51792 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

encourages states to develop their own 

plan, or to request delegation of the 

Federal plan, as NJDEP has done. 

E. What Guidance Did EPA Use To 

Evaluate NJDEP’s Delegation Request? 

EPA evaluated NJDEP’s request for 

delegation of the three Federal plans 

pursuant to EPA’s Delegation Manual. 

Under EPA’s Delegation Manual, item 

7–139, the Regional Administrator is 

authorized to delegate implementation 

and enforcement of sections 111(d)/129 

Federal plans to state environmental 

agencies. The requirements and 

limitations of a delegation agreement are 

defined in item 7–139. The Regional 

Administrator may consider delegating 

authority to implement and enforce 

Federal plans to a state provided all of 

the following conditions are met by the 

state: (1) The state does not already have 

an EPA approved State plan; (2) the 

state has submitted a written request for 

delegation authority and has 

demonstrated that it has satisfied EPA’s 

criteria for delegation including, at a 

minimum, a demonstration of adequate 

resources and legal and enforcement 

authority to administer and enforce the 

Federal plan at issue; and (3) the state 

has entered into a MOA with the 

Regional Administrator that sets forth 

the terms, conditions and effective date 

of the delegation, and that serves as the 

mechanism for the transfer of authority. 

New Jersey met all of EPA’s delegation 

requirements. The reader may view New 

Jersey’s letter to EPA requesting 

delegation and the MOAs signed by 

both parties at the following Web site: 

www.regulations.gov. 

II. What Is EPA’s Conclusion? 

EPA has evaluated New Jersey’s 

submittal for consistency with the Act, 

EPA regulations, and EPA policy. New 

Jersey has met all the requirements of 

EPA’s guidance for obtaining delegation 

of authority to implement and enforce 

the three Federal plans. New Jersey 

entered into a MOA with EPA and it 

became effective on May 15, 2006. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve New Jersey’s request dated May 

13, 2005 for delegation of authority of 

the three Federal plans for existing 

sources of HMIWI, Small MWC and 

MSW Landfills. EPA will continue to 

retain enforcement authority along with 

NJDEP and EPA will continue to retain 

certain specific authorities reserved to 

EPA in individual Federal plans and as 

indicated in each MOA (e.g., authority 

to approve major alternatives to test 

methods or monitoring, etc). 

III. 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 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 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 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 plan submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a plan 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

plan submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the 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 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Dated: August 21, 2006. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 06–7317 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2005–CT–0001; A–1–FRL–

8209–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; VOC Regulations and 

One-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Shortfall 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. This revision establishes 

requirements to reduce volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

portable fuel containers, automotive 

refinishing operations, and gasoline 

dispensing facilities. The intended 

effect of this action is to propose 

approval of these requirements into the 

Connecticut SIP. This action also 

proposes approval of these control 

measures, along with a previously 

approved control measure, as fulfilling 

the shortfall in emission reductions 

identified in Connecticut’s one-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration SIP. 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 51793 

EPA is taking this action in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 2, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–

OAR–2005–CT–0001 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2005–CT–

0001,’’ Anne Arnold, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code 

CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), 

Boston, MA 02114–2023. 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, excluding legal 

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: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, One Congress Street, 

11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–

2023. Phone: 617–918–1664, Fax: (617) 

918–0664, E-mail: 

burkhart.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal 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 no 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. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

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. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: July 31, 2006. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 06–7311 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0630; FRL–8215–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Monitoring and Volatile Organic 

Compound Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing full 

approval of some revisions and a 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

other revisions to the Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources portion of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern definitions, organic 

solvent controls, and various monitoring 

regulations. We are proposing action on 

state provisions that regulate emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (Act or CAA). We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 2, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0630, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), 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. 

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: Julie 

A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–

4126. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What regulations did the State submit? 

B. What is the regulatory history of the 

Nevada SIP? 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations? 

B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the regulation deficiencies? 

D. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the regulations 

E. Proposed action and public comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What regulations did the State 

submit? 

The Governor’s designee, the Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP), submitted a large 

revision to the applicable state 

implementation plan (SIP) on January 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS