75536 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Notices 

1The CARB Board approved the SORE 

regulations by Resolution 03–24. 

service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on 

February 12, 2007. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–21412 Filed 12–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8256–5] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities OMB Responses 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) responses to Agency clearance 

requests, in compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et. seq.). An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 

and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Auby (202) 566–1672, or e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov and please refer to 

the appropriate EPA Information 

Collection Request (ICR) Number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance 

Requests 

OMB Approvals 

EPA ICR No. 2243.01; Procedures for 

Implementing NEPA; was approved 11/ 

15/2006; OMB Control Number 2020–

0033; expires 05/31/2007. 

Short Term Extension 

EPA ICR No. 0168.08; NPDES and 

Sewage Sludge Management State 

Programs; in 40 CFR part 122, 40 CFR 

123.21–123.24, 40 CFR 123.26–123.29, 

40 CFR 123.43–123.45, 40 CFR 123.62–

123.64, 40 CFR 124.53–124.54, 40 CFR 

part 125, 40 CFR part 501, 40 CFR 

123.26(e), 40 CFR 123.26(e)(5), 40 CFR 

123.41(a), 40 CFR 501.21, 40 CFR 

501.34, 40 CFR 501.11, 40 CFR 501.16, 

40 CFR 123.26(b)(2) and (3), 40 CFR 

124.53 and 124.54, 40 CFR 123.43 and 

123.44, 40 CFR 501.14, 40 CFR 123.45, 

40 CFR 501.21, 40 CFR 123.21, 40 CFR 

123.64, 40 CFR 123.26(b)(1), (2) and(3), 

40 CFR 123.43 and 123.44(i); OMB 

Number 2040–0057; on 11/21/2006, 

OMB extended the expiration date 

through 12/31/2006. 

EPA ICR No. 2178.01; Market-based 

Stormwater Management in the 

Shepherd Creek Watershed in 

Cincinnati, OH; OMB Number 2080–

0076; on 11/30/2006, OMB extended the 

expiration date through 03/31/2007. 

EPA ICR No. 0220.09; Clean Water 

Act Section 404 State-Assumed 

Programs; in 40 CFR 233.10–233.14, 40 

CFR 233.20–233.21, 40 CFR 233.30, 40 

CFR 233.50, 40 CFR 233.52; OMB 

Number 2040–0168; on 11/21/2006, 

OMB extended the expiration date 

through 01/31/2007. 

Dated: December 8, 2006. 

Richard T. Westlund, 

Acting Director, Collection Strategies 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E6–21419 Filed 12–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8257–2] 

California State Nonroad Engine and 

Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; 

Decision of the Administrator 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice regarding authorization 

of California small off-road engine 

emission standards. 

SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to 

section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 

42 U.S.C. 7543(e), is granting California 

its request for an authorization of its 

small off-road engine emission 

standards for 2007 and subsequent 

model years (SORE). By letter dated 

April 11, 2005, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) requested that 

EPA grant California an authorization 

(sometimes referred to as a waiver of 

federal preemption) for its SORE 

regulations which set forth amended 

exhaust emission standards and new 

evaporative emission standards and 

associated test procedures for Class I 

and Class II small off-road engines for 

2007 and subsequent model years. 

ADDRESSES: The Agency’s Decision 

Document, containing an explanation of 

the Assistant Administrator’s decision, 

as well as all documents relied upon in 

making that decision, including those 

submitted to EPA by CARB, are 

available at EPA’s Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center (Air 

Docket). Materials relevant to this 

decision are contained in Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0133. The docket 

is located at The Air Docket, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, and may be 

viewed between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. The telephone 

is (202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may 

be charged by EPA for copying docket 

material. 

Additionally, an electronic version of 

the public docket is available through 

the Federal government’s electronic 

public docket and comment system. 

You may access EPA dockets at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

www.regulations.gov Web site, select 

‘‘Environmental Protection Agency’’

from the pull-down Agency list, then 

scroll to ‘‘Keyword or ID’’ and enter 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0133 to view 

documents in the record of the SORE 

authorization request. Although a part 

of the official docket, the public docket 

does not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Dickinson, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel 

Rios Building (6405J), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 

(202) 343–09256. E-Mail Address: 

Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I have 

decided to grant California an 

authorization pursuant to section 209(e) 

of the Act for the SORE regulations.1 As 

explained in the Decision Document 

supporting today’s decision, I have 

decided to grant a full authorization for 

all of the SORE regulation despite 

CARB’s request that some portions be 

considered within the scope of previous 

authorization determinations. As also 

explained in the Decision Document, 

EPA received a series of comments 

supporting CARB’s request for an 

authorization and received comments 

from one commenter that conditionally 

supported the authorization and raised 

other concerns but did not represent 

that such other concerns should be the 

basis for denying or delaying the 

authorization. For the reasons set forth 

below and further discussed in the 

Decision Document, EPA is granting 

CARB’s request for authorization for its 

SORE regulations. 

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act addresses 

the permanent preemption of any State, 

or political subdivision thereof, from 

adopting or attempting to enforce any 

standard or other requirement relating 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Notices 75537 

2See 59 FR 36969, 36983 (July 20, 1994). 

3See Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations 

Act (Pub. L. 108–109 division G section 428). 

to the control of emissions for certain 

new nonroad engines or vehicles. 

Section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires the 

Administrator to grant California 

authorization to enforce state standards 

for new nonroad engines or vehicles 

which are not listed under section 

209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. 

On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a 

regulation that sets forth, among other 

things, the criteria, as found in section 

209(e)(2), by which EPA must consider 

any California authorization requests for 

new nonroad engines or vehicle 

emission standards. The regulations 

found at 40 CFR part 85, subpart Q, 

§ 85.1605 provides: 

(a) The Administrator shall grant the 

authorization if California determines 

that its standards will be, in the 

aggregate, at least as protective of public 

health and welfare as applicable Federal 

standards. 

(b) The authorization shall not be 

granted if the Administrator finds that: 

(1) The determination of California is 

arbitrary and capricious; 

(2) California does not need such 

California standards to meet compelling 

and extraordinary conditions; or 

(3) California standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

are not consistent with section 209. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

section 209(e) rule, EPA has interpreted 

the requirement that ‘‘California 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 209’’ to mean 

that California standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

must be consistent with section 209(a), 

section 209(e)(1), and section 

209(b)(1)(C), as EPA has interpreted that 

subsection in the context of motor 

vehicle waivers.2 In order to be 

consistent with section 209(a), 

California’s nonroad standards and 

enforcement procedures must not apply 

to new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines. Secondly, California’s 

nonroad standards and enforcement 

procedures must be consistent with 

section 209(e)(1), which identifies the 

categories permanently preempted from 

state regulation. 

Finally, because California’s nonroad 

standards and enforcement procedures 

must be consistent with section 

209(b)(1)(C), EPA will review nonroad 

authorization requests under the same 

‘‘consistency’’ criteria that are applied 

to motor vehicle waiver requests. Under 

section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator 

shall not grant California a motor 

vehicle waiver if he finds that California 

‘‘standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a)’’ of the 

Act. Previous decisions granting waivers 

of Federal preemption for motor 

vehicles have stated that State standards 

are inconsistent with section 202(a) if 

there is inadequate lead time to permit 

the development of the necessary 

technology giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance 

within that time period or if the Federal 

and State test procedures impose 

inconsistent certification requirements. 

Congress further directed EPA to 

‘‘give appropriate consideration to 

safety factors (including the potential 

increased risk of burn or fire) associated 

with compliance with the California 

standard’’ when considering any request 

from California to authorize the state to 

adopt or enforce standards or other 

requirements relating to the control of 

emission from new non-road sparkignition engines smaller than 50 

horsepower.3

CARB determined that its SORE 

standards do not cause California’s 

standards, in the aggregate, to be less 

protective of public health and welfare 

than the applicable Federal standards. 

No information has been submitted to 

demonstrate that California’s standards, 

in the aggregate, to be less protective 

than the applicable Federal standards. 

Thus, EPA cannot make a finding that 

CARB’s determination that its SORE 

standards are, in the aggregate, at least 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable Federal standards 

to be arbitrary and capricious. 

CARB has continually demonstrated 

the existence of compelling and 

extraordinary conditions justifying the 

need for its nonroad pollution control 

program, which includes the SORE 

regulations. No information has been 

submitted to demonstrate that California 

no longer has a compelling and 

extraordinary need for its own program. 

Therefore, I agree that California 

continues to have compelling and 

extraordinary conditions, thus I cannot 

deny the authorization on the basis of 

the lack of compelling and 

extraordinary conditions. 

CARB has determined that its SORE 

regulations are not inconsistent with 

section 209(a)—they do not regulate 

new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines. No information has 

been submitted opposing this 

determination. Therefore, I agree that 

California’s SORE regulations are 

consistent with section 209(a). 

CARB has determined that its SORE 

regulations are not inconsistent with 

section 209(e)(1)—they do not regulate 

new engines which are used in 

construction equipment or vehicles or 

used in farm equipment or vehicles 

which are smaller than 175 horsepower. 

No information has been submitted 

opposing this determination. As 

explained in the Decision Document, 

pressure washers are included in 

CARB’s SORE regulation and are found 

not to be inconsistent with section 

209(e)(1). 

CARB has determined that its SORE 

regulations are not inconsistent with 

section 209(b)(1)(C) as EPA has 

implemented that subsection in the 

context of motor vehicles. CARB has 

determined that it has provided 

adequate lead time to permit the 

development of the necessary 

technology giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance 

within that time period. Comment was 

received stating that ‘‘phase-in 

flexibility’’ was required by equipment 

manufacturers in order to successfully 

transition into model years where new 

emission standards apply. As explained 

in the Decision Document EPA believes 

that California has adequately addressed 

this concern. No information was 

submitted to suggest that CARB’s 

certification requirements, including 

test procedures, are inconsistent with 

applicable federal certification 

requirements. Therefore I cannot find 

that CARB’s SORE regulations are 

inconsistent with section 202(a). 

As explained in the Decision 

Document, EPA has considered safety 

factors, including the potential 

increased risk of burn or fire, both in the 

context of satisfying the statutory 

criteria of section 209(e) and in the 

context of the language in the 2004 

Omnibus Appropriation Act. In either 

context, EPA finds that issues of safety 

risks have been adequately addressed by 

California and safety factors do not 

prevent EPA from authorizing 

California’s regulations. 

EPA agrees with all CARB findings 

with regard to the provisions listed. 

Additionally, no information was 

presented to EPA by any party which 

would demonstrate that California did 

not meet the burden of satisfying the 

statutory criteria of section 209(e). 

For these reasons, EPA authorizes 

California to enforce the SORE 

regulations. 

My decision will affect not only 

persons in California but also the 

manufacturers outside the State who 

must comply with California’s 

requirements in order to produce 

nonroad engines and vehicles for sale in 

California. For this reason, I hereby 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

75538 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 241 / Friday, December 15, 2006 / Notices 

determine and find that this is a final 

action of national applicability. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final action may 

be sought only in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review 

must be filed by February 13, 2007. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final action may 

not be obtained in subsequent 

enforcement proceedings. 

As with past authorization decisions, 

this action is not a rule as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is 

exempt from review by the Office of 

Management and Budget as required for 

rules and regulations by Executive 

Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

Finally, the Administrator has 

delegated the authority to make 

determinations regarding authorizations 

under section 209(e) of the Act to the 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

Dated: December 11, 2006. 

William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. E6–21378 Filed 12–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8256–6] 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement 

Agreement; Request for Public 

Comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is 

hereby given of a proposed settlement 

agreement, to address lawsuits filed by 

Pasadena Refining Systems, Inc. 

(‘‘Petitioner’’) in the United States Court 

of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit: 

Pasadena Refining Systems, Inc. v. EPA, 

No. 04–60982 and No. 05–60551 (Fifth 

Cir.). Petitioner requested judicial 

review of various letters sent by EPA 

officials in which the EPA officials 

responded to PRSI’s request to 

determine whether PRSI would qualify 

for small refiner status under 40 CFR 

80.550 of EPA’s Nonroad Diesel 

regulations. Petitioners also requested 

judicial review of EPA’s decision to 

approve, in part, PRSI’s request for 

hardship relief under 40 CFR 80.560 of 

EPA’s Nonroad Diesel regulations. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by January 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA–

HQ–OGC–2006–0932, online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by e-mail to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; mailed to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD–

ROM should be formatted in Word or 

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and may be mailed to the mailing 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gretchen Graves, Air and Radiation Law 

Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 

564–5581; fax number (202) 564–5603; 

e-mail address: 

graves.gretchen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement 

PRSI, the purchaser of the Crown 

Central Petroleum refinery at Pasadena, 

Texas, requested judicial review of 

various letters sent by EPA officials in 

response to an inquiry from PRSI to 

determine whether PRSI would qualify 

for small refiner status under 40 CFR 

80.550 of EPA’s Nonroad Diesel 

regulations. Petitioners also requested 

judicial review of EPA’s decision to 

approve, in part, PRSI’s request for 

hardship relief under 40 CFR 80.560 of 

EPA’s Nonroad Diesel regulations. The 

proposed settlement would resolve 

these lawsuits. 

The proposed settlement agreement is 

available for review in the docket 

described above. For a period of thirty 

(30) days following the date of 

publication of this notice, the Agency 

will receive written comments relating 

to the proposed settlement agreement 

from persons who were not named as 

parties or intervenors to the litigation in 

question. EPA or the Department of 

Justice may withdraw or withhold 

consent to the proposed settlement 

agreement if the comments disclose 

facts or considerations that indicate that 

such consent is inappropriate, 

improper, inadequate, or inconsistent 

with the requirements of the Act. Unless 

EPA or the Department of Justice 

determines, based on any comment 

which may be submitted, that consent to 

the settlement agreement should be 

withdrawn, the terms of the agreement 

will be affirmed. 

PRSI has claimed that a dollar amount 

contained in section A.5 of the attached 

compliance plan contains confidential 

business information (‘‘CBI’’). EPA has 

not determined whether the term is 

entitled to confidential treatment under 

EPA’s Freedom of Information Act 

regulations. 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

According to our regulations, EPA can 

not release information claimed as 

confidential before a CBI determination 

is made. Id. Therefore, EPA has redacted 

that term for purposes of this notice, 

based on this claim. EPA invites 

comment on all aspects of the proposed 

settlement and the appropriateness of its 

terms, including comments regarding 

the appropriate dollar amount to 

include in section A.5. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed 

Settlement 

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the 

Settlement? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2006–0932) contains a 

copy of the settlement. An electronic 

version of the public docket is available 

through http://www.regulations.gov. 

You may use the www.regulations.gov 

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number. 

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

Direct your comments to the official 

public docket for this action under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2006–

0932. You may submit comments as 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES