Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13227 

PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM 

1. The authority for part 7 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 

462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 

8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). 

2. Add new paragraph (f)(5) to § 7.96 

to read as follows: 

§ 7.96 National Capital Region. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(5) Parking. Violation of a traffic 

control device regulating parking is 

punishable by fine. In any violation of 

a traffic control device regulating 

parking, proof that the described vehicle 

was parked in violation, together with 

proof that the defendant was at the time 

the registered owner of the vehicle, shall 

constitute a prima facie presumption 

that the registered owner of the vehicle 

was the person who committed the 

violation. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 9, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E7–5112 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2006–0920, 

FRL–8290–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 

Low Emission Vehicle Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is proposing to approve a New 

Jersey state implementation plan 

revision that adopts California’s second 

generation low emission vehicle 

program for light-duty vehicles, LEV II. 

Clean Air Act section 177 sets forth 

requirements by which other states may 

adopt new motor vehicle emissions 

standards that are identical to 

California’s standards. Specifically, the 

State’s implementation plan revision 

adopts changes to its existing light duty 

vehicle rule by incorporating 

California’s LEV II program. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

approve, as consistent with section 

110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, a control 

strategy that will help New Jersey 

achieve attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

ozone. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02–

OAR–2006–0920, by one of the 

following methods: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

Fax: 212–637–3901. 

Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866. 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 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2006–

0920. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 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 http:// 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Laurita, 

laurita.matthew@epa.gov at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

NY 10007–1866, telephone number 

(212) 637–3895, fax number (212) 637–

3901. 

Copies of the State submittals are 

available at the following addresses for 

inspection during normal business 

hours: 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, Public 

Access Center, 401 East State Street 1st 

Floor, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Description of the SIP Revision 

A. Background 

B. What are the relevant EPA and CAA 

requirements? 

C. What is the California LEV Program? 

D. What is the history and current content 

of the New Jersey LEV Program? 

II. Proposed EPA Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Description of the SIP Revision 

A. Background 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990, all 21 counties in 

New Jersey were designated as 

nonattainment with respect to the 

former 1-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 

counties were divided into four separate 

nonattainment areas with ozone 

attainment deadlines varying by area; 

however, no counties in New Jersey 

were redesignated to attainment prior to 

the revocation of the 1-hour ozone 

standard on June 15, 2005. On June 15, 

2004 all 21 counties in New Jersey were 

designated as nonattainment with 

respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as 

part of either the New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT or 

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA–NJ–MD–DE moderate 

nonattainment areas. Both of these areas 

have attainment dates of no later than 

June 2010. 

To bring the state into attainment 

New Jersey adopted, among other 

measures, the National Low Emission 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
13228 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Vehicle (NLEV) program on February 3, 

1999. The NLEV program was a 

voluntary agreement between EPA, 

vehicle manufacturers, and the states to 

introduce vehicles that met emission 

standards that were more stringent than 

the Federal Tier 1 standards in effect at 

the time. The NLEV program would 

only take effect after all auto 

manufacturers and a sufficient number 

of states ‘‘opted-in’’ to the program. EPA 

made an NLEV in-effect finding on 

March 2, 1998 (63 FR 11374), after 

which participating states submitted 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions to ensure continuation of the 

program. New Jersey submitted an 

NLEV SIP revision on February 22, 

1999, and EPA issued a direct final rule 

to approve New Jersey’s NLEV program 

on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59638). 

In January 2004 the New Jersey 

Legislature passed legislation requiring 

the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection to adopt the 

California low emission vehicle (LEV) 

program, known as the LEV II program. 

Pursuant to this legislation, New Jersey 

promulgated regulations to adopt a LEV 

program identical to California’s LEV II 

program. New Jersey’s regulations 

became effective on January 27, 2006. 

On June 2, 2006, New Jersey submitted 

a SIP revision to EPA, seeking federal 

approval of the regulations. New 

Jersey’s LEV program will affect lightduty motor vehicles manufactured in 

model year 2009 and later. 

B. What are the relevant EPA and CAA 

requirements? 

Section 209(a) of the CAA prohibits 

states from adopting or enforcing 

standards relating to the control of 

emissions from new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines. However, 

under section 209(b) of the CAA, EPA 

may grant a waiver of the section 209(a) 

prohibition to the State of California, 

thereby allowing California to adopt its 

own motor vehicle emissions standards. 

Section 209(b) of the CAA requires 

California to show that its standards 

will be ‘‘* * * in the aggregate, at least 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable Federal standards 

* * *.’’ Section 209(b) further provides 

that EPA will grant a waiver unless it 

finds that: (1) The State’s determination 

is ‘‘arbitrary and capricious,’’ (2) the 

State ‘‘does not need such State 

standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions,’’ or (3) the 

State’s standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are ‘‘not 

consistent’’ with CAA section 202(a). 

Section 177 of the CAA allows other 

states to adopt and enforce California’s 

standards relating to the control of 

emissions from new motor vehicles, 

provided that, among other things, such 

state standards are identical to the 

California standards for which a waiver 

has been granted under CAA section 

209(b). In addition to the identicality 

requirement, the state must adopt such 

standards at least two years prior to the 

commencement of the model year to 

which the standards will apply. New 

Jersey has met the requirements of 

section 177. 

C. What is the California LEV II 

program? 

The California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) adopted the first generation LEV 

regulations in 1990, which were 

effective through the 2003 model year. 

CARB adopted California’s second 

generation LEV regulations (LEV II) 

following a November 1998 hearing. 

Subsequent to the adoption of the LEV 

II program in February 2000, the U.S. 

EPA adopted separate Federal standards 

known as the Tier 2 regulations (65 FR 

6698). In December 2000, CARB 

modified the LEV II program to take 

advantage of some elements of the 

Federal Tier 2 regulations to ensure that 

only the cleanest vehicle models would 

continue to be sold in California. EPA 

granted California a waiver for its LEV 

II program on April 22, 2003 (68 FR 

19811). 

The LEV II regulations expand the 

scope of the LEV I regulations by setting 

strict fleet-average emission standards 

for light-duty, medium-duty (including 

sport utility vehicles) and heavy-duty 

vehicles. The standards began with the 

2004 model year and increase in 

stringency through the 2010 model year 

and beyond. The LEV II regulations 

provide flexibility to auto manufacturers 

by allowing them to certify their vehicle 

models to one of several different 

emissions standards. The different tiers 

of increasingly stringent LEV II emission 

standards to which a manufacturer may 

certify a vehicle are: Low-emission 

vehicle (LEV), ultra-low-emission 

vehicle (ULEV), super-ultra lowemission vehicle (SULEV), partial zeroemission vehicle (PZEV), advanced 

technology partial zero-emission vehicle 

(ATPZEV) and zero-emission vehicle 

(ZEV). 

The manufacturer must show that the 

overall fleet for a given model year 

meets the specified phase-in 

requirements according to the fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

requirement for that year. The fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

emission limits are progressively lower 

with each model year. The program also 

requires auto manufacturers to include 

a ‘‘smog index’’ label on each vehicle 

sold, which is intended to inform 

consumers about the amount of 

pollution coming from that vehicle 

relative to other vehicles. 

In addition to the LEV II 

requirements, minimum percentages of 

passenger cars and the lightest lightduty trucks marketed in California by a 

large or intermediate volume 

manufacturer must be ZEVs. This is 

referred to as the ZEV mandate. 

California has modified the ZEV 

mandate several times since it took 

effect. Most recently, CARB has put in 

place an alternative compliance 

program (ACP) to provide auto 

manufacturers with several options to 

meet the ZEV mandate. The ACP 

established ZEV credit multipliers to 

allow auto manufacturers to take credit 

for meeting the ZEV mandate by selling 

more PZEVs and ATPZEVs than they 

are otherwise required to sell. On 

December 28, 2006, EPA granted 

California’s request for a waiver of 

federal preemption to enforce 

provisions of the ZEV regulations 

through model year 2011. 

On October 15, 2005, California 

amended the LEV II program to include 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 

standards for passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles. On December 21, 2005, 

California requested that EPA grant a 

waiver of preemption under CAA 

section 209(b) for its greenhouse gas 

emission regulations. As of the date of 

this Notice, EPA has not taken action on 

California’s request. 

D. What is the history and current 

content of the New Jersey LEV Program? 

On February 3, 1999, New Jersey 

adopted the NLEV program. The NLEV 

program was a voluntary agreement 

between EPA, vehicle manufacturers, 

and the states to introduce vehicles that 

met emission standards that were more 

stringent than the Federal Tier 1 

standards in effect at the time. The 

NLEV program would only take effect 

after all auto manufacturers and a 

sufficient number of states ‘‘opted-in’’ to 

the program. EPA made an NLEV ineffect finding on March 2, 1998 (63 FR 

11374), after which participating states 

submitted state implementation plan 

(SIP) revisions to ensure continuation of 

the program. New Jersey submitted an 

NLEV SIP revision on February 22, 

1999, and EPA issued a direct final rule 

to approve New Jersey’s NLEV program 

on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59638). 

On January 27, 2006, New Jersey 

amended its low emission vehicle 

program to be identical to California’s 

LEV II program. New Jersey has adopted 

California’s LEV II program, which 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13229 

includes provisions for light-duty, 

medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, 

by incorporating the California LEV II 

regulations into the New Jersey 

Administrative Code by reference. 

New Jersey is requesting that EPA 

approve its LEV program regulations as 

submitted in its SIP submission. EPA’s 

approval would make the program 

federally enforceable, further ensuring 

that planned emissions reductions will 

continue to take place. 

II. Proposed EPA Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portion of New Jersey’s low emission 

vehicle program that is identical to the 

California standards for which a waiver 

has been granted. However, because the 

waiver granted for the ZEV portion of 

the program is limited to model year 

2011 and earlier vehicles, EPA is 

proposing to take no action on the ZEV 

component. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to take no action on the 

greenhouse gas component of the 

program. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E7–5157 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–951; MB Docket No. 07–39, RM–

11360] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Prineville, OR 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rule making 

filed by Terry A. Cowan (‘‘Petitioner’’) 

proposing the allotment of Channel 

226C3 at Prineville, Oregon. The 

proposed coordinates are 44–26–17 NL 

and 120–57–12 WL with a site 

restriction of 11.4 km (7.1 miles) north 

of city reference. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 23, 2007, and reply 

comments on or before May 8, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve the 

Petitioner’s counsel, as follows: William 

D. Silva, Esquire, Law Offices of 

William D. Silva, 5335 Wisconsin 

Avenue, NW., Suite 400, Washington, 

DC 20015–2003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen McLean, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2738. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

07–39, adopted February 28, 2007, and 

released March 2, 2007. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the 

Commission’s Reference Center, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. This document may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractors, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document 

does not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

The Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS