42752 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the Commonwealth, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 14, 2014. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17323 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0495; FRL–9914–16– 

Region 9] 

Revision of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan; Nevada; Clark County; Stationary 

Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to fully 

approve permitting related rules 

submitted by Nevada as a revision to the 

Clark County Department of Air Quality 

(Clark or DEQ) portion of the state 

implementation plan (SIP) for the State 

of Nevada. These rules were adopted by 

DEQ to regulate the construction and 

modification of stationary sources of air 

pollution within Clark County. EPA is 

proposing to approve this SIP revision 

based on the Agency’s conclusion that 

the rules are consistent with applicable 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requirements, policies and guidance. 

Final approval of these rules would 

make the rules federally enforceable and 

correct program deficiencies identified 

in a previous EPA rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2014–0495, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (AIR– 

3), 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 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. 

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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2014–0495. 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: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, by 

phone: (415) 972–3534 or by email at 

yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. Which rules did the State submit? 

B. What are the existing Clark County rules 

governing stationary source permits in 

the Nevada SIP? 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. Which rules did the State submit? 

On April 1, 2014, the Nevada 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP), on behalf of Clark County 

Department of Air Quality (Clark), 

submitted amended regulations and a 

request to remove several outdated 

regulations, to EPA for approval as 

revisions to the Clark County portion of 

the Nevada SIP under the CAA. These 

New Source Review (NSR) SIP revision 

submittals, referred to herein as the 

‘‘NSR SIP submittal’’ or ‘‘submitted NSR 

rules,’’ are intended to satisfy 

previously identified deficiencies to the 

requirements under both part C 

(prevention of significant deterioration) 

(PSD) and part D (nonattainment new 

source review) of title I of the Act as 

well as the general preconstruction 

review requirements for minor sources 

under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

Please see our previous proposed and 

final rulemakings for a more detailed 

description of these rules and the 

permitting program in Clark County, 

Nevada. 77 FR 43206 (July 24, 2012); 77 

FR 64039 (October 18, 2012). 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by Clark and submitted to 

EPA by NDEP, which is the governor’s 

designee for Nevada SIP submittals. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42753 

1Section 12.4 also contains requirements to 

address the CAA title V requirements for operating 

permit programs, but we are not evaluating the rule 

for title V purposes at this time. We will evaluate 

Section 12.4 for compliance with the requirements 

of title V of the Act and EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR part 70 at a later date. 

2CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be 

subject to reasonable notice and public hearing 

prior to adoption and submittal by States to EPA 

and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULES

Section No. Section title Adopted Submitted 

0 ................................. Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 3/18/14 4/1/14 

12.0 ............................ Applicability, General Requirements and Transition Procedures ........................................... 3/18/14 4/1/14 

12.1 ............................ Permit Requirements for Minor Sources ................................................................................ 3/18/14 4/1/14 

12.2 ............................ Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Attainment Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration).3/18/14 4/1/14 

12.3 ............................ Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas ......................................... 3/18/14 4/1/14 

12.4 ............................ Authority to Construct Application and Permit Requirements For Part 70 Sources 1 ............ 3/18/14 4/1/14 

12.7 (Subsection 

12.7.5).

Emission Reduction Credits .................................................................................................... 5/18/10 4/1/14 

TABLE 2—RULES REQUESTED TO RESCIND

Section No. Section title Repealed Submitted 

1 ................. Definitions ...................................................................................

11 ............... Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................

24 ............... Sampling and Testing—Records and Reports ...........................

NDEP’s SIP submittal includes 

evidence of public notice and adoption 

of these regulations. On May 5, 2014, 

Clark’s April 1, 2014 submittal was 

determined by EPA to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. Our technical 

support document (TSD) provides 

additional background information on 

each of the submitted rules. 

B. What are the existing Clark County 

rules governing stationary source 

permits in the Nevada SIP? 

The existing SIP-approved NSR 

program for new or modified stationary 

sources in Clark County consists of one 

State regulation and seven Clark County 

regulations (‘‘Sections’’) which EPA 

approved on September 7, 2004 and 

October 18, 2012, respectively. See 69 

FR 54006 (final rule approving in whole 

or in part, Section 11 and Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) 

445B.22083) and 77 FR 64039 (final rule 

partially approving and partially 

disapproving Sections 0, 12.0, 12.1, 

12.2, 12.3 and 12.4). Collectively, these 

regulations establish the NSR 

requirements for both major and minor 

stationary sources under DAQ 

jurisdiction in Clark County. 

Consistent with Clark’s stated intent 

to have the submitted NSR rules replace 

existing SIP Sections 1 and 11, in their 

entirety, EPA’s approval of the 

regulations identified above in table 1 

would have the effect of entirely 

superseding, or rescinding our prior 

approval of Sections 1 and 11. Section 

1 contains outdated definitions that 

have been replaced by Section 0 and 

Section 11 is a rule that defines the term 

‘‘ambient air quality standards’’ and 

provides definitions for terms used in 

that definition. The term ‘‘National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ is now 

used throughout the Section 12 series of 

rules and is now defined in Section 0. 

Our proposed action would have no 

effect on NAC 445B.22083 which 

remains part of the applicable Nevada 

SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to present our evaluation under the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations of the new 

and amended NSR rules submitted by 

DAQ on April 1, 2014, as identified in 

table 1. Clark amended these rules to 

correct program deficiencies identified 

by EPA on October 18, 2012 (77 FR 

64039). We provide our reasoning in 

general terms below but provide more 

detailed analysis in our TSD, which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

EPA has reviewed the rules submitted 

by Clark governing NSR for stationary 

sources under DAQ jurisdiction for 

compliance with the CAA’s general 

requirements for SIPs in CAA section 

110(a)(2), EPA’s regulations for 

stationary source permitting programs 

in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160 

through 51.166, and the CAA 

requirements for SIP revisions in CAA 

section 110(l).2 As described below, 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

submitted NSR rules. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With respect to procedures, CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that 

revisions to a SIP be adopted by the 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices, by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, of a 

public hearing on the proposed 

revisions, a public comment period of at 

least 30 days, and an opportunity for a 

public hearing. 

Based on our review of the public 

process documentation included in the 

April 1, 2014 submittal, we find that 

Clark has provided sufficient evidence 

of public notice and opportunity for 

comment and public hearings prior to 

adoption and submittal of these rules to 

EPA. 

With respect to substantive 

requirements, we have evaluated each 

‘‘Section’’ of the submitted NSR rules in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42754 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with the CAA and 

regulatory requirements that apply to: 

(1) General preconstruction review 

programs for minor sources under 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, (2) PSD 

permit programs under part C of title I 

of the Act, and (3) Nonattainment NSR 

permit programs under part D of title I 

of the Act. We are proposing to find that 

the submitted NSR rules satisfy the 

applicable requirements for these three 

permit programs and would strengthen 

the applicable SIP by correcting and 

updating the regulations. Final approval 

of these NSR rules would correct all 

deficiencies in Clark’s permit programs 

identified in our October 18, 2012 final 

rule. See 77 FR 64039. 

In addition, EPA notes that in 2012 it 

partially disapproved Nevada’s 

infrastructure SIP (I–SIP) submittals for 

the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS for several elements 

under section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act. This included a partial disapproval 

for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), which 

requires the correlation of emissions 

reports and data collected under section 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) with any applicable 

emission limits or standards, and that 

such reports be made available for 

public inspection. See 77 FR 64737 

(October 23, 2012). EPA finalized a 

similar disapproval with respect to 

Nevada’s I–SIP submittal for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS in 2014. See 79 FR 15697 

(March 21, 2014). If finalized, today’s 

action on Clark County rule Section 12.0 

would cure the partial disapproval from 

EPA’s 2012 and 2014 I–SIP actions and 

turn off the two-year FIP clock for CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), which expires 

on November 23, 2014. Id. The TSD for 

this action contains a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation. 

Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from 

approving a revision of a plan if the 

revision would ‘‘interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress . . . or any other applicable 

requirement of [the Act].’’ 

We find that the SIP revision 

represents a strengthening of Clark 

County’s minor NSR, PSD, and 

Nonattainment NSR programs compared 

to the existing SIP programs that we 

approved in 2012, and that our approval 

of the NSR SIP submittal would not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

For the reasons stated above and 

explained further in our TSD, we find 

that the submitted NSR rules satisfy the 

applicable CAA and regulatory 

requirements for minor NSR, PSD, and 

Nonattainment NSR permit programs 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and 

parts C and D of title I of the Act. 

Therefore, we are proposing a full 

approval of the submitted NSR rules 

listed in table 1 and rescission of the 

rules listed in table 2. 

III. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA 

and for the reasons provided above and 

described more fully in the TSD for this 

rulemaking, EPA is proposing to fully 

approve the amended Clark County 

regulations listed in table 1, above, as a 

revision to the Clark County portion of 

the Nevada SIP. In addition EPA is 

proposing to rescind from the SIP the 

Clark County regulations listed in table 

2, above. If finalized as proposed, the 

submitted rules will supersede the 

existing SIP rules that provide for 

permitting of new or modified 

stationary sources in Clark County, 

including all of existing SIP sections 1, 

11 and 24. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject 

to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 19, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17326 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS