Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51761 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2005–CT–0001; A–1–FRL–

8209–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality ImplementationPlans; 

Connecticut; VOC Regulations and 

One-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Shortfall 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving 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 approve these requirements 

into the Connecticut SIP. These control 

measures are needed to meet a portion 

of the shortfall in emission reduction 

identified in Connecticut’s one-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration SIP. 

This action also approves 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. 

EPA is taking this action in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 30, 2006, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by October 

2, 2006. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

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. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2005–

CT–0001. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 e-mail 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, One Congress Street, 

Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact 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, 

excluding legal holidays. 

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: 

I. General Information 

A. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to the publicly available 

docket materials available for inspection 

electronically in Regional Material in 

EDocket, and the hard copy available at 

the Regional Office, which are identified 

in the ADDRESSES section above, copies 

of the state submittal and EPA’s 

technical support document are also 

available for public inspection during 

normal business hours, by appointment 

at the Bureau of Air Management, 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm 

Street, Hartford, CT 06106. 

II. Rulemaking Information 

This section is organized as follows: 

A. What action is EPA taking? 

B. What are the requirements of 

Connecticut’s new regulations? 

C. Why is EPA approving Connecticut’s 

regulations? 

D. What is the process for EPA to approve 

these SIP revisions? 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Connecticut’s 

Section 22a–174–43, ‘‘Portable Fuel 

Container Spillage Control,’’ the 

subsections of Section 22a–174–3b, 

‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for 

Construction and Operation of External 

Combustion Units, Automotive 

Refinishing Operations, Emergency 

Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral 

Processing Equipment and Surface 

Coating Operations’ that apply to 

autobody refinishing operations and 

Section 22a–174–30, ‘‘Dispensing of 

Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor 

Recovery,’’ and incorporating these 

regulations into the Connecticut SIP. 

EPA is also approving these measures, 

along with Connecticut’s previously 

approved municipal waste combuster 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51762 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘National Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings,’’ 40 

CFR Part 59, Subpart B. 

2 ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques Document: 

Automobile Refinishing,’’ (EPA–453/R–94–031), 

April 1994. 

3 ‘‘Model Rule for Mobile Equipment Repair and 

Refinishing,’’ Ozone Transport Commission, March 

6, 2001. 

rule, as meeting the shortfall emissions 

reduction identified by EPA in our 

previous approval of Connecticut’s 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

SIP. 

B. What are the requirements of 

Connecticut’s new regulations? 

Portable Fuel Containers 

The Section 22a–174–43 Portable Fuel 

Containers rule applies to any person 

who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or 

manufactures for sale in Connecticut 

portable fuel containers or spouts or 

both for use in Connecticut. 

Connecticut’s portable fuel container 

rule includes performance standards for 

portable fuel containers and spouts in 

order to ensure spill-proof systems. For 

example, the rule requires that portable 

fuel containers have an automatic shutoff that stops the fuel flow before the 

target fuel tank overflows. Connecticut’s 

rule prohibits any person to sell, supply, 

offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in 

Connecticut, on or after May 1, 2004, 

any portable fuel container or spout that 

does not meet all of the specified 

performance standards. There is, 

however, a specified list of exemptions 

from the rule. For example, the rule 

does not apply to portable fuel 

containers with a nominal capacity less 

than or equal to one quart or to 

containers or spouts that have been 

granted an innovative products 

exemption by California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) or the New York 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation. The exemption for 

innovative products is considered 

reasonable, because in order to receive 

an innovative products exemption the 

CARB and New York rules require that 

the manufacturer demonstrate that the 

use of the product will result in 

emissions below the highest emitting 

container in its product category as 

determined from applicable testing. 

Connecticut’s rule also includes an 

exemption for products that have 

received a variance pursuant to the 

variance provisions in New York’s 

portable fuel container rule. This 

exemption is acceptable because few 

variances are expected to be granted. 

For example, the compliance date of 

New York’s portable fuel container rule 

was January 1, 2003, and as of March 1, 

2006 no variances have been granted by 

New York. 

In addition, Connecticut’s rule 

includes the appropriate testing and 

recordkeeping requirements to ensure 

compliance with the specified 

performance standards. Specifically, the 

rule requires the use of several test 

methods and procedures adopted by 

CARB. The portable fuel container rule 

is expected to achieve a creditable VOC 

reduction of at least 2.3 tons per 

summer day by 2007. The method used 

to calculate this reduction is shown in 

the Connecticut submittal and EPA 

agrees with the method. 

More recently, EPA proposed new 

standards that would limit hydrocarbon 

emissions that evaporate from or 

permeate through gasoline cans (71 FR 

15803, March 29, 2006). EPA’s proposal 

starts with gasoline cans manufactured 

in 2009. The proposed standard would 

limit evaporation and permeation 

emissions from these cans to 0.3 grams 

of hydrocarbons per gallon per day. The 

Connecticut rule limits the permeation 

emissions from portable fuel containers 

to less than or equal to 0.4 grams of 

hydrocarbons per gallon per day. If, as 

proposed, the final EPA standard for 

permeation emissions from portable fuel 

containers is more stringent than the 

current state standard, the federal 

standard will supersede the state 

standard as of 2009. 

Autobody Refinishing 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–3b, 

‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for 

Construction and Operation of External 

Combustion Units, Automotive 

Refinishing Operations, Emergency 

Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral 

Processing Equipment and Surface 

Coating Operations,’’ allows owners or 

operators of these types of operations to 

construct and operate such a source 

without obtaining a general permit 

pursuant to Section 22a–174 or a permit 

pursuant to Section 22a–174–3a, 

provided that they comply with the 

applicable provisions of the Section 

22a–174–3b regulation. Connecticut 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision only 

those subsections of Section 22a–174–

3b that apply to automotive refinishing 

operations. 

EPA has evaluated the portion of 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–3b that 

applies to automotive refinishing 

operations against applicable EPA 

guidance documents and the OTC 

model rule for this source category. An 

analysis of Connecticut’s regulations is 

presented below. 

EPA has issued control technique 

guidelines (CTGs) and, in some cases, 

national regulations for certain VOC 

source categories. A CTG is a document 

issued by EPA which establishes a 

‘‘presumptive norm’’ for Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

for a specific VOC source category. EPA 

has issued a national rule for autobody 

refinishing.1 EPA has also issued an 

ACT for automobile refinishing.2

Similar to a CTG, an ACT (alternative 

control techniques) document contains 

information on emissions, control 

options, and costs that states can use in 

developing RACT rules. Unlike a CTG, 

however, the ACT document presents 

options only, and does not contain a 

recommendation on RACT. 

In addition, the OTC (Ozone 

Transport Commission) has developed 

model rules for several VOC source 

categories, including mobile equipment 

repair and refinishing (MERR),3 and the 

OTC states, including Connecticut, have 

signed a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) committing to adopt these model 

rules. 

The coating limits in the OTC MERR 

model rule are the same as the limits 

included in EPA’s national autobody 

refinishing rule. The OTC rule, 

however, applies to the person applying 

the coatings, whereas the national rule 

applies to manufacturers or importers 

that sell or distribute automobile 

refinish coatings. In addition, the OTC 

rule includes application equipment 

requirements, good housekeeping, 

pollution prevention, and training 

measures. These additional 

requirements are similar to those 

discussed in EPA’s ACT document for 

automobile refinishing. 

The portion of Connecticut’s Section 

22a–174–3b that applies to automotive 

refinishing operations establishes: 

(a) A limit on the total amount of 

VOC-containing coatings or solvents of 

2,000 gallons in any twelve month 

rolling period; 

(b) Requirements that limit the type of 

application equipment utilized to highvolume low-pressure (HVLP) spray 

equipment, electrostatic application 

equipment, or other application 

methods with a guaranteed transfer 

efficiency of at least 65%; 

(c) Cleaning standards for any 

application equipment; and 

(d) Other work practice standards, 

such as record keeping, and the storing 

of coatings and solvents in closed 

containers. 

VOC limits for mobile equipment 

repair and refinishing coatings are not 

included in Connecticut’s revised SIP, 

but are in effect nationally under the 

Federal requirements at 40 CFR Part 59, 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51763 

4 ‘‘Control Measure Development Support 

Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model 

Rules,’’ E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., March 31, 

2001. 

5The Connecticut portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island severe ozone 

nonattainment area. 

Subpart B, National VOC Emissions 

Standards for Automobile Refinish 

Coatings, which were adopted by EPA 

in 1998. Connecticut’s autobody 

regulations have similar requirements to 

those specified in the OTC model rule, 

which are also similar to those 

discussed in EPA’s ACT document for 

autobody refinishing. 

The new requirements for autobody 

refinishing in Connecticut are expected 

to achieve a creditable VOC reduction of 

at least 3.0 tons per summer day by May 

2007. The method used to calculate this 

emission reduction is contained in the 

December 1, 2004 state submittal. EPA 

considers these emission reduction 

estimates, which are consistent with a 

report on VOC control measures,4 to be 

reasonable estimates. 

Stage I/II Vapor Recovery 

Connecticut revised the Section 22a–

174–30, Stage I/II Vapor Recovery rule 

to include new requirements for PV 

(pressure/vacuum) vent valves and to 

require more frequent testing of the 

Stage II systems (3 years vs. 5 years). 

Compliance with the PV vent valve 

requirements is due by May 10, 2005, 

and the three year re-testing 

requirement begins November 15, 2004. 

The revised Section 22a–174–30 Stage 

I/II Vapor Recovery Rule includes a 

testing requirement for the PV vent 

valve, but does not specify a particular 

test method. Instead, the regulation 

specifies a performance standard with a 

pressure range that any test method 

must be able to measure. See 22a–174–

30(e)(1)(E). In addition, DEP submitted 

a fact sheet that clarifies what test 

method DEP expects to use to test PV 

vent valves. Specifically, the fact sheet 

includes the test procedures from the 

New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services ‘‘304—PV Vent 

Cap Test Procedure.’’ The fact sheet 

states that this test method is accepted 

in Connecticut, and also provides that 

CARB test procedures or other 

procedures approved by the Connecticut 

DEP are also acceptable. 

These provisions leave DEP some 

discretion to approve alternative test 

methods without further EPA approval. 

Nevertheless, EPA believes the 

combination of testing provisions DEP 

has in place provide for an acceptable 

framework for determining an adequate 

test method for PV vent valves. First, 

any test method DEP might approve 

must be able to measure the 

performance standard required in the 

Stage I/II regulation. Any test method 

that cannot detect pressures accurately 

enough to measure within the ranges 

provided for in section 22a–174–

30(e)(1)(E) would obviously not qualify 

under the regulation. Therefore, DEP’s 

discretion in approving alternative test 

methods is circumscribed by this 

regulatory standard. Second, DEP has 

submitted a fact sheet explaining which 

test methods it finds acceptable. This 

fact sheet provides good evidence that 

DEP has selected reliable methods. EPA 

is approving this SIP with the 

understanding that the State will only 

use test methods of the quality 

identified in that fact sheet. Third, test 

methods for PV vent valves are not 

complicated procedures, and they do 

not present the multiple opportunities 

for technical judgment calls inherent in 

more involved test methods. Thus, EPA 

does not anticipate that DEP and EPA 

would find it difficult to agree on 

whether a test method is sufficiently 

accurate to measure the performance 

standard provided for in DEP’s 

regulation. Finally, in the unlikely event 

that a facility uses a test method EPA 

deems unreliable, nothing in the SIPapproved regulation prevents EPA from 

requiring testing using an acceptable 

test method. The Stage I/II regulation 

neither specifies a test method nor 

specifically authorizes DEP to designate 

a test method that would be binding on 

EPA or any other party as the sole 

method for determining compliance 

with the PV vent valve requirement. The 

fact sheet DEP has submitted with the 

SIP is a statement of the test methods 

that DEP is prepared to accept, but it is 

not legally binding as a matter of state 

law, nor is it formally incorporated by 

reference into the SIP as a matter of 

federal law. Although EPA does not 

anticipate any disagreement over 

appropriate test methodology, the 

Agency can ultimately require the 

performance of the test method it deems 

appropriate to enforce this provision, 

because the SIP does not restrict EPA’s 

choice of test methods. 

The fact sheet also states that the PV 

vent testing must be conducted prior to 

dispensing gasoline for new stations and 

as part of the next regularly scheduled 

Stage II system test for existing facilities. 

In addition, the SIP submittal states that 

direct mailings were sent to testing 

companies and gasoline station owners 

informing them of the new requirements 

and the PV vent testing procedure. 

The previous version of Section 22a–

174–30 was approved into the 

Connecticut SIP. Therefore, the revised 

rule must meet the Section 110(l) antibacksliding provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. The previous version of 22a–174–

30 was approved as meeting the Section 

182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. The 

new rule includes the previous 

requirements approved into the SIP, 

along with the new PV vent valve and 

more frequent testing requirements 

discussed above. These new 

requirements are expected to achieve 

additional emissions reductions beyond 

those achieved by the previously 

approved rule. Therefore, the new 

Section 22a–174–30 meets the Clean Air 

Act anti-backsliding requirement. The 

new requirements for PV vent valves are 

expected to achieve a creditable VOC 

reduction of at least 1.4 tons per 

summer day by 2007. The method used 

to calculate this reduction is shown in 

the Connecticut submittal and EPA 

agrees with the method. 

C. Why is EPA approving Connecticut’s 

regulations? 

EPA has evaluated Connecticut’s 

regulations and has found that they are 

consistent with EPA guidance, and/or 

the Ozone Transport Commission model 

rules. These control measures are 

needed to meet a portion of the shortfall 

emissions reduction identified in 

Connecticut’s 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration SIP (66 FR 63921, 

December 11, 2001). The specific 

requirements of Connecticut’s 

regulations, the amount of VOC 

reductions expected, and EPA’s 

evaluation of these requirements are 

detailed in a memo dated June 8, 2006, 

entitled ‘‘Technical Support 

Document—Connecticut—VOC 

Regulations and Shortfall Commitment’’

(TSD) and in the SIP submittal from the 

Connecticut DEP. The TSD and 

Connecticut’s regulations are available 

in the docket supporting this action. 

The total emission reduction from these 

three VOC regulations will be at least 

6.7 tons of VOC per summer day by 

2007. These emission reductions, 

coupled with emission reductions from 

Connecticut’s previously approved 

regulation on municipal waste 

combusters (66 FR 63311, December 6, 

2001) which will result in an emission 

reduction of at least 1.3 tons of nitrogen 

oxides by 2007, fills the emission 

reduction shortfall identified in the 1- 

hour attainment plan for the 1-hour 

severe portion of Connecticut.5 This 

level of emission reduction, therefore, 

fulfills the commitment Connecticut 

made in its 1-hour attainment 

demonstration to achieve additional 

emission reductions within the state, to 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51764 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

help bring about attainment for the now 

revoked 1-hour ozone standard. The 

commitment was for 0.5 tons per 

summer day of NOX and 5.4 tons per 

summer day of VOC. These emission 

reductions will also help Connecticut to 

ultimately achieve the more stringent 8- 

hour ozone standard as well. 

D. What is the process for EPA to 

approve these SIP revisions? 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comments be filed. This 

action will be effective October 30, 2006 

without further notice unless the EPA 

receives adverse comments by October 

2, 2006. 

If the EPA receives such comments, 

then EPA will publish a document 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period. 

Parties interested in commenting should 

do so at this time. If no such comments 

are received, the public is advised that 

this rule will be effective on October 30, 

2006 and no further action will be taken 

on the proposed rule. 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. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Section 22a–174–

43, ‘‘Portable Fuel Container Spillage 

Control,’’ the autobody refinishing 

requirements of Section 22a–174–3b, 

‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for 

Construction and Operation of External 

Combustion Units, Automotive 

Refinishing Operations, Emergency 

Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral 

Processing Equipment and Surface 

Coating Operations,’’ and Connecticut’s 

Section 22a–174–30, ‘‘Dispensing of 

Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor 

Recovery,’’ and incorporating these 

regulations into the Connecticut SIP. 

These three rules will achieve an 

emissions reduction of at least 6.7 tons 

of VOC per summer day by 2007. EPA 

is also approving these measures, along 

with Connecticut’s previously approved 

municipal waste combuster rule, as 

fulfilling the commitment Connecticut 

made in its 1-hour attainment 

demonstration to adopt additional 

measures to address the emission 

reduction shortfall. 

IV. 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), because it merely 

approves 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. 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 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 

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. 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 October 30, 2006. 

Interested parties should comment in 

response to the proposed rule rather 

than petition for judicial review, unless 

the objection arises after the comment 

period allowed for in the proposal. 

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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51765 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 31, 2006. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, , EPA New England. 

■ Part 52 of 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 H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.370 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(95) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(95) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection on December 

1, 2004 and April 4, 2006. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Section 22a–174–30 of the 

Connecticut Regulations for the 

Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled 

‘‘Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and 

Stage II Vapor Recovery,’’ effective in 

the State of Connecticut on May 10, 

2004, with the exception of subsection 

(c)(5), which Connecticut did not 

submit as part of the SIP revision. 

(B) Section 22a–174–3b of the 

Connecticut Regulations for the 

Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled 

‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for 

Construction and Operation of External 

Combustion Units, Automotive 

Refinishing Operations, Emergency 

Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral 

Processing Equipment and Surface 

Coating Operations,’’ effective in the 

State of Connecticut on April 4, 2006, 

except for the following subsections 

which Connecticut did not submit as 

part of the SIP revision: (a)(1), (5), (6), 

(7), (10), (11), (12), (15), (17); (b)(1) for 

an external combustion unit, 

nonmetallic mineral processing 

equipment, an emergency engine or a 

surface coating operation; (b)(2) for an 

external combustion unit, nonmetallic 

mineral processing equipment, an 

emergency engine or a surface coating 

operation; (c) External combustion unit; 

(e) Emergency engine; (f) Nonmetallic 

mineral processing equipment; (g) 

Surface coating operation; and (h) Fuel 

sulfur content. 

(C) Section 22a–174–43 of the 

Connecticut Regulations for the 

Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled 

‘‘Portable Fuel Container Spillage 

Control,’’ effective in the State of 

Connecticut on May 10, 2004. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Pressure Vacuum Vent Cap Test 

Procedures 

(B) Table 1 showing the emission 

reductions resulting from the measures 

Connecticut adopted to meet the 

shortfall identified in the Connecticut 

one-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. 

(C) Nonregulatory portions of the 

submittal. 

■ 3. Section 52.377 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(e) Commitment Fulfillment—

Connecticut has fulfilled the 

commitment in section 52.377(d), to 

adopt additional NOX and VOC control 

measures to meet the emission 

reduction shortfall in its 1-hour severe 

ozone nonattainment area. 

■ 4. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is 

amended by adding three new entries: a 

new state citation 22a–174–3b; a new 

entry to existing state citation 22a–174–

30; and a new state citation 22a–174–43 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut 

regulations. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 52.385.—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS

Connecticut 

State citation Title/subject 

Dates 

Federal Register 

citation 

Section 

52.370 Date Comments/description 

adopted 

by State 

Date 

approved 

by EPA 

* * * * * * * 

22a–174–3b Permits for construction and operation 

of stationary 

sources.

4/4/06 8/31/06 [Insert Federal Register page number 

where the document begins].

(c)(95) Only the automotive refinishing requirements of 22a–174–3b are 

being approved. Connecticut did 

not submit the other subsections 

of the rule as part of its SIP revision. 

* * * * * * * 

22a–174–30 Gaso-line Vapor Recovery.5/10/04 8/31/06 [Insert Federal Register page number 

where the document begins].

(c)(95) Added new requirements for PV 

vents and increased frequency of 

Stage II testing. All of 22a–174–

30 is approved with the exception 

of subsection (c)(5), which the 

state did not submit as part of the 

SIP revision. 

* * * * * * * 

22a–174–43 Portable Fuel Container Spillage 

Control.

5/10/04 8/31/06 [Insert Federal Register page number 

where the document begins].

(c)(95) 

* * * * * * * 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES
51766 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 06–7314 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0464; FRL–8210–2] 

Revisions to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on June 9, 2006, and include 

the air pollution sections of the Nevada 

Revised Statutes (NRS). We are 

approving these statutes in order to 

regulate emission sources under the 

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on October 2, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0464 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

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, rose.julie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 9, 2006, (71 FR 33413), EPA 

proposed to approve into the Nevada 

SIP those statutes that are listed in the 

table below. These statutes were 

submitted on January 12, 2006 and 

March 24, 2006. 

STATUTES SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL

Nevada revised 

statutes 

(NRS) 

Title Submittal date 

445B.105 ..................... Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.110 ..................... Air contaminant .......................................................................................................................................... 01/12/06 

445B.115 ..................... Air pollution ................................................................................................................................................ 01/12/06 

445B.120 ..................... Commission ............................................................................................................................................... 01/12/06 

445B.125 ..................... Department ................................................................................................................................................ 01/12/06 

445B.130 ..................... Director ...................................................................................................................................................... 01/12/06 

445B.135 ..................... Federal Act ................................................................................................................................................ 01/12/06 

445B.140 ..................... Hazardous air pollutant .............................................................................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.145 ..................... Operating permit ........................................................................................................................................ 01/12/06 

445B.150 ..................... Person ........................................................................................................................................................ 01/12/06 

0.039 ........................... Person ........................................................................................................................................................ 03/24/06 

445B.155 ..................... Source and indirect source ........................................................................................................................ 01/12/06 

445B.210 ..................... Powers of Commission .............................................................................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.220 ..................... Additional powers of Commission ............................................................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.225 ..................... Power of Commission to require testing of sources ................................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.235 ..................... Additional powers of Department .............................................................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.245 ..................... Power of Department to perform or require test of emissions from stacks .............................................. 01/12/06 

445B.275 ..................... Creation; members; terms ......................................................................................................................... 01/12/06 

445B.280 ..................... Attendance of witnesses at hearing; contempt; compensation ................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.300 ..................... Operating permit for source of air contaminant; notice and approval of proposed construction; administrative fees; failure of Commission or Department to act.01/12/06 

445B.320 ..................... Approval of plans and specifications required before construction or alteration of structure ................... 01/12/06 

445B.500 ..................... Establishment and administration of program; contents of program; designation of air pollution control 

agency of county for purposes of federal act; powers and duties of local air pollution control board; 

notice of public hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative 

penalties; cities and smaller counties; regulation of certain electric plants prohibited.

01/12/06 

445B.510 ..................... Commission may require program for designated area ............................................................................ 01/12/06 

445B.520 ..................... Commission may establish or supersede county program ....................................................................... 01/12/06 

445B.530 ..................... Commission may assume jurisdiction over specific classes of air contaminants ..................................... 01/12/06 

445B.540 ..................... Restoration of superseded local program; continuation of existing local program ................................... 01/12/06 

445B.560 ..................... Plan or procedure for emergency .............................................................................................................. 01/12/06 

445B.595 ..................... Governmental sources of air contaminants to comply with state and local provisions regarding air pollution; permit to set fire for training purposes; planning and zoning agencies to consider effects on 

quality of air.

01/12/06 

We proposed to approve these statutes 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the 

statutes and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. We did not 

receive any comments on the proposed 

action. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted statutes comply with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES