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final rule will be withdrawn and all 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
51794 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA 

section 110(c) in substitution of disapproved State 

provisions are referred to as Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs). 

12, 2006. On March 23, 2006, the 

Nevada SIP submittal dated January 12, 

2006 was found to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

The primary purpose of these 

revisions is to clarify and harmonize 

State and federally-enforceable 

requirements. Because these revisions 

incorporate so many changes from the 

1970s and 1980s vintage SIP 

regulations, EPA has decided to review 

and act on the submittal in a series of 

separate actions. The first such action 

(mostly related to definitions, sulfur 

dioxide rules, and burning rules) was 

finalized in the Federal Register on 

March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15040). A second 

action (related to state statutes) was 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413). The 

remaining portions of the submittal will 

be acted on in future Federal Register 

actions. 

The following table lists the 

provisions of the Nevada Administrative 

Code (NAC) addressed by this proposal 

with the dates they were submitted by 

NDEP. Some of these provisions were 

renumbered after their initial adoption. 

Two of these submitted rules would be 

new to the SIP: NAC 445B.084 

(‘‘Hazardous air pollutant’’) and NAC 

445B.153 (‘‘Regulated air pollutant’’), 

while the remainder would amend 

existing rules in the SIP. 

SUBMITTED PROVISIONS

NAC No. NAC title Adopted Submitted 

445B.015 ............................. ‘‘Alternative method’’ defined ....................................................................................... 10/03/95 01/12/06 

445B.062 ............................. ‘‘Equivalent method’’ defined ....................................................................................... 10/03/95 01/12/06 

445B.063 ............................. ‘‘Excess emissions’’ defined ........................................................................................ 10/04/05 01/12/06 

445B.084 ............................. ‘‘Hazardous air pollutant’’ defined ................................................................................ 11/03/93 01/12/06 

445B.134 ............................. ‘‘Person’’ defined .......................................................................................................... 09/16/76 01/12/06 

445B.153 ............................. ‘‘Regulated air pollutant’’ defined ................................................................................. 10/04/05 01/12/06 

445B.202 ............................. ‘‘Volatile organic compounds’’ defined ......................................................................... 03/03/94 01/12/06 

445B.22093 ......................... Organic solvents and other volatile organic compounds ............................................. 10/04/05 01/12/06 

445B.256 ............................. Monitoring systems: Calibration, operation and maintenance of equipment .............. 10/03/95 01/12/06 

445B.257 ............................. Monitoring systems: Location ...................................................................................... 09/16/76 01/12/06 

445B.258 ............................. Monitoring systems: Verification of operational status ................................................ 09/16/76 01/12/06 

445B.259 ............................. Monitoring systems: Performance evaluations ............................................................ 09/16/76 01/12/06 

445B.260 ............................. Monitoring systems: Components contracted for before September 11, 1974 ........... 09/16/76 01/12/06 

445B.261 ............................. Monitoring systems: Adjustments ................................................................................ 09/16/76 01/12/06 

445B.262 ............................. Monitoring systems: Measurement of opacity ............................................................. 09/18/03 01/12/06 

445B.263 ............................. Monitoring systems: Frequency of operation ............................................................... 09/16/76 01/12/06 

445B.264 ............................. Monitoring systems: Recordation of data .................................................................... 08/22/00 01/12/06 

445B.265 ............................. Monitoring systems: Records; reports ......................................................................... 04/26/84 01/12/06 

445B.267 ............................. Alternative monitoring procedures or requirements ..................................................... 09/18/03 01/12/06 

B. What is the regulatory history of the 

Nevada SIP? 

Pursuant to the Clean Air 

Amendments of 1970, the Governor of 

Nevada submitted the original Nevada 

SIP to EPA in January 1972. EPA 

approved certain portions of the original 

SIP and disapproved other portions 

under CAA section 110(a). See 37 FR 

10842 (May 31, 1972). For some of the 

disapproved portions of the original SIP, 

EPA promulgated substitute provisions 

under CAA section 110(c).1 This 

original SIP included various rules, 

codified as articles within the Nevada 

Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and 

various statutory provisions codified in 

chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised 

Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980’s, 

Nevada reorganized and re-codified its 

air quality rules into sections within 

chapter 445 of the Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC). Today, 

Nevada codifies its air quality 

regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC 

and codifies air quality statutes in 

chapter 445B (‘‘Air Pollution’’) of title 

40 (‘‘Public Health and Safety’’) of the 

NRS. 

Nevada adopted and submitted many 

revisions to the original set of 

regulations and statutes in the SIP, some 

of which EPA approved on February 6, 

1975 at 40 FR 5508; on March 26, 1975 

at 40 FR 13306; on January 9, 1978 at 

43 FR 1341; on January 24, 1978 at 43 

FR 3278; on August 21, 1978 at 43 FR 

36932; on July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46384; 

on April 14, 1981 at 46 FR 21758; on 

August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43141; on 

March 8, 1982 at 47 FR 9833; on April 

13, 1982 at 47 FR 15790; on June 18, 

1982 at 47 FR 26386; on June 23, 1982 

at 47 FR 27070; on March 27, 1984 at 

49 FR 11626. Since 1984, EPA has 

approved very few revisions to Nevada’s 

applicable SIP despite numerous 

changes that have been adopted by the 

State Environmental Commission. As a 

result, the version of the rules 

enforceable by NDEP is often quite 

different from the SIP version 

enforceable by EPA. 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

bring the applicable SIP up to date. The 

regulations that are the subject of this 

proposal include certain definitions, 

organic solvent controls, and various 

monitoring rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the 

regulations? 

Generally, SIP regulations must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). Relevant EPA guidance and policy 

documents that we used to help 

evaluate enforceability include ‘‘Review 

of State Implementation Plans and 

Revisions for Enforceability and Legal 

Sufficiency,’’ dated September 23, 1987, 

from J. Craig Potter, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, et 

al. 

B. Do the regulations meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

We believe the following provisions 

are consistent with the relevant policy 

and guidance regarding enforceability 

and SIP relaxations: NAC 445B.015, 

NAC 445B.062, NAC 445B.063, NAC 

445.084, NAC 445B.134, NAC 445B.153, 

NAC 445B.202, NAC 445B.22093, NAC 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 51795 

2Final approval of these rules would supersede 

the following rules in the applicable SIP 

(superseding rule shown in parentheses) upon the 

established compliance date for any new or 

amended requirements in the superseding rules: 

NAC 445.439 (NAC 445B.015); NAC 445.501 (NAC 

445B.062); NAC 445.504 (NAC 445B.063); NAC 

445.564 (NAC 445B.134); NAC 445.650 (NAC 

445B.202); NAC 445.846, NAQR Articles 9.2.1, 

9.2.1.1, and 9.2.1.2 (NAC 445B.22093); NAQR 

Articles 2.17.10 and 2.17.10.1 (NAC 445B.256); 

NAQR Articles 2.17.6, 2.17.7 (NAC 445B.257); NAC 

445.685 (NAC 445B.258); NAC 445.686 (NAC 

445B.259); NAC 445.687 (NAC 445B.260); NAC 

445.688 (NAC 445B.261); NAC 445.689 (NAC 

445B.262); NAC 445.690 (NAC 445B.263); NAC 

445.691 (NAC 445B.264); NAC 445.692 (NAC 

445B.265); and NAC 445.693 (NAC 445B.267). 

445B.256, NAC 445B.257, NAC 

445B.258, NAC 445B.259, NAC 

445B.260, NAC 445B.261, NAC 

445B.263, NAC 445B.264, and NAC 

445B.265. Generally, these submitted 

rules are unchanged from the older 

versions in the existing SIP other than 

for certain clarifications and 

enhancements. The Technical Support 

Document (TSD) dated August 16, 2006 

has more information on our evaluation. 

C. What are the regulation deficiencies? 

The following provisions conflict 

with section 110 of the Act and prevent 

full approval of the SIP revision. 

1. NAC 445B.262, Monitoring 

systems: Measurement of opacity, This 

regulation lists the methods and 

procedures for measuring opacity. This 

regulation allows the director to 

approve equivalent and alternative 

opacity procedures without describing 

the criteria to be used. A new paragraph 

has been added that removes the 

director’s ability to approve an 

equivalent or alternative method when 

determining compliance with standards 

and emission limits contained in 40 

CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and affected 

sources in the acid rain program. This 

new paragraph limits the breath of the 

director’s discretion; however, the 

director maintains the ability to approve 

equivalent and alternative methods for 

SIP sources. This constitutes a SIP 

deficiency and conflicts with section 

110 of the CAA. A third paragraph can 

be added to NAC 445B.262 requiring 

that equivalent and alternative test 

methods for SIP sources be approved in 

advance by EPA. 

2. NAC 445B.267, Alternate 

monitoring procedures or requirements. 

This regulation lists situations when an 

alternative monitoring procedure or 

requirement can be approved by the 

director. A new paragraph has been 

added that removes the director’s ability 

to approve an equivalent or alternative 

method when determining compliance 

with standards and emission limits 

contained in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and 

affected sources in the acid rain 

program. This new paragraph limits the 

breath of the director’s discretion; 

however, the director maintains the 

ability to approve alternative methods 

for SIP sources and for ASTM test 

methods. This constitutes a SIP 

deficiency and conflicts with section 

110 of the CAA. A third paragraph can 

be added to NAC 445B.267 requiring 

that equivalent and alternative test 

methods for SIP sources be approved in 

advance by EPA. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Regulations 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that do not affect EPA’s 

current action but are recommended for 

the next time the state modifies their 

rules. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) and 

301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing a 

full approval of the following 

provisions: NAC 445B.015, NAC 

445B.062, NAC 445B.063, NAC 445.084, 

NAC 445B.134, NAC 445B.153, NAC 

445B.202, NAC 445B.22093, NAC 

445B.256, NAC 445B.257, NAC 

445B.258, NAC 445B.259, NAC 

445B.260, NAC 445B.261, NAC 

445B.263, NAC 445B.264, and NAC 

445B.265. 

In addition, EPA is proposing a 

limited approval of NAC 445B.262 and 

NAC 445B.267 to improve the SIP. This 

approval is limited because EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the two provisions 

mentioned above. If we finalize this 

limited disapproval, we will not be 

imposing sanctions under CAA section 

179 and 40 CFR 52.31 because the 

state’s submittal of NAC 445B.262 and 

NAC 445B.267, which represent 

updated versions of existing SIP rules, 

was not required under the Clean Air 

Act. If finalized as proposed, this action 

would incorporate the submitted 

provisions into the SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient.2

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposed approval and 

limited approval/disapproval for the 

next 30 days. 

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 action merely proposes 

to approve state rules 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 

proposed 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 state rules 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
51796 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compound. 

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

Dated: August 21, 2006. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 06–7320 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS