory Committee members and Forest Service personnel. However, a public input session will be provided on the agenda, and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time. Dated: September 6, 2007. Donald N. Gonzalez, Acting Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-4463 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 54

Traces to 54 documents

U.S. Code