Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Notices 2877 

Docket Numbers: ER07–425–000. 

Applicants: American Electric Power 

Service Corporation. 

Description: American Electric Power 

Service Corp submits notices of, 

cancellation for two ERCOT Generation 

Interconnection, Agreements between 

AEP TCC and La Palma WLE, LP and, 

AEP TCC and Lon C. Hill. 

Filed Date: 01/12/2007. 

Accession Number: 20070116–0051. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Friday, February 02, 2007. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following foreign utility 

company status filings: 

Docket Numbers: FC07–6–000. 

Applicants: Nuovo Pignone s.p.a. 

Description: Nuovo Pignone s.p.a. 

submits a notice for Self-Certification, of 

Foreign Utility Company Status 

pursuant to Section 366.1, of the 

Commission’s regulations. 

Filed Date: 12/29/2006. 

Accession Number: 20070110–0085. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Friday, January 19, 2007. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric 

reliability filings: 

Docket Numbers: RR06–1–005. 

Applicants: North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation. 

Description: North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation submits a, 

compliance filing in response to the 

Commission’s order, issued 10/30/06. 

Filed Date: 01/12/2007. 

Accession Number: 20070112–5032. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Friday, February 02, 2007. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 

and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. It 

is not necessary to separately intervene 

again in a subdocket related to a 

compliance filing if you have previously 

intervened in the same docket. Protests 

will be considered by the Commission 

in determining the appropriate action to 

be taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Anyone filing a motion to intervene or 

protest must serve a copy of that 

document on the Applicant. In reference 

to filings initiating a new proceeding, 

interventions or protests submitted on 

or before the comment deadline need 

not be served on persons other than the 

Applicant. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper, using the 

FERC Online links at http:// 

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 

service, persons with Internet access 

who will eFile a document and/or be 

listed as a contact for an intervenor 

must create and validate an 

eRegistration account using the 

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling 

link to log on and submit the 

intervention or protests. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 14 copies 

of the intervention or protest to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

The filings in the above proceedings 

are accessible in the Commission’s 

eLibrary system by clicking on the 

appropriate link in the above list. They 

are also available for review in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room in 

Washington, DC. There is an 

eSubscription link on the Web site that 

enables subscribers to receive e-mail 

notification when a document is added 

to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance 

with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or 

call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, 

call (202) 502–8659. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–874 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[Regional Docket Nos. II–2006–01; FRL–

8272–4] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition for Objection to 

State Operating Permit for Marcal 

Paper Mills, Inc. 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final decision 

concerning a State operating permit. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

decision the EPA Administrator has 

made. It responds to a citizen petition 

submitted by the Rutgers Environmental 

Law Clinic (RELC) on behalf of a 

number of petitioners. The petition 

requests EPA to object to an operating 

permit issued to the Marcal Paper Mills, 

Inc. (‘‘Marcal’’) by the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP). The Administrator has partially 

granted and partially denied the subject 

petition. 

Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (Act), petitioners may 

seek judicial review of those portions of 

the petition which EPA denied in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit. Pursuant to section 

307 of the Act, any petition for review 

shall be filed within 60 days from the 

date this notice appears in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

the final order, the petition, and all 

relevant information at the EPA Region 

2 Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. If you wish to 

examine these documents, you should 

make an appointment at least 24 hours 

before visiting day. Additionally, the 

final order for Marcal is available 

electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

region07/programs/artd/air/title5/ 

petitiondb/petitiondb2002.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Riva, Chief, Permitting Section, 

Air Programs Branch, Division of 

Environmental Planning and Protection, 

EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, telephone (212) 637–4074. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review 

and object, as appropriate, to operating 

permits proposed by State permitting 

authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act 

authorizes any person to petition the 

EPA Administrator within 60 days after 

the expiration of this review period to 

object to State operating permits if EPA 

has not done so. Petitions must be based 

only on objections to the permit that 

were raised with reasonable specificity 

during the public comment period 

provided by the State, unless the 

petitioner demonstrates that it was 

impracticable to raise those issues 

during the comment period or the 

grounds for the issues arose after this 

period. 

On March 1, 2006, EPA Region 2 

received a petition from RELC on behalf 

of a number of petitioners requesting 

that EPA object to the title V operating 

permit issued to Marcal on the 

following bases: (1) The permit is not 

accompanied by a statement of basis 

that is understandable, available to the 

public and describes the past 

compliance history of the facility and 

permitting decisions by DEP; (2) the 

permit fails to include a compliance 

schedule containing the terms of the 

settlement agreement between Marcal 

and DEP dated June 20, 2005 that are 

required to satisfy pending violations; 

(3) the permit fails to impose sufficient 

opacity monitoring, such as continuous 

opacity monitoring, to assure 

compliance with particulate matter 

limits; (4) the permit fails to require 

continuous emissions monitoring or 

more frequent stack testing to monitor 

VOC and NOX; (5) the DEP did not 

mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

2878 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Notices 

adequately address the environmental 

justice issue raised by Petitioners as is 

required by state and federal 

environmental justice executive orders; 

and (6) the DEP did not adequately 

address issues raised by Petitioners 

during the public hearing. On November 

30, 2006, the Administrator issued an 

order granting on the issue of Statement 

of Basis and denying on the other 

issues. The order explains EPA’s 

reasons for granting on the Statement of 

Basis issue and for denying the 

remaining issues. 

Dated: January 4, 2007. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E7–818 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[MI–88–1; FRL–8272–8] 

Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets for Four Areas in 

Michigan for Transportation 

Conformity Purposes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy. 

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is 

notifying the public that EPA has found 

that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for four areas across 

the state of Michigan are adequate for 

conformity purposes. On March 2, 1999, 

the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that 

submitted State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) cannot be used for conformity 

determinations until EPA has 

affirmatively found them adequate. As a 

result of our finding, the Flint 

(consisting of Genesee and Lapeer 

Counties), Muskegon County, Berrien 

County, and Cass County areas can use 

the (MVEBs) for future conformity 

determinations. These budgets are 

effective February 7, 2007. The finding 

and the response to comments will be 

available at EPA’s conformity Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm, 

(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’

button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review 

of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, Criteria 

Pollutant Section (AR–18J), Air 

Programs Branch, Air and Radiation 

Division, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–8777, 

Maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

Background 

Today’s action is simply an 

announcement of a finding that we have 

already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter 

to the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality on November 29, 

2006, stating that the 2018 (MVEBs) in 

the Flint, Muskegon County, Berrien 

County, and Cass County areas are 

adequate. Michigan submitted the 

budgets as part of the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation requests and maintenance 

plans for these areas. This finding was 

announced on EPA’s conformity Web 

site, and received no comments: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm, 

(once there, click on ‘‘What SIP 

submissions are currently under EPA 

adequacy review?’’). 

The 2018 (MVEBs), in tons per day, 

for volatile organic compounds and 

oxides of nitrogen for these areas are as 

follows: 

Area 2018 VOC 

MVEB (tpd) 

2018 NOX

MVEB (tpd) 

Flint .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25.68 37.99 

Muskegon County .................................................................................................................................................... 6.67 11.00 

Berrien County ......................................................................................................................................................... 9.16 15.19 

Cass County ............................................................................................................................................................ 2.76 3.40 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA’s conformity rule requires that 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans and establishes 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they do. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. 

The criteria by which we determine 

whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission 

budgets are adequate for conformity 

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4). Please note that an 

adequacy review is separate from EPA’s 

completeness review, and it also should 

not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate 

approval of the SIP. Even if we find a 

budget adequate, the SIP could later be 

disapproved. 

We’ve described our process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 

memo titled ‘‘Conformity Guidance on 

Implementation of March 2, 1999 

Conformity Court Decision’’). We 

followed this guidance in making our 

adequacy determination. 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Mary A. Gade, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–919 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[IL228–2; FRL–8272–7] 

Notice of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Final Determination for 

Indeck-Elwood, LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal action. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

EPA is withdrawing the Notice of Final 

Agency Action of November 22, 2006 

(71 FR 67560), for the Indeck-Elwood, 

LLC Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit, because the 

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) 

remanded the permit in part. On 

September 27, 2006, the EAB of the EPA 

denied in part, and remanded in part, a 

petition for review of a federal PSD 

permit issued to Indeck-Elwood, LLC by 

the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency. According to 40 CFR part 124, 

a final permit decision shall be issued 

by the Regional Administrator when the 

EAB issues a decision on the merits of 

the appeal and the decision does not 

include a remand of the proceedings. 

Because the EAB’s decision on this 

permit appeal included a partial 

remand, there is not yet a final agency 

action subject to review. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES