[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64430-64435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25586]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663; FRL-9902-10-Region9]
Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Lead (Pb)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Nevada on October 12, 2011, July 23, 2012, and August 30, 2012,
pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 Lead (Pb)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We refer to such SIP
revisions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to
address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS
including, but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure,
resources, permit programs, monitoring, and modeling necessary to
assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. We are taking
comments on
[[Page 64431]]
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 29,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2013-0663, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected].
3. Fax: 415-947-3579.
4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation.
Instructions: All comments 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 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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://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 email directly to EPA, your email 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
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 at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3227,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
B. Regulatory Background
II. The State's Submittals
III. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
A. Proposed Approvals
B. Proposed Disapprovals
C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA,
within three years after the promulgation of a primary or secondary
NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Many of
the section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information
and authorities that constitute the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air
quality management program and SIP submittals that address these
requirements are referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs.'' These
infrastructure SIP elements are as follows:
Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international
pollution abatement.
Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data.
Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D
of title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements
are due under section 172. The two elements are: (i) section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under
part D [nonattainment new source review (NSR)], and (ii) section
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure
elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I).
In addition, this rulemaking does not address three substantive
issues that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP
submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during
periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at sources, that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final NSR Improvement Rule.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to address
any such existing SIP defects in other rulemakings, as appropriate. A
detailed rationale for why these issues are not part of the scope of
infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA's August 3, 2012
proposed rule entitled ``Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for
Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter'' in section I.C. (``Scope of the
Infrastructure SIP Evaluation'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 77 FR 46361 at 46362 thru 46365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Background
On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.\3\ This
action
[[Page 64432]]
triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure SIP to
address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) by October 15,
2011. EPA issued guidance in 2011 for such infrastructure SIPs entitled
``Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS''
(``EPA's 2011 Pb Guidance'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 73 FR 66964. The final rule was signed on October 15, 2008
and published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2008. The 1978
Pb standard (1.5 [micro]g/m3 as a quarterly average) was modified to
a rolling 3-month average not to exceed 0.15 [mu]g/m3. EPA also
revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m3 and made it identical
to the revised primary standard.
\4\ See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The State's Submittals
The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted
``Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec. 110(a)(1) and (2) State Implementation
Plan for the 2008 Pb NAAQS'' on October 12, 2011,\5\ which included the
NDEP and Washoe County Air Quality Management Division (AQMD) portions
of the state's Pb infrastructure SIP submittal; and submitted the
``Clark County Lead Infrastructure State Implementation Plan'' on July
23, 2012,\6\ which is the Clark County Department of Air Quality (DAQ)
portion of the state's Pb infrastructure SIP submittal. On August 30,
2012, NDEP submitted the ``Revisions to Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.
110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Submittals,'' \7\ which amended
several of the state's infrastructure SIP submittals, including the
October 12, 2011 submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See letter dated October 12, 2011 from Colleen Cripps,
Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9.
\6\ See letter dated July 23, 2012 from Colleen Cripps,
Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9.
\7\ See letter dated August 30, 2012 from Colleen Cripps,
Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These submittals included cover letters from the NDEP Administrator
to the Region IX Regional Administrator and tables for each air quality
management jurisdiction in Nevada (i.e., NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe
County Health District) that list and discuss how state and local
provisions address the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2). Each
submittal also includes attachments that, among other things, compile
the State and local rules and statutes that are currently approved into
the Nevada SIP or that apply locally and are supportive of Nevada
meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements, and provide evidence of
public notice and an opportunity for public comment or hearing prior to
adoption and submittal of the SIP revisions. We find that these
submittals meet the procedural requirements for public participation
under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102.
We are proposing to act on all three submittals since they
collectively address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008
Pb NAAQS. We refer to them collectively herein as ``Nevada's Pb
Infrastructure Submittal.''
III. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
EPA has evaluated Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal and the
existing provisions of the Nevada SIP for compliance with the CAA
section 110(a) requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Our Pb
Infrastructure SIP Technical Support Document (``Pb TSD'') contains
more detailed evaluations and is available in the public docket for
this rulemaking, which may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663. We also rely
on our technical support document (TSD) for the conflict of interest
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 (``Section 128
TSD''), which was prepared for our 2012 rulemaking on Nevada's
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate
(PM2.5), and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\ That Section
128 TSD is also included in the public docket for today's rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Proposed Approvals
Based upon our evaluation as presented in the TSDs, EPA proposes to
approve Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the
following infrastructure SIP requirements:
Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution
transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data.
Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
B. Proposed Disapprovals
EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal
with respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements (details
of the partial disapprovals are presented after this list):
Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution
transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
As explained more fully in our Pb TSD, we are proposing to
disapprove the NDEP and Washoe County portions of Nevada's Pb
Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the PSD-related requirements
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and
110(a)(2)(J) because the Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the
statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under
part C, title I of the Act. Both NDEP and Washoe County AQMD currently
implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated new
source review (NSR) pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with
EPA. See 40 CFR 52.1485.\9\ Accordingly, although the Nevada SIP
remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are
[[Page 64433]]
adequately addressed in both areas by the federal PSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA fully delegated the implementation of the federal PSD
programs to NDEP on October 19, 2004 (``Agreement for Delegation of
the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 to the
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection''), as updated on
September 15, 2011 and November 7, 2012, and to Washoe County on
March 13, 2008 (``Agreement for Delegation of the Federal Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Washoe County
District Health Department'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to disapprove the Clark County portion of Nevada's
Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the PSD-related
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(J) because Clark County's SIP-approved PSD permit program
does not contain provisions that satisfy the statutory and regulatory
requirements concerning condensable particulate matter (PM) and
PM2.5 increments under part C, title I of the Act and in 40
CFR 51.166.\10\ We address these PSD requirements as part of this
proposal on Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
because section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires that each SIP contain a
comprehensive PSD permitting program that addresses all regulated NSR
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG).\11\ As explained in more
detail below and in our Pb TSD, our proposed disapproval of the Clark
County portion of Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal based on these
PSD program deficiencies would, if finalized, trigger a FIP obligation
with respect to the requirements concerning PM2.5 increments
in Clark County but would not trigger a FIP obligation with respect to
the requirements concerning condensable PM, as a FIP clock to address
this requirement has already been triggered by EPA's 2012 action on the
NSR rules submitted for sources under Clark County's jurisdiction.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Requirements for condensable PM were promulgated in EPA's
NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See
73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008; codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49).
Requirements for PSD increments for PM2.5 were
promulgated in EPA's PSD implementation rule for the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR 64864,
October 10, 2010; codified at 40 CFR 51.166(c).
\11\ The concept of a ``comprehensive'' PSD program (i.e.,
covering the PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants,
including GHGs) has been discussed in numerous infrastructure SIP
rulemakings. See, e.g., EPA's final rule on Nevada's infrastructure
SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. 77 FR 64737 at 64738-64739, October 23,
2012. This concept is also discussed in EPA's 2011 Pb Guidance, page
6.
\12\ 77 FR 64039, October 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed disapprovals of the NDEP and Clark County portions of
the Nevada Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C) also stem from unique circumstances regarding NDEP and
Clark County's permit programs for the regulation of new and modified
minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, herein referred
to as ``minor NSR.'' Within this infrastructure SIP proposal, we are
not proposing to approve or disapprove existing minor NSR regulations.
However, in 2012, EPA finalized rulemakings on Nevada's submittals
addressing minor NSR for sources under NDEP and Clark County DAQ
jurisdiction, which included limited disapprovals.\13\ Upon review of
those actions, we found that the NDEP and Clark County minor NSR
programs lack provisions to address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Accordingly, we
cannot rely on NDEP and Clark County's existing minor NSR programs to
ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR
permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Therefore, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), we
propose to find that the Nevada SIP does not meet the minor NSR program
requirements for sources under NDEP and Clark County jurisdiction for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Regarding NDEP's minor NSR permit program, see our proposal
(77 FR 38557 at 38564, June 28, 2012) and final rules (77 FR 59321
at 59325-59326, September 27, 2012). Regarding Clark County's permit
program, see our proposed (77 FR 43206, July 24, 2012) and final
rules (77 FR 64309, October 18, 2012). These final rules and their
context specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS are discussed further in our
Pb TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in our Pb TSD, the resulting FIP obligations for these
minor NSR program deficiencies have already been triggered by EPA's
2012 actions on the NSR rules submitted for sources under NDEP \14\ and
Clark County jurisdiction.\15\ As such, our proposed disapproval of
Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the minor NSR
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the NDEP and Clark County
portions of the Nevada SIP would not trigger a new FIP obligation
because a FIP obligation already exists for the same identified SIP
deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 77 FR 59321, September 27, 2012.
\15\ 77 FR 64039, October 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (regarding
interference with other states' required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality), we propose to disapprove
Nevada's Pb Infrastructure SIP for the reasons discussed above and in
our Pb TSD in connection with the PSD-related requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C).
With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
concerning compliance with section 126 requirements regarding
interstate pollution abatement, EPA proposes to disapprove the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal, for the
reasons discussed above and in our Pb TSD in connection with the PSD-
related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
For Section 110(a)(2)(F), we propose to disapprove the Clark County
portion of Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to
subsection 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark County has repealed its
regulation, Section 24, which formerly addressed the correlation
requirement of this subsection, without submitting a SIP revision to
replace it.
As discussed in our Pb TSD, the resulting FIP obligation for this
stationary source correlation requirement for the Clark County portion
of the Nevada SIP has already been triggered by EPA's 2012 action on
Nevada's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\16\ As such, we
propose that this disapproval for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the
Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS does not
trigger a new FIP obligation because a FIP obligation already exists
for the same identified SIP deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the PSD related requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(J) we propose
to disapprove Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal for the reasons
discussed above and in our Pb TSD in connection with the PSD-related
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C).
EPA takes very seriously a proposal to disapprove a state plan, as
we believe that it is preferable, and preferred in the provisions of
the Clean Air Act, that these requirements be implemented through state
plans. A state plan need not contain exactly the same provisions that
EPA might require, but EPA must be able to find that the state plan is
consistent with the requirements of the Act. Further, EPA's oversight
role requires that it assure consistent implementation of Clean Air Act
requirements by states across the country, even while acknowledging
that individual decisions from source to source or state to state may
not have identical outcomes. EPA believes these proposed disapprovals
are the only path that is consistent with the Act at this time.
C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal was not
submitted to meet either of these
[[Page 64434]]
requirements. Therefore, any action we take to finalize the described
partial disapprovals will not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA
section 179.
In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must
promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a State has failed
to make a required submission or disapproving a State implementation
plan submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision
correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. As discussed
in section III.B of this proposed rule and in our Pb TSD, we are
proposing several partial disapprovals. With one exception, however,
these disapprovals would not result in new FIP obligations, either
because EPA has already promulgated a FIP to address the identified
deficiency or because a FIP clock has been triggered by EPA's
disapproval of a prior SIP submission based on the same identified
deficiency. The provisions for which our proposed disapproval, if
finalized, would not result in a new FIP obligation include:
PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J): For NDEP and
Washoe County, EPA has already promulgated the federal PSD program (see
40 CFR 52.1485);
PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J): For Clark County, EPA's October
18, 2012 final action on Clark County's PSD regulations triggered a
November 19, 2014 deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP addressing this
requirement (77 FR 64039);
Minor NSR requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C): EPA's
September 27, 2012 final action on NDEP's minor NSR regulations (77 FR
59321) and October 18, 2012 final action on Clark County's minor NSR
regulations (77 FR 64039) triggered deadlines of October 29, 2014 and
November 19, 2014, respectively, for EPA to promulgate FIPs addressing
the identified deficiencies;
Section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii): For Clark County, EPA's October
23, 2012 final action on Nevada's Infrastructure SIP submittals for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77
FR 64737) triggered a November 23, 2014 deadline for EPA to promulgate
a FIP addressing the requirement for correlation of stationary source
emissions with emission limits.
The one disapproval that would trigger a new FIP clock concerns the
requirement under sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J) regarding PSD increments for PM2.5 in Clark
County. EPA has not previously promulgated a FIP or triggered a FIP
clock through disapproval of a prior SIP submission based on this
deficiency. Thus, under CAA section 110(c)(1), our partial disapproval
of the Clark County portion of Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal
based on this deficiency would, if finalized, require EPA to promulgate
a FIP establishing PM2.5 increments for Clark County within
two years after the effective date of our final rule, unless the State
submits and EPA approves a SIP revision that corrects this deficiency
prior to the expiration of this two-year period.
We anticipate that NDEP will submit SIP revisions that adequately
address the deficiencies identified in EPA's 2012 actions on NDEP's
minor NSR program, Clark County's permit program (i.e., both PSD and
minor NSR), Nevada's infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and today's proposed
action on Nevada's Pb Infrastructure Submittal prior to expiration of
the 2-year FIP deadline triggered by each of these actions. We further
anticipate that EPA approval of such revisions would also serve to
adequately address the partial disapprovals of the Nevada Pb
Infrastructure SIP where no FIP is currently in place (i.e., the
disapprovals proposed herein, except for those tied to the federal PSD
programs for sources under NDEP and Washoe County Health District's
jurisdiction). We stand ready to work with the State of Nevada to
develop such SIP revisions.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq,
because this proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP
revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any
new information collection burdens but simply proposes to approve
certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other State
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule, we
certify that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed partial approval and
partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This action proposes to approve certain pre-existing
requirements, and to disapprove certain other pre-existing
requirements, under State or local law,
[[Page 64435]]
and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result
from this proposed action.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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, because it merely proposes to
approve certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other
State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
on which EPA is proposing action would not apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP.
Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Particulate matter, Pb,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 30, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-25586 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P