Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 197 / Friday, October 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 58013 

■ d. In paragraph (e)(1), removing ‘‘and 

maintain the record for 3 years’’. 

■ e. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), adding 

‘‘further suspend or’’ before ‘‘cancel’’

and ‘‘suspension or’’ before 

‘‘cancellation’’. 

■ f. Redesignating paragraph (g) as 

paragraph (h). 

■ g. Adding new paragraph (g). 

■ h. In redesignated paragraph (h), 

adding ‘‘suspension or’’ before 

‘‘termination’’, and by removing the last 

sentence of the paragraph. 

■ i. Adding a parenthetical at the end of 

the section. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 14.633 Termination of accreditation of 

agents, attorneys, and representatives. 

(a) Accreditation may be suspended 

or canceled at the request of an agent, 

attorney, representative, or organization. 

When an organization requests 

suspension or cancellation of the 

accreditation of a representative due to 

misconduct or lack of competence on 

the part of the representative or because 

the representative resigned to avoid 

suspension or cancellation of 

accreditation for misconduct or lack of 

competence, the organization shall 

inform VA of the reason for the request 

for suspension or cancellation and the 

facts and circumstances surrounding 

any incident that led to the request. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) As to representatives, suspend 

accreditation immediately and notify 

the representative and the 

representative’s organization of the 

interim suspension and of an intent to 

cancel or continue suspension of 

accreditation. The notice to the 

representative will also state the reasons 

for the interim suspension and 

impending cancellation or continuation 

of suspension, and inform the 

representative of a right to request a 

hearing on the matter or to submit 

additional evidence within 10 working 

days following receipt of such notice. 

Such time may be extended for a 

reasonable period upon a showing of 

sufficient cause. 

* * * * * 

(g) The General Counsel may suspend 

the accreditation of a representative, 

agent, or attorney, under paragraphs (b), 

(c), or (d) of this section, for a definite 

period or until the conditions for 

reinstatement specified by the General 

Counsel are satisfied. The General 

Counsel shall reinstate an individual’s 

accreditation at the end of the 

suspension period or upon verification 

that the individual has satisfied the 

conditions for reinstatement. 

* * * * * 

(The Office of Management and Budget has 

approved the information collections 

requirements in this section control number 

2900–0018.) 

[FR Doc. E7–20211 Filed 10–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0657; FRL–8479–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan; 

San Francisco Bay Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action under the Clean Air Act to 

approve a revision to the San Francisco 

Bay Area portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision consists of transportation 

conformity criteria and procedures 

related to interagency consultation and 

enforceability of certain transportationrelated control measures and mitigation 

measures. The intended effect is to 

update the transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures in the applicable 

SIP. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 11, 2007 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by November 13, 2007. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0657, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas 

(Air–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3964, vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. Transportation Conformity 

II. Background for This Action 

A. Federal Requirements 

B. San Francisco Bay Area Conformity SIP 

III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

IV. Public Comment and Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

under section 176(c) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) to ensure that 

federally supported highway, transit 

projects, and other activities are 

consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the 

purpose of the SIP. Conformity 

currently applies to areas that are 

designated nonattainment, and to areas 

that have been redesignated to 

attainment after 1990 (maintenance 

areas) with plans developed under 

section 175A of the Act, for the 

following transportation related criteria 

pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter 

(PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide 

(CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). 

Conformity to the purpose of the SIP 

means that transportation activities will 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
58014 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 197 / Friday, October 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Sacramento Area Council of Governments 

(SACOG) is the MPO for the Sacramento area. The 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 

and SACOG, in consultation with the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the 

California Air Resources Board, and the Governor’s 

office, have developed and signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) for undertaking 

conformity analysis in eastern Solano County. This 

MOU, approved and adopted by MTC in Resolution 

No. 2611 on September 22, 1993, was included as 

Appendix A to the San Francisco Bay Area 

interagency consultation procedures that we 

approved into the California SIP on October 21, 

1997 (62 FR 54587). 

2CARB’s December 20, 2006 SIP revision 

submittal does not include the MOU concerning 

conformity analyses in eastern Solano County and 

thus does not entirely supersede the previouslyapproved interagency consultation procedures. 

With today’s action, the previously-approved MOU 

will continue to be a part of the applicable 

California SIP. It is our understanding that a 

revision to the MOU will be submitted as a SIP 

revision. If approved, it will supersede the 

previously approved MOU. 

not cause new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the relevant 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The transportation 

conformity regulation is found in 40 

CFR part 93 and provisions related to 

conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 

51.390. 

II. Background for This Action 

A. Federal Requirements 

EPA promulgated the Federal 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures (the conformity rule) on 

November 24, 1993. See 58 FR 62188. 

Among other things, the rule required 

states to address all provisions of the 

conformity rule in their SIPs 

(‘‘conformity SIPs’’). Under 40 CFR 

51.390, most sections of the conformity 

rule were required to be copied 

verbatim. States were also required to 

tailor all or portions of the following 

three sections of the conformity rule to 

meet their state’s individual 

circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105, which 

addresses consultation procedures; 40 

CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses 

written commitments to control 

measures that are not included in a 

metropolitan planning organization’s 

(MPO’s) transportation plan and 

transportation improvement program 

that must be obtained prior to a 

conformity determination, and the 

requirement that such commitments, 

when they exist, must be fulfilled; and 

40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses 

written commitments to mitigation 

measures that must be obtained prior to 

a project-level conformity 

determination, and the requirement that 

project sponsors must comply with such 

commitments, when they exist. 

On August 10, 2005, the ‘‘Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users’’ (SAFETEA–LU) was signed into 

law. SAFETEA–LU revised section 

176(c) of the Clean Air Act’s 

transportation conformity provisions. 

One of the changes streamlines the 

requirements for conformity SIPs. Under 

SAFETEA–LU, states are required to 

address and tailor only three sections of 

the conformity rule in their conformity 

SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii), and, 40 CFR 93.125(c), 

described above. In general, states are 

no longer required to submit conformity 

SIP revisions that address the other 

sections of the conformity rule. These 

changes took effect on August 10, 2005, 

when SAFETEA–LU was signed into 

law. 

B. San Francisco Bay Area Conformity 

SIP 

For transportation planning purposes, 

the San Francisco Bay Area is defined 

as the nine California counties of 

Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, 

San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, 

Solano, and Sonoma. All but the eastern 

half of Solano County and the northern 

half of Sonoma County lie within the 

San Francisco Bay Area 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The eastern half of 

Solano County is also designated 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS 

but is included in the Sacramento 

Metropolitan air quality planning area.1

The northern half of Sonoma County is 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

ozone. A portion of the San Francisco 

Bay Area referred to as ‘‘urbanized 

areas’’ was redesignated from 

nonattainment to attainment for the CO 

NAAQS in 1998 and is subject to a 

maintenance plan. Areas within the San 

Francisco Bay Area but outside 

‘‘urbanized areas’’ are designated as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the CO 

NAAQS. The San Francisco Bay Area is 

considered unclassifiable/attainment for 

the other NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305 

for California air quality planning areas 

and designations. 

On December 16, 1996, the Governor’s 

designee for SIP submittals, the 

California Air Resources Board (ARB), 

submitted ‘‘The San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Conformity Procedures’’

(‘‘conformity procedures’’) and ‘‘The 

San Francisco Bay Area Transportation 

Air Quality Conformity Protocol—

Interagency Consultation Procedures’’

(‘‘consultation procedures’’), together 

referred to as the ‘‘San Francisco Bay 

Area conformity SIP’’ to EPA. EPA 

approved the San Francisco Bay Area 

conformity SIP on October 21, 1997. See 

62 FR 54587. ARB submitted a revision 

to the San Francisco Bay Area 

conformity SIP on August 6, 1998. EPA 

did not act on that submittal. 

Subsequent to SAFETEA–LU being 

enacted, the co-lead agencies for air 

quality planning in the San Francisco 

Bay Area—Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD), 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC), and Association of 

Bay Area Governments (ABAG)—

revised the San Francisco Bay Area 

conformity SIP to reflect the SAFETEA–

LU changes and to clarify interagency 

consultation procedures. Resolutions 

approving the revised transportation 

conformity criteria and procedures, 

referred to as the transportation 

conformity protocol, were adopted by 

the BAAQMD Board of Directors on July 

19, 2006, by the ABAG Executive Board 

on July 20, 2006, and by the MTC 

Commission on July 26, 2006. MTC 

subsequently forwarded the 

transportation conformity protocol to 

ARB, and ARB adopted and submitted 

the protocol to EPA as a revision to the 

California SIP on December 20, 2006. 

The December 20, 2006 SIP revision 

submittal supersedes the August 6, 1998 

submittal. 

III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

The SIP revision submitted to EPA on 

December 20, 2006, consists of the San 

Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air 

Quality Conformity Protocol—

Conformity Procedures and Interagency 

Consultation Procedures. The submittal 

documents public notice and hearing for 

this SIP revision in compliance with 

CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102. 

The submittal also contains a request 

that we delete the analogous SIPapproved conformity procedures, which 

are no longer required under SAFETEA–

LU, and replace them with the 

submitted language that addresses 40 

CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c). 

When the SIP-approved conformity 

procedures are rescinded, the Federal 

transportation conformity regulations 

will apply, except for those sections 

addressed by the current submittal. EPA 

approval of these changes is consistent 

with Federal law and regulations, and 

will obviate the need for SIP revisions 

that would have otherwise been 

triggered by changes to the underlying 

Federal regulations. 

The submittal also includes 

provisions that would replace the SIPapproved interagency consultation 

procedures with revised procedures.2

The changes to the interagency 

consultation procedures include the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 197 / Friday, October 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 58015 

addition of more detail regarding the 

consultation structure and procedures 

for regional transportation plan and 

transportation improvement program 

updates and amendments, clarification 

of agency roles and responsibilities for 

the conformity and SIP consultation 

processes, and additional detail 

regarding consultation on conformity 

analyses. 

We have reviewed the submittal to 

assure consistency with the Clean Air 

Act as amended by SAFETEA–LU and 

EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 and 40 

CFR 51.390) governing state procedures 

for transportation conformity and 

interagency consultation and have 

concluded that the submittal is 

approvable. Details of our review are set 

forth in a technical support document 

(TSD), which has been included in the 

docket for this action. Specifically, in 

our TSD, we identify how the submitted 

procedures satisfy our requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency 

consultation with respect to the 

development of transportation plans 

and programs, SIPs, and conformity 

determinations, the resolution of 

conflicts, and the provision of adequate 

public consultation, and our 

requirements under 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for 

enforceability of control measures and 

mitigation measures. 

IV. Public Comment and Final Action 

Under section 110(k) of the Act, and 

for the reasons set forth above, EPA is 

taking action to approve the San 

Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air 

Quality Conformity Protocol—

Conformity Procedures and Interagency 

Consultation Procedures, as a revision 

to the California SIP. As a result of this 

action, the Bay Area’s previously SIPapproved conformity protocol will be 

replaced by the procedures adopted by 

BAAQMD on July 19, 2006, by ABAG 

on July 20, 2006, and by MTC on July 

26, 2006, and submitted by ARB to EPA 

on December 20, 2006. 

We do not think anyone will object to 

this approval, so we are finalizing it 

without proposing it in advance. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of this Federal Register, we are 

simultaneously proposing approval of 

the same submittal. If we receive 

adverse comments by November 13, 

2007, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that the direct final 

approval will not take effect and we will 

address the comments in a subsequent 

final action based on the proposal. If we 

do not receive timely adverse 

comments, the direct final approval will 

be effective without further notice on 

December 11, 2007. This will 

incorporate these transportation 

conformity procedures into the federally 

enforceable SIP and thereby replace the 

previous version of the procedures 

approved on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 

54587) in the San Francisco Bay Area 

portion of the California SIP except for 

the MOU covering eastern Solano 

County. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves state law implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 11, 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
58016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 197 / Friday, October 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 20, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(349) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(349) San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Conformity Procedures and 

Interagency Consultation Procedures 

was submitted on December 20, 2006, 

by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Association of Bay Area 

Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), and Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC). 

(1) The San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Conformity Procedures (July 

26, 2006) and San Francisco Bay Area 

Transportation Air Quality Conformity 

Protocol—Interagency Consultation 

Procedures (July 26, 2006), adopted by 

BAAQMD on July 19, 2006, by ABAG 

on July 20, 2006, and by MTC on July 

26, 2006. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–20059 Filed 10–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0360–200737; FRL–

8478–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; Clean 

Air Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on 

March 16, 2007. This revision addresses 

the requirements of EPA’s Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) promulgated on 

May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised 

on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 

2006. EPA has determined that the SIP 

revision fully implements the CAIR 

requirements for Florida. As a result of 

this action, EPA will also withdraw, 

through a separate rulemaking, the CAIR 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) 

concerning sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) annual, and NOX

ozone season emissions for Florida. The 

CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR 

region were promulgated on April 28, 

2006, and subsequently revised on 

December 13, 2006. 

CAIR requires States to reduce 

emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

significantly contribute to, and interfere 

with maintenance of, the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for fine particulates (PM2.5) 

and/or ozone in any downwind state. 

CAIR establishes State budgets for SO2

and NOX and requires States to submit 

SIP revisions that implement these 

budgets in States that EPA concluded 

did contribute to nonattainment in 

downwind states. States have the 

flexibility to choose which control 

measures to adopt to achieve the 

budgets, including participating in the 

EPA-administered cap-and-trade 

programs. In the SIP revision that EPA 

is approving today, Florida has met the 

CAIR requirements by electing to 

participate in the EPA-administered 

cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2, 

NOX annual, and NOX ozone season 

emissions. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0360. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 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: 

Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9042. 

Ms. Harder can also be reached via 

electronic mail at harder.stacy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR 

and the CAIR FIPs? 

III. What Are the General Requirements of 

CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? 

IV. Analysis of Florida’s CAIR SIP Submittal 

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations 

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs 

C. NOX Allowance Allocations 

D. Allocation of NOX Allowances From 

Compliance Supplement Pool 

E. Individual Opt-in Units 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

a revision to Florida’s SIP submitted on 

March 16, 2007. In its SIP revision, 

Florida has met the CAIR requirements 

by requiring certain electric generating 

units (EGUs) to participate in the EPAadministered State CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs addressing SO2, NOX annual, 

and NOX ozone season emissions. 

Florida’s regulations adopt by reference 

most of the provisions of EPA’s SO2, 

NOX annual, and NOX ozone season 

model trading rules, with certain 

changes discussed below. EPA has 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES