59688 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

sections have been superseded and 

replaced by Utah’s October 9, 1998 SIP 

submittal which EPA will be addressing 

at a later date. Therefore, current rule 

sections R307–1–3.1.1, R307–1–3.1.2, 

R307–1–3.1.3, R307–1–3.1.4, R307–1–

3.1.5, R307–1–3.1.6, R307–1–3.1.8, 

R307–1–3.1.9, and R307–1–3.1.10 

which would have been renumbered to 

rule section R307–401 will remain in 

the existing SIP. We will also not be 

acting to approve R307–401–10(2). Rule 

section R307–401–10(2) has never been 

approved into the SIP and is not 

required to be in the federally 

enforceable SIP. 

12. R307–413—Permits: Exemption 

and Special Provisions. We will not be 

addressing the renumbering of rules 

R307–413–1 through R307–413–6. 

These rule sections will be addressed 

when EPA addresses Utah’s October 9, 

1998 SIP submittal. We will also not be 

addressing rules R307–413–8 and R308–

413–9 because these rule sections will 

be addressed when EPA addresses 

Utah’s January 8, 1999 SIP submittal. 

Therefore, the definitions that would 

have been relocated to rule section 

R307–413 will remain in the current 

rule section R307–1–1 and current rule 

section R307–1–3.1.7 and rule section 

R307–6–1 that would have been 

renumbered to rule section R307–413 

will remain in the existing SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

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 (Public Law 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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 30, 2005. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 05–20518 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2005–MD–0012; FRL–7982–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Maryland 

Department of the Environment. The 

revision consists of modifications to the 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and fine particulate matter and the 

replacement of the abbreviation ‘‘ppm’’

with parts per million in existing 

standards. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–

2005–MD–0012 by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: Campbell.dave@epa.gov. 

Mail: R03–OAR–2005–MD–0012, 

David Campbell, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning and Analysis Branch, 

Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R03–OAR–2005–MD–0012. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 59689 

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:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 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 RME, regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The EPA RME and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 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 RME or 

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 RME 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

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 RME or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland, 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Miller, (215) 814–2068, or by email at miller.linda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 15, 2005, the State of 

Maryland submitted a formal revision to 

its SIP. The SIP revision consists of an 

amendment which includes the revised 

ambient air quality standards for ozone 

and particulate matter. EPA 

promulgated the new, more stringent, 

national ambient quality standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone and fine particulate 

matter on July 18, 1997, 62 FR 38894 

and 62 FR 38711, respectively. 

In 1997, EPA adopted an 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with a level of 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to provide greater 

protection to public health than the 

previous standard 0.12 ppm averaged 

over a 1-hour block of time. At the same 

time, EPA established a new standard 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that 

applies to particles 2.5 microns in 

diameter or less. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Maryland’s revision incorporates the 

1997 Federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

standards into Title 26, Subtitle 11, 

Chapter 4 of the Code of Maryland 

Adminstrative Regulations (COMAR). 

The new ozone standard incorporated in 

this SIP revision is the average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration that is less 

than or equal to 0.08 ppm, averaged 

over three consecutive years. In 

addition, the SIP revision adds a new 

PM2.5 ambient air quality standard. The 

standards for PM2.5 incorporated in this 

SIP revision are 65 micrograms per 

cubic meter based on a 24-hour 

concentration and 15.0 micrograms per 

cubic meter annual arithmetic mean 

concentration. Compliance with the 

new 8-hour standard and fine 

particulate matter standards are 

determined in a manner identical to the 

NAAQS as defined at 40 CFR part 50. 

It should be noted that Maryland has 

not made any revisions to the existing 

standards for ozone (1-hour standard) or 

particulate matter (PM10). 

The revision also includes a 

clarification of the unit of measure for 

ambient air quality standards for sulfur 

oxides and nitrogen dioxide. The 

abbreviation ‘‘ppm’’ has been replaced 

by the written form ‘‘parts per million’’. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Maryland SIP revision for addition of 

new 8-hour ozone ambient air quality 

standards and fine particulate matter 

ambient air quality standards and 

clarification of unit of measure, which 

was submitted on March 15, 2005. EPA 

is soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. 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 Fed. Reg. 

28355 (May 22, 2001)). This 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 (Public Law 104–4). This 

proposed rule also does 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), nor 

will it 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 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal requirement, 

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 (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 

59690 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. This proposed rule to approve 

addition of ozone and fine particulate 

standards 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 5, 2005. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 05–20514 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R01–OAR–2005–CT–0003; 

A–1–FRL–7979–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Redesignation of City of 

New Haven PM10 Nonattainment Area 

To Attainment and Approval of the 

Limited Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. This revision establishes a 

Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the 

New Haven PM10 nonattainment area 

(New Haven NAA) in the State of 

Connecticut and grants a request by the 

State to redesignate the New Haven 

NAA to attainment for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). 

EPA is approving this redesignation and 

LMP because Connecticut has met the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R01–OAR–

2005–CT–0003 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME), EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

3. E-mail: conroy.dave@epa.gov 

4. Fax: (617) 918–0661 

5. Mail: ‘‘RME ID Number R01–OAR–

2005–CT–0003,’’ David Conroy, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code 

CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023. 

6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: David Conroy, Air 

Programs Branch Chief, 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 4:30 excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

(CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023, 

telephone number (617) 918–1684, fax 

number (617) 918–0684, e-mail 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving 

Connecticut’s SIP submittal as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: September 26, 2005. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 05–20417 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 69 

[OAR–2004–0229; FRL–7982–6] 

RIN 2060–AJ72 

Control of Air Pollution From Motor 

Vehicles and Nonroad Diesel Engines: 

Alternative Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel 

Transition Program for Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an 

implementation date of June 1, 2010 for 

the sulfur, cetane and aromatics 

requirements for highway, nonroad, 

locomotive and marine diesel fuel 

produced or imported for, distributed 

to, or used in the rural areas of Alaska. 

As of the implementation date, diesel 

fuel used in these applications would