19834 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Pollution Control Project provision that 

was in the original version of the rules. 

The Pollution Control Project provision 

has been vacated. However, this section 

will remain in the rules in case it is 

needed for reference in the future. We 

propose to approve this provision into 

the SIP. 

Section 36 

This section states the date rule AM–

06–04 becomes effective by WDNR. The 

date will be the first day of the month 

following publication in the Wisconsin 

administrative register. Also, WDNR 

will not publish the rule until EPA 

approves it. 

Section 37 

This section contains the date the rule 

is approved to be adopted by the State 

of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is proposing to approve into the 

Wisconsin State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) the revisions to WDNR’s PSD and 

Non-attainment NSR construction 

permits program submitted by WDNR 

on May 25, 2006. These revisions meet 

the minimum program requirements of 

the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR 

Reform rulemaking. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, September 30, 1993), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

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.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

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). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

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. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or the use of energy, 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). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 

note, requires federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 11, 2007. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–7541 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0609; FRL–8302–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; New Source Review 

Reform ‘‘Linkage’’ Rule, Rule AM–32–

04b 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

as a revision to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) changes to 

the minor New Source Review (NSR) 

construction permit program and 

permits fees schedule, through rule 

AM–32–04b. The purpose of rule AM–

32–04b is to update Wisconsin’s minor 

NSR construction permit program to 

include changes to implement the new 

elements of the federal ‘‘NSR Reform’’

rules for sources that are exempt from 

major NSR permitting requirements. 

Rule AM–32–04b has been created to 

accompany the ‘‘NSR Reform’’ rules and 

is necessary to effectively implement 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19835 

the ‘‘NSR Reform’’ rules. Elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register, EPA is 

proposing to approve Wisconsin’s ‘‘NSR 

Reform’’ rules. WDNR has also 

established a new fee schedule that will 

apply to facilities that meet the criteria 

in rule AM–32–04b. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2006–0609, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312)886–5824. 

• Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch, 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Air Permits 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–2006–

0609. 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 email 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 instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

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 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 Danny 

Marcus, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–8781 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer, 

Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–8781, 

marcus.danny@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Is Being Addressed In This 

Document? 

III. What Are The Changes That EPA Is 

Proposing To Approve? 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Is Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

We are proposing to approve changes 

to the minor NSR construction permit 

program and permits fees schedule of 

the State of Wisconsin, enacted through 

rule AM–32–04b. EPA granted full 

approval to WDNR’s non-attainment 

NSR (NANSR) program on January 18, 

1995 (60 FR 3538) and the approval 

became effective on February 17, 1995. 

The January 18, 1995, approval also 

included WDNR’s minor NSR program, 

which was incorporated by reference 

into Wisconsin’s SIP. 

The rule revision being proposed for 

approval in this action is referred to as 

the ‘‘linkage’’ rule and has been created 

to update Wisconsin’s minor NSR 

construction permit program to include 

changes to implement the new elements 

of the federal ‘‘NSR Reform’’ rules for 

sources that are exempt from major NSR 

permitting requirements. EPA published 

the ‘‘NSR Reform’’ regulations, which 

include revisions to the federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and NANSR regulations, in the 

Federal Register on December 31, 2002, 

which became effective March 3, 2003. 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s ‘‘NSR Reform’’ rules. 

The rule revision will affect those 

facilities seeking an exemption from the 

major NSR program as a result of the 

actual-to-projected-actual applicability 

test, and facilities complying with plantwide applicability limitations (PALs). 

This rule revision also establishes a new 

fee schedule for facilities utilizing PALs 

and for facilities seeking an exemption 

determination. 

This rule revision contains a 

provision that will be applicable to the 

major source facilities that are exempt 

from major NSR when applying the 

actual-to-projected-actual applicability 

test in circumstances where the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19836 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

calculated difference between projected 

actual emissions and baseline actual 

emissions does not exceed significant 

thresholds. Facilities that meet this 

criterion will also have to meet the 

criteria in the linkage package in order 

to be eligible for the exemption. The 

criteria consists of: (1) The modification 

will not cause or exacerbate an 

exceedance of an ambient air quality 

increment or standard; (2) the 

modification will not trigger a New 

Source Performance Standard (NSPS) or 

a National Emissions for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) standard; and, (3) 

the modification will not require 

enforceable conditions to limit potential 

to emit. 

PALs were created so that a facility 

could make rapid, iterative changes 

optimizing process performance, 

without the administrative time delays 

and uncertainty associated with 

permitting. The PAL is believed to 

provide for environmental improvement 

since its cap-based framework 

encourages emission reductions and 

pollution prevention. In rule AM–32–

04b, WDNR provides additional 

clarification for facilities that choose to 

operate under a PAL. EPA has not 

provided provisions for sources 

operating under a PAL in certain 

circumstances. Any facility which 

establishes a PAL, or will distribute 

allowable emissions following 

expiration of a PAL, will comply with 

the provision section NR 406.035 and 

will need a minor NSR construction 

permit. 

This rule revision contains a 

provision that will apply to sources 

modifying their facility under a PAL. In 

order to be eligible for this exemption, 

the source also has to meet the 

following criteria: (1) The modification 

will not cause or exacerbate an 

exceedance of an ambient air quality 

increment or standard; (2) the 

modification will not trigger a NSPS or 

NESHAP standard; (3) the modification 

does not consist of the construction of 

a new emissions unit which is a 

significant emissions unit under section 

NR 405.18(2)(h), of the Wisconsin PSD 

program, or section NR 408.11(2)(h), of 

the Wisconsin NANSR program, and 

which has been operating for less than 

two years, or does not consist of the 

construction of a ‘‘major emissions 

unit’’; (4) the emissions from the source 

will be able to comply with the PAL; 

and, (5) any increase in emissions, due 

to the modification, in pollutants not 

regulated by the PAL will not exceed 

maximum theoretical emissions. 

WDNR has established into its rules a 

new fee schedule that will apply to 

facilities using PALs and to facilities 

applying for exemptions under the new 

provisions in this rule. A source will be 

responsible for paying a fee when 

establishing a PAL limit, increasing an 

existing PAL limit, and when required 

to distribute limits upon expiration of a 

PAL. Also, there are fees applicable to 

sources when seeking an exemption 

determination under the new provisions 

of this rule. 

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is 

Proposing To Approve? 

Rule AM–32–04b 

Section 1 

NR 406.035—Establishment or 

Distribution of Plant-Wide Applicability 

Limitations 

This provision was established by 

WDNR to require a facility to acquire a 

minor NSR construction permit when: 

(1) Establishing a PAL; and, (2) 

distributing allowable emissions 

following expiration of a PAL. In the 

Federal Register document that 

promulgated the ‘‘NSR Reform’’ rules, 

67 FR 80208, the section that contained 

the discussion on PALs did not 

specifically address how PALs should 

be established. However, the document 

states that a permitting authority must 

use a federally enforceable permit 

which may include using a minor NSR 

construction permit. 

Section 2 

NR 406.04(1f)—Modifications to 

Sources Under Plant-Wide Applicability 

Limitations 

WDNR has established this exemption 

provision for sources operating under a 

PAL which are seeking to modify their 

facility. This is consistent with the NSR 

Reform rules. They will not need a 

construction permit as long as the 

criteria in this provision is met: (1) The 

modification will not cause or 

exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient 

air quality increment or standard; (2) the 

modification will not trigger a NSPS or 

NESHAP standard; (3) the modification 

does not consist of the construction of 

a new emissions unit which is a 

significant emissions unit under section 

NR 405.18(2)(h), of the Wisconsin PSD 

program, or section NR 408.11(2)(h), of 

the Wisconsin NANSR program, and 

which has been operating for less than 

two years, or the construction of a 

‘‘major emissions unit’’; (4) the 

emissions from the source will be able 

to comply with the PAL; and, (5) any 

increase in emissions, due to the 

modification, of pollutants not regulated 

by the PAL, will not exceed maximum 

theoretical emissions. 

NR 406.04(1k)—Projects Evaluated for 

Significant Net Emissions Increase 

WDNR has established this exemption 

provision for sources that are modifying 

existing emission units at a major 

stationary source whose calculated 

difference between the projected actual 

emissions and baseline actual emissions 

does not exceed significant thresholds. 

The reform rules exempt any source 

meeting this criterion from acquiring a 

major NSR construction permit. This 

provision is consistent with the reform 

rules; it exempts a source from 

acquiring a permit to construct when 

the project meets the criteria stated in 

the provision. The criteria consist of: (1) 

The modification will not cause or 

exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient 

air quality increment or standard; (2) the 

modification will not trigger a NSPS or 

a NESHAP standard; and, (3) the 

modification will not require 

enforceable conditions to limit potential 

to emit. A source may still be required 

to apply for an operating permit before 

construction of the project begins. 

Section 3 

NR 406.07(3) 

This provision is being established so 

that any source that undergoes a 

modification that is exempt from the 

requirement to obtain a construction 

permit under sections NR 406.04 (1f) 

and (1k) shall be treated as a new or 

modified source for the purposes of the 

emission limitations under chapters NR 

400 to 499, unless the modification is 

excluded from being considered a 

modification under section NR 

406.04(4). The purpose of section NR 

406.07(3) is to allow sources to take 

advantage of the federal reform rules 

without being exempted from meeting 

updated requirements of other rules in 

the Wisconsin SIP. This provision will 

allow any emission unit being modified 

under the applicability test or PAL 

provision to be exempt from permitting 

without being exempt from other 

Wisconsin SIP provisions. As a result, 

facilities will be able to take advantage 

of the flexibility provided by the federal 

NSR Reform rule, but will not be 

exempted from meeting updated 

requirements in other rules. 

Section 4 

NR 406.11(1m) 

WDNR has established this provision 

so that it may be able to open a 

construction permit for the purposes of 

decreasing a PAL limit. This is 

consistent with the federal NSR Reform 

rules. See 40 CFR 51.166(w)(8)(ii)(a) and 

40 CFR 51.165(f)(8)(ii)(A). 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19837 

Section 5 

NR 410.03(intro.)—Application Fee 

WDNR has modified this existing 

paragraph. The words, ‘‘under s. NR 

406.04(1)(i) * * *’’, have been deleted 

from the sentence, ‘‘Any person 

required under s. NR 406.04(1)(i) to 

obtain a determination of exemption 

from the department shall pay the basic 

fee under sub. (1)(b).’’ The fee will now 

apply to any facility requesting an 

exemption, and is not exclusive to 

section NR 406.04(1)(i) any longer. 

Section 6 

NR 410.03(1)(a)8. to 10. 

WDNR has established the fees 

associated with PALs in this provision. 

A facility will be responsible for a fee 

of $10,150 per pollutant when 

establishing a PAL limit. A fee of $4,850 

per pollutant will be applicable if a 

facility decides to increase a PAL limit. 

When a facility comes in for distribution 

of allowable limits following expiration 

of a PAL, a fee of $4,850 per pollutant 

will be applicable. 

Section 7 

NR 410.03(1)(b)1 

This provision was originally section 

NR 410.03(1)(b). The language was 

modified for consistency. 

Section 8 

NR 410.03(1)(b)(intro.) and 2. to 4. 

WDNR has reestablished section NR 

410.03. This provision explains the fees 

associated with acquiring an exemption 

under sections NR 406.04 (1f) and (1k). 

A facility will be subject to a fee of 

$1,100 per pollutant when seeking an 

exemption under section NR 406.04(1f), 

and a fee of $4,400 per pollutant when 

seeking an exemption under section NR 

406.04(1k). There is also a fee of $700 

per pollutant for any facility which 

needs a detailed air quality modeling 

analysis for any determination of 

exemption under sections NR 406.04 

(1f) and (1k). 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is proposing to approve into the 

Wisconsin SIP, rule AM–32–04b, 

changes to the minor New Source 

Review (NSR) construction permit 

program and permits fees schedule. 

Rule AM–32–04b will update 

Wisconsin’s minor NSR construction 

permit program to include changes to 

implement the new elements of the 

federal ‘‘NSR Reform’’ rules for sources 

that are exempt from major NSR 

permitting requirements. This new rule 

will be necessary for AM–06–04, the 

adopted version of the NSR Reform rule, 

to be implemented appropriately. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, September 30, 1993), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

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.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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). 

Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

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 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

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). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

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. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or the use of energy, 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). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 

note, requires federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19838 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: April 11, 2007. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–7545 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 70 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0090; FRL–8303–4] 

Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval 

of Revisions to the State of Hawaii 

Operating Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the State of Hawaii’s 

(‘‘Hawaii’’ or ‘‘State’’) operating permit 

program that amend Hawaii’s 

regulations for insignificant emissions 

units (IEUs). In an April 1, 2002 Notice 

of Deficiency published in the Federal 

Register, EPA notified Hawaii of EPA’s 

finding that Hawaii’s provisions for 

IEUs did not meet minimum Federal 

requirements. Hawaii has revised its 

program to correct the deficiency 

identified in the Notice of Deficiency 

and this action proposes full approval of 

those revisions. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0090, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: Rios.Gerardo@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver to: Gerardo Rios, 

Permits Office Chief, Air Division (AIR–

3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available in 

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Baker, EPA Region IX, at (415) 

972–3979, (Baker.Robert@epa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses revisions to the 

following local rule, 11–60.1–82(e), in 

State of Hawaii operating permits 

program. In the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

approving the revision in direct final 

action without prior proposal because 

we believe the revisions made to the 

program to resolve the Notice of 

Deficiency are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in a subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule, we may adopt as final those 

provisions of the revision that are not 

the subject of the adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E7–7549 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7714] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Technical information or 

comments are requested on the 

proposed Base (1% annual chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFEs modifications for the communities 

listed below. The BFEs are the basis for 

the floodplain management measures 

that the community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

remain qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

DATES: The comment period is ninety 

(90) days following the second 

publication of this proposed rule in a 

newspaper of local circulation in each 

community. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 

Management Section, Mitigation 

Division, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own, or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State or regional entities. These 

proposed elevations are used to meet 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS