10960 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This proposed rule 

does not use technical standards. 

Therefore, we did not consider the use 

of voluntary consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1D and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we 

believe that this proposed rule should 

be categorically excluded, under figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. A preliminary 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. Comments on this 

section will be considered before we 

make the final decision whether this 

rule should be categorically excluded 

from further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add temporary § 165.T05–015, to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–015 Security Zone: Jamestown 

Island, VA. 

(a) Location: The following area is a 

security zone: All waters within a 2- 

nautical-mile radius of Church Point at 

37–12.45N, 076–46.66W on Jamestown 

Island, VA. 

(b) Definition: As used in this section; 

Designated Representative means any 

U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his 

behalf. 

(c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.33 of 

this part, entry into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, 

Virginia, or his designated 

representative. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this security zone 

shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by the Captain 

of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or 

his designated representative on board a 

vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard 

Ensign. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by the Captain 

of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or 

his designated representative on board a 

vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard 

Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads, Virginia can be contacted at 

telephone number (757) 668–5555. 

(4) U.S. Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

the security zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio, channel 13 

(156.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). 

(d) Enforcement period: The security 

zone will be enforced from 3 p.m. until 

10 p.m. on May 11, 2007; from 9 a.m. 

to 11 p.m. on May 12, 2007; and from 

9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

(e) Effective Date: This regulation is 

effective from 3 p.m. on May 11, 2007, 

to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

Patrick B. Trapp, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. E7–4303 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0635; FRL–8286–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Visible Emissions and Particulate 

Matter Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources 

portion of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan. These revisions 

concern visible emissions and 

particulate matter regulations. EPA is 

proposing this action under the Clean 

Air Act obligation to take action on 

State submittals of revisions to state 

implementation plans. The intended 

effect is to approve updated visible 

emissions and particulate matter rules 

in the Nevada State Implementation 

Plan because doing so will not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

or any other requirement of the Clean 

Air Act. EPA is taking comments on this 

proposal and plans to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

April 11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0635, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10961 

1The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal also 

includes documentation of public notice and 

hearing for certain new or amended rules for which 

EPA is proposing approval. The January 12, 2006 

SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the 

earlier submittal in that it did not include this 

documentation. Our consideration of the rules 

submitted on January 12, 2006 and evaluated herein 

takes into account the public participation 

documentation contained in the earlier submittal. 

Public participation documentation for the 

rescission of NAC 445.535, also evaluated herein, 

was also included in the February 16, 2005 SIP 

submittal and is taken into account in this proposed 

action. NAC 445.535 (which had been recodified as 

NAC 445B.089) was repealed for the purposes of 

State law by the Nevada State Environmental 

Commission effective March 5, 1998. NDEP has also 

provided documentation of public process for 

rescission of NAQR article 16.3.3.1 (re-codified as 

NAC 445.828), which was repealed by the 

commission for purposes of State law effective 

October 15, 1985. CAA section 110(l) requires 

reasonable notice and public hearing prior to 

adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent 

submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under 

CAA section 110(k)(3). 

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. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the regulations 

D. Proposed action and public comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What regulations did the State 

submit? 

The State of Nevada’s Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) submitted a large revision to the 

applicable Nevada State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) on January 12, 2006. The 

January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal 

includes new and amended statutes and 

rules as well as requests for rescission 

of certain rules in the existing SIP. The 

January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal 

supersedes the regulatory portion of an 

earlier submittal dated February 16, 

2005.1 On March 26, 2006, we found 

that the Nevada SIP submittal dated 

January 12, 2006 satisfied the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

The primary purpose of this SIP 

revision is to clarify and harmonize the 

provisions approved by EPA into the 

applicable SIP with the current 

provisions adopted by the State. 

Because this revision incorporates 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, related to various 

definitions, sulfur emission rules, and 

restrictions on open burning and use of 

incinerators, was proposed in the 

Federal Register on September 13, 2005 

(70 FR 53975) and finalized on March 

27, 2006 (71 FR 15040). The second 

such action, related to statutory 

authority, was proposed in the Federal 

Register on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413) 

and finalized on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 

51766). A third action, related to most 

of the State’s requests for rescission, and 

fourth action, related to monitoring and 

VOC rules, were proposed on August 

28, 2006 (71 FR 50875) and August 31, 

2006 (71 FR 51793), respectively, and 

finalized on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 11) 

and December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71486), 

respectively. 

In today’s notice, we are taking 

another step in the process of acting on 

the State’s January 12, 2006 SIP revision 

submittal by proposing action on the 

State’s request for approval of six 

amended rules related to visible 

emissions and particulate matter and for 

rescission of two related rules. The 

remaining portions of the submittal will 

be acted on in future Federal Register 

actions. 

The following two tables list the 

provisions of the Nevada Air Quality 

Regulations (NAQR) or Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) addressed 

by this proposal. Table 1 list the 

amended rules submitted by NDEP for 

approval into the SIP and addressed 

herein. If approved, the submitted rules 

in table 1 would replace existing rules 

in the applicable SIP. 

TABLE 1.—AMENDED RULES SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL INTO THE SIP 

NAC No. NAC Title Adopted Submitted 

445B.22017 ....... Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination. (Effective April 1, 2006.) .............................. 10/04/05 01/12/06 

445B.2202 ......... Visible emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources. (Effective April 1, 2006.) ............................ 10/04/05 01/12/06 

445B.22027 ....... Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates 01/22/98 01/12/06

445B.2203 ......... Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-burning equipment ............................................................... 09/09/99 01/12/06 

445B.22033 ....... Emissions of particulate matter: Sources not otherwise limited ...................................................... 01/22/98 01/12/06 

445B.22037 ....... Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive dust. ................................................................................ 10/03/95 01/12/06 

Table 2 lists two related rules in the 

existing SIP for which NDEP has 

requested rescission. If we approve the 

rescission requests, the two rules listed 

in table 2 would be deleted from the 

applicable SIP. 

TABLE 2.—RELATED SIP RULES FOR WHICH THE STATE HAS REQUESTED RESCISSION

SIP provision Title Submittal 

date 

Approval 

date 

NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 ...................................................... Opacity from kilns ............................................................ 12/29/78 06/18/82 

NAC 445.535 .................................................................... Kilogram-calorie ............................................................... 10/26/82 03/27/84 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
10962 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA 

section 110(c) in substitution of disapproved State 

provisions are referred to as Federal 

Implementation Plans. 

3CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from 

approving any SIP revision that would interfere 

with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress, or any 

other applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA 

section 193 prohibits modifications in control 

requirements that were in effect before the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment 

area unless the modification insures equivalent or 

greater emission reductions of the nonattainment 

pollutant. 

B. What is the regulatory history of the 

Nevada SIP? 

In January 1972, pursuant to the Clean 

Air Amendments of 1970, the Governor 

of Nevada submitted the original 

Nevada SIP to EPA. EPA approved 

certain portions of the original SIP and 

disapproved other portions under 

section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act 

or CAA). 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).2 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 

present EPA’s conclusions and rationale 

with respect to the State’s January 12, 

2006 submittal of amended visible 

emissions and particulate matter rules 

and requests for rescission of two 

related rules from the applicable SIP. 

The technical support document (TSD) 

that we prepared for this proposed 

rulemaking provides additional detail 

concerning these amended rules and 

rescission requests and our evaluation 

of them. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the 

regulations? 

Under CAA section 110(k)(2), EPA is 

obligated to take action on submittals by 

States of SIPs and SIP revisions. CAA 

section 110(k)(3) authorizes EPA to 

approve or disapprove, in whole or in 

severable part, such submittals. 

EPA has reviewed the visible 

emissions and particulate matter rules 

and related rescission requests 

submitted on January 12, 2006 by NDEP 

for compliance with the CAA 

requirements for SIPs in general set 

forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 

CFR part 51 and also for compliance 

with CAA requirements for SIP 

revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 

193.3 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. As described below, EPA is 

proposing approval of the submitted 

visible emissions and particulate matter 

rules and related rescission requests. 

B. Do the regulations meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

We believe that all six of the 

submitted rules evaluated herein (see 

table 1, above) are consistent with the 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

provisions, as well as policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability and 

SIP relaxations and that proposed 

approval of the six submitted rules 

provides the basis to approve the 

rescission requests for the two related 

rules in the applicable SIP (see table 2, 

above). A short discussion of our 

rationale is provided in the following 

paragraphs. 

1. NAC 445B.22017 (Visible 

emissions: Maximum opacity; 

determination), NAC 445B.2202 (Visible 

emissions: Exceptions for stationary 

sources), NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of 

particulate matter: Maximum allowable 

throughput for calculating emissions 

rates), and NAC 445B.22037 (Emissions 

of particulate matter: Fugitive dust). 

Generally, these submitted rules retain 

or enhance the requirements set forth in 

the corresponding rules in the current 

applicable SIP. Compared to the current 

applicable SIP rules, the amended rules 

include a different, but acceptable, 

formulation defining the basic 20% 

opacity standard and a lower (i.e., more 

stringent) project-size exemption 

threshold (from 20 acres to 5 acres) for 

the requirement to implement a dust 

control program and obtain a surface 

area disturbance permit from NDEP. 

The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal 

contained multiple versions of the two 

visible emissions rules, NAC 

445B.22017 and 445B.2202, reflecting 

the contingent effective dates adopted 

by the State Environmental Commission 

for amendments to these rules. The 

amendments adopted by the 

commission (but made effective at an 

indefinite future date) removed an 

exemption to the application of the 

opacity limit that we otherwise would 

have found unapprovable. In adopting 

the amendments to the rules (and 

associated contingent effective dates), 

the State Environmental Commission 

committed to publishing a notice when 

the amendments (removing the 

unapprovable exemption) become 

effective. On April 1, 2006, the State 

Environmental Commission issued such 

a notice and thus the unobjectionable 

(and approvable) versions of the two 

visible emissions rules are now in effect 

and form the basis for our proposed 

action on these rules herein. 

2. NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 (Opacity 

from kilns). Based on our findings above 

concerning the two visible emissions 

rules, i.e., NAC 445B.22017 and NAC 

445B.2202, we find retention of NAQR 

Article 16.3.3.1 (Opacity from kilns) in 

the SIP to be unnecessary and thus we 

propose to approve NDEP’s request for 

rescission of that rule. 

3. NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of 

particulate matter: Fuel-burning 

equipment) and NAC 445B.22033 

(Emissions of particulate matter: 

Sources not otherwise limited). These 

submitted rules contain the same basic 

emissions limits and exemptions as the 

corresponding current applicable SIP 

rules, but the limits in the submitted 

rules apply to ‘‘PM10’’ as opposed to 

‘‘particulate matter.’’ ‘‘PM10’’ refers to 

particles with diameters equal to or less 

than a nominal 10 microns and is the 

basis for a NAAQS, while ‘‘particulate 

matter’’ (PM) refers more inclusively to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10963 

4Final approval of these rules would supersede 

the following rules in the applicable SIP 

(superseding rule shown in parentheses) when 

sources come into compliance with the new rule: 

NAC 445.721 (NAC 445B.22017); NAQR Article 4.3, 

4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 (NAC 445B.2202); NAC 

445.731 (NAC 445B.2203), NAC 445.732 (NAC 

445B.22033), and NAC 445.734 (NAC 445B.22037). 

NAC 445.729 would not be superseded by the 

corresponding submitted rule NAC 445B.22027 

because the former is relied upon by certain SIP 

rules (e.g., NAC 445.730) that are being retained in 

the SIP. 

any material (except uncombined water) 

that exists in a finely divided form as a 

liquid or solid at reference conditions. 

Thus, except for sources whose ‘‘PM’’

consists only of particles of a size that 

are ‘‘PM10’’, simple replacement of 

‘‘PM’’ with ‘‘PM10’’ without any 

downward adjustment in the formula 

that establishes the allowable emission 

limit represents a relaxation in the limit 

with respect to PM10 emissions. 

Given the hypothetical nature of this 

relaxation, we reviewed in detail the 

permit conditions for four major sources 

to determine whether the change from 

PM to PM10 in the allowable limit 

would in effect result in an increase in 

PM10 emissions. Based on this review 

and for a variety or reasons, we have 

determined that no such increase would 

occur. For certain emission units at 

these sources, the PM emissions subject 

to NAC 445.731 and/or 445.732 are 

comprised entirely of particles that are 

also PM10. For certain other emissions 

units, the potentials to emit are less than 

the allowable limits under either the 

existing SIP rules NAC 445.731 and 

445.732 or the submitted rules NAC 

445B.2203 or 445B.22033. Lastly, other 

emissions sources are subject to other 

federally enforceable emission limits 

(e.g., limits established under PSD 

requirements or NSPS) that would be 

unaffected by our action proposed 

herein and that are more stringent, in 

some cases by an order of magnitude, 

than the allowable limits under either 

the existing SIP rules or submitted rules. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

replacement of the existing SIP rules 

NAC 445.731 and NAC 445.732 with 

submitted rules NAC 445B.2203 and 

NAC 445B.22033 would not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS for the purposes of CAA section 

110(l). 

Because submitted rules NAC 

445B.2203 and 445B.22033 would apply 

to a major stationary source (Sunrise 

power plant) in the Las Vegas PM10

nonattainment area, we reviewed these 

two submitted rules for compliance 

with applicable nonattainment area 

requirements in part D of title I of the 

Act. Based on review of the EPAapproved PM10 attainment plan for Las 

Vegas Valley, we have concluded that 

neither NAC 445B.2203 nor 445B.22033 

need be made more stringent at this 

time to meet nonattainment planning 

requirements although the rules may 

need to be revised if we determined that 

Las Vegas Valley has failed to meet the 

2006 attainment date for the PM10

NAAQS. We also have concluded that 

approval of NAC 445B.2203 and 

445B.22033 would be consistent with 

CAA section 193 because the Sunrise 

power plant normally runs on natural 

gas and all of the PM generated using 

natural gas is also PM10. The same is 

true for the cooling tower at the Sunrise 

power plant. Thus, approval of NAC 

445B.2203 and 445B.22033 would not 

result in an increase in PM10 emissions 

which otherwise would have been 

required to be offset by equivalent 

emissions reductions to satisfy CAA 

section 193. 

4. NAC 445.535, Kilogram-calorie. 

This rule is one of the current 

applicable SIP rules for which NDEP 

requested rescission in its January 12, 

2006 SIP revision submittal. NAC 

445.535 defines a measurement unit 

used in current applicable SIP rule NAC 

445.731, which would be superseded in 

the applicable SIP if we finalize our 

proposed approval of submitted rule 

NAC 445B.2203. As such, we find that 

retention of NAC 445.535 in the 

applicable SIP is unnecessary, and as 

such, we propose to approve NDEP’s 

request for rescission of NAC 445.535 

from the applicable SIP. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Regulations 

In connection with NAC 445B.22017, 

an amended rule for which we are 

proposing approval herein, we note that 

the term ‘‘6-minute period’’ is used [see 

NAC 445B.22017(3)] and that the term 

‘‘six-minute period’’ is specifically 

defined in NAC 445B.172, a provision 

that has not been submitted to EPA for 

approval. Assuming that ‘‘6-minute 

period’’ is intended to be the same as 

‘‘six-minute period’’ as defined in NAC 

445B.172, NDEP should submit NAC 

445B.172 to EPA for approval into the 

applicable SIP to assure correct and 

consistent interpretation of NAC 

445B.22017(3). 

D. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act and for the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

following provisions submitted to EPA 

on January 12, 2006: 

• NAC 445B.22017 (Visible 

emissions: Maximum opacity; 

determination) (effective April 1, 2006), 

• NAC 445B.2202 (Visible emissions: 

Exceptions for stationary sources) 

(effective April 1, 2006), 

• NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of 

particulate matter: Maximum allowable 

throughput for calculating emissions 

rates), 

• NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of 

particulate matter: Fuel-burning 

equipment), 

• NAC 445B.22033 (Emissions of 

particulate matter: Sources not 

otherwise limited), and 

• NAC 445B.22037 (Emissions of 

particulate matter: Fugitive dust). 

Based on our proposed approval of 

these submitted rules, we are also 

proposing to approve the State’s request 

to rescind NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 

(Opacity from kilns) and NAC 445.535 

(Kilogram-calorie). If finalized as 

proposed, this action would incorporate 

the six submitted rules into the 

federally-enforceable SIP 4 and rescind 

NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 and NAC 

445.535 therefrom. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposed approval 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
10964 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E7–4428 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 5, 10, 12, 25 

[FAR Case 2006–016; Docket 2007–0001; 

Sequence 4] 

RIN: 9000–AK70 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2006–016, Numbered Notes for 

Synopses 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are proposing to amend the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

update and clarify policy for synopses 

of proposed contract actions and to 

delete all references to Numbered Notes. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the FAR 

Secretariat on or before May 11, 2007 to 

be considered in the formulation of a 

final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR case 2006–016 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for any 

document by first selecting the proper 

document types and selecting ‘‘Federal 

Acquisition Regulation’’ as the agency 

of choice. At the ‘‘Keyword’’ prompt, 

type in the FAR case number (for 

example, FAR Case 2006–001) and click 

on the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Please include 

any personal and/or business 

information inside the document.You 

may also search for any document by 

clicking on the ‘‘Advanced search/ 

document search’’ tab at the top of the 

screen, selecting from the agency field 

‘‘Federal Acquisition Regulation’’, and 

typing the FAR case number in the 

keyword field. Select the ‘‘Submit’’

button. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, 

ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, 

DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2006–016 in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, 

at (202) 501–3775 for clarification of 

content. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755. 

Please cite FAR case 2006–016. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The use of Numbered Notes originally 

provided a method to expedite 

publicizing synopses in the Commerce 

Business Daily (CBD). The data 

transmission for this defunct 

publication was cumbersome and timeconsuming. The use of Numbered Notes 

simplified the inclusion of repetitive 

information. In addition, use of these 

Notes reduces the size of the publication 

(and, therefore, the cost to publish and 

distribute this hardcopy periodical.) 

During the transition period from the 

CBD periodical for publishing synopses 

to the electronic postings of synopses on 

the Federal Business Opportunities 

(FedBizOpps) Web site, the Numbered 

Notes were moved from the CBD to 

FedBizOpps. At the same time, the 

prescriptions for the Numbered Notes 

were generally deleted from the FAR. 

Electronic posting of synopses allows 

contracting officers to easily insert text, 

as needed. Electronic posting also 

places the full text of synopses in easyto-read, stand-alone documents that 

may be individually printed hardcopy 

or saved as data files by interested 

parties. This differs sharply from the 

earlier CBD periodical which printed a 

hardcopy of all synopses for a particular 

day. 

Since the prescriptions for the 

Numbered Notes were deleted from the 

FAR, the Numbered Notes have not 

been maintained and many of the 

Numbered Notes do not accurately 

reflect current FAR requirements or 

have been made obsolete by the 

functionality of FedBizOpps. Also, 

without prescriptions in the FAR, 

contracting officers are not required to 

use the Numbered Notes. The content of 

each Numbered Note and a discussion 

of the Note follows: 

1. The proposed contract is 100 

percent set-aside for small business 

concerns. 

Contracting officers identify set-asides 

via a drop-down box in FedBizOpps. 

Therefore, the Note is redundant. 

2. A portion of the acquisition is setaside for small business concerns. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL