Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28893 

throughout the development, 

submission and consideration of its 

proposed State Plan. Although OSHA 

has determined that the requirements 

and consultation procedures provided 

in Executive Order 13132 are not 

applicable to initial approval decisions 

under the Act, which have no effect 

outside the particular State receiving the 

approval, OSHA has reviewed the 

Maine initial approval decision 

proposed today, and believes it is 

consistent with the principles and 

criteria set forth in the Executive Order. 

Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized 

the preparation of this notice. OSHA is 

issuing this notice under the authority 

specified by Section 18 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912), 

and 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1956. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on May 14, 

2015. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12154 Filed 5–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0819; FRL–9927–47– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

NAAQS Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan. The submitted 

state rule revisions update Illinois’ 

ambient air quality standards for sulfur 

dioxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, 

fine particulate matter, particulate 

matter, and carbon monoxide and bring 

them up to date (through 2012) with 

EPA-promulgated National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. The SIP revision also 

adopts EPA-promulgated monitoring 

methods and test procedures for the 

revised state air quality standards. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0819, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 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: 

Edward Doty, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057, 

Doty.Edward@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’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: May 4, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12253 Filed 5–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0812; FRL–9927–89– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; 

Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements 

for Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, and 

Sulfur Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

as meeting the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). CAA 

section 110(a)(1) requires that each state 

adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, and that EPA 

act on such SIPs. We refer to such SIPs 

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. In addition to our proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of Nevada’s infrastructure SIP, we are 

proposing to reclassify certain regions of 

the state for SO2 emergency episode 

planning and remove obsolete language 

from the Nevada SIP. We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2014–0812. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28894 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

2See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

3EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submittal 

of certain types of SIP submittals in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submittal of emissions inventories for the ozone 

NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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 directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3856, 

kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

II. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Changes to the Application of PSD 

Permitting Requirements With GHGs 

III. State Submittal and EPA Action 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals 

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals 

C. Defining the Nevada Intrastate Air 

Quality Control Region 

D. Proposed Approval of Reclassification 

Requests for Emergency Episode 

Planning 

E. Proposed Removal of Historic SIP 

Provisions 

F. Request for Public Comments 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

EPA is acting upon several SIP 

submittals from Nevada that address the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submittal of this type arises 

out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant 

to section 110(a)(1), states must make 

SIP submittals ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submittals are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submittals, and 

the requirement to make the submittals 

is not conditioned upon EPA’s taking 

any action other than promulgating a 

new or revised NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submittal must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submittals made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submittals. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submittal from submittals 

that are intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment 

SIP’’ submittals to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional 

haze SIP’’ submittals required by EPA 

rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of CAA section 169A, and 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

permit program submittals to address 

the permit requirements of CAA, title I, 

part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submittals. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains ambiguities concerning what is 

required for inclusion in an 

infrastructure SIP submittal. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submittals 

for a given new or revised NAAQS. One 

example of ambiguity is that section 

110(a)(2) requires that ‘‘each’’ SIP 

submittal must meet the list of 

requirements therein, while EPA has 

long noted that this literal reading of the 

statute is internally inconsistent and 

would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submittals to 

address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submittal of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submittal. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submittal, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submittal in a 

single action. Although section 110(a)(1) 

directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet 

these requirements, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow states to make multiple 

SIP submittals separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submittals to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submittals 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28895 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR 

4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 5On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

6For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

7EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submittals. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

8 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

9EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submittals to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submittal for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submittal. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submittal.5

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submittal 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submittals for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submittal for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submittal to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.6

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submittals required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submittals, EPA also has to identify and 

interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submittals. For 

example, section 172(c)(7) requires that 

attainment plan SIP submittals required 

by part D have to meet the ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ of section 110(a)(2). 

Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP 

submittals must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding 

enforceable emission limits and control 

measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

regarding air agency resources and 

authority. By contrast, it is clear that 

attainment plan SIP submittals required 

by part D would not need to meet the 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 

pertains to the air quality prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program 

required in part C of title I of the CAA, 

because PSD does not apply to a 

pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submittal may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submittal. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submittals against the 

list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but 

only to the extent each element applies 

for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submittals for particular 

elements.7 EPA most recently issued 

guidance for infrastructure SIPs on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this 

guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submittals to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submittals.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submittals need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submittal for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submittals. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submittals to ensure that the state’s SIP 

appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submittals because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submittals with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28896 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submittal that contained a legal deficiency, such as 

a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM 

events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

11For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 76 FR 21639, 

April 18, 2011. 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submittals related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641, 

June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 

(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submittal 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 

42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540, 

January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

contained in part C, title I of the Act and 

EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD 

program requirements include 

provisions necessary for the PSD 

program to address all regulated sources 

and regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, 

structural PSD program requirements do 

not include provisions that are not 

required under EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 51.166 but are merely available as 

an option for the state, such as the 

option to provide grandfathering of 

complete permit applications with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, the latter optional 

provisions are types of provisions EPA 

considers irrelevant in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on 

assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic 

structural requirements. For example, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, 

the requirement that states have a 

program to regulate minor new sources. 

Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state 

has a SIP-approved minor NSR program 

and whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submittal, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submittal is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186, 

December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 

FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP submittal 

without scrutinizing the totality of the 

existing SIP for such potentially 

deficient provisions and may approve 

the submittal even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.10 It is important to 

note that EPA’s approval of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal should not 

be construed as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submittals is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submittal. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submittal is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submittal. EPA believes that a better 

approach is for states and EPA to focus 

attention on those elements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to 

warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives 

simpler recommendations with respect 

to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal 

for any future new or revised NAAQS 

for carbon monoxide need only state 

this fact in order to address the visibility 

prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submittals.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28897 

14 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008. 

15 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO 

2 standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease 

of comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

16 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO 2 

standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of 

comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

17Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. 

II. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to make a SIP submission within 

3 years after the promulgation of a new 

or revised primary NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must include. 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 required by 

section 110(a)(2) 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, PSD, and visibility 

protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submittal 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 threeyear submittal deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These two 

elements are: Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent it refers to permit programs 

required under part D (nonattainment 

NSR), and section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure for the nonattainment 

NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or 

the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I). 

B. Regulatory Background 

Between 1997 and 2012, EPA 

promulgated a series of new or revised 

NAAQS for ozone, NO2, and SO2, 

triggering a requirement for states to 

submit infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS 

addressed by this infrastructure SIP 

proposal include the following: 

• 2008 ozone NAAQS, which revised 

the 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 

ppm.14

• 2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised 

the primary 1971 NO2 annual standard 

of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by 

supplementing it with a new 1-hour 

average NO2 standard of 100 ppb, and 

retained the secondary annual standard 

of 53 ppb.15

• 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which 

established a new 1-hour average SO2

standard of 75 ppb, retained the 

secondary 3-hour average SO2 standard 

of 500 ppb, and established a 

mechanism for revoking the primary 

1971 annual and 24-hour SO2

standards.16

C. Changes to the Application of PSD 

Permitting Requirements With GHGs 

With respect to Elements (C) and (J), 

EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to 

require each state to make an 

infrastructure SIP submission for a new 

or revised NAAQS that demonstrates 

that the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program meeting the current 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. The requirements of Element 

D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by 

demonstrating the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. Nevada has shown that it 

currently has a PSD program in place 

that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs), 

with the exception of the deficiencies in 

the NDEP and Washoe County portions 

of the SIP, described elsewhere in this 

document. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions.17 The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). In order to 

act consistently with its understanding 

of the Court’s decision pending further 

judicial action to effectuate the decision, 

the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 

regulations that would require that SIPs 

include permitting requirements that 

the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not 

applying the requirement that a state’s 

SIP-approved PSD program require that 

sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs 

are the only pollutant (i) that the source 

emits or has the potential to emit above 

the major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions 

increase from a modification (e.g. 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a 

need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In 

addition, EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision. The timing 

and content of subsequent EPA actions 

with respect to the EPA regulations and 

state PSD program approvals are 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal process before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA 

is not expecting states to have revised 

their PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

At present, EPA has determined the 

Clark County SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect 

to GHGs because the PSD permitting 

program previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT. Although the SIP-approved Clark 

County PSD permitting program may 

currently contain provisions that are no 

longer necessary in light of the Supreme 

Court decision, this does not render the 

infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy Elements C, 

(D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the 

necessary PSD requirements at this 

time, and the application of those 

requirements is not impeded by the 

presence of other previously-approved 

provisions regarding the permitting of 

sources of GHGs that EPA does not 

consider necessary at this time in light 

of the Supreme Court decision. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28898 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

decision does not affect EPA’s proposed 

approval of Clark County’s 

infrastructure SIP as to the requirements 

of Elements C, D(i)(II), and J. 

III. State Submittal and EPA Action 

The Nevada Department of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) has 

submitted several infrastructure SIP 

submittals pursuant to EPA’s 

promulgation of specific NAAQS, 

including: 

Ozone 

• The Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection Portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration 

of Adequacy April 10, 2013. 

• State Implementation Plan Revision 

to Meet the Ozone Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

section 110(a)(2), Clark County, Nevada, 

February 2013. 

• The Washoe County Portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration 

of Adequacy, February 28, 2013. 

NO2

• NDEP letter to EPA, dated May 9, 

2013 and Washoe County letter, dated 

April 26, 2013, containing the Approved 

Minutes of the February 28, 2013 public 

hearing and the Certificate of Adoption. 

• The Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection Portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan for 

the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Primary 

NAAQS: Demonstration of Adequacy 

and appendices, January 18, 2013. 

• State Implementation Plan Revision 

to Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2), and 

attachments Clark County, Nevada 

December 2012. 

• The Washoe County Portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan to 

Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) (draft 

document) and attachments, January 24, 

2014. 

SO2

• The Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection Portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan for 

the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary 

NAAQS, and appendices, June 3, 2013. 

• State Implementation Plan Revision 

to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2), and 

attachments Clark County, Nevada, May 

2013. 

• The Washoe County Portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan to 

Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure 

SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 110(a)(2), and attachments, 

March 28, 2013. 

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 of these 

submittals since they collectively 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the NAAQS addressed 

by this proposed rule. We refer to them 

collectively herein as ‘‘Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals.’’ 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals 

We have evaluated Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the 

existing provisions of the Nevada SIP 

for compliance with the infrastructure 

SIP requirements (or ‘‘elements’’) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) and applicable 

regulations in 40 CFR part 51 

(‘‘Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of State 

Implementation Plans’’). The Technical 

Support Document (TSD), which is 

available in the docket to this action, 

includes our evaluation for many 

elements, as well as our evaluation of 

various statutory and regulatory 

provisions. For some elements, it refers 

to older TSDs for prior Nevada 

Infrastructure SIPs, which have also 

been included in the docket. 

Based upon this analysis, we propose 

to approve the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2,

and 2010 SO2 Nevada Infrastructure SIP 

with respect to the following Clean Air 

Act 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 

stationary sources (full approval for 

Clark County). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see 

below): Interstate Pollution Transport. 

D Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)— 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment, or prongs 1 and 2 (full 

approval of NDEP, Clark County and 

Washoe County for the NO2 NAAQS). 

D Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)— 

interference with maintenance, or prong 

3 (full approval for Clark County). 

D Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (full 

approval)—visibility transport, or prong 

4. 

D Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)— 

interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution (full approval 

for Clark County). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local 

governments and regional 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) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection (full approval for 

Clark County). 

• 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. 

EPA is taking no action on Interstate 

Transport—significant contribution to 

nonattainment for NDEP, Clark County 

and Washoe County on the Ozone and 

SO2 NAAQS (section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). 

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals 

EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the following infrastructure 

SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources (for all 

NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule 

and covered by the NDEP and Washoe 

County PSD permitting programs). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part, 

see below): Interstate pollution 

transport, 

D Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)— 

interference with maintenance, or prong 

3 (disapproved for all NAAQS 

addressed by this proposed rule and 

covered by the NDEP and Washoe 

County PSD permitting programs). 

D Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)— 

interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution (disapproved 

for all NAAQS addressed by this 

proposed rule and covered by the NDEP 

and Washoe County PSD permitting 

programs). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection (for all NAAQS addressed by 

this proposed rule and covered by the 

NDEP and Washoe County PSD 

permitting programs). 

As explained more fully in our TSD, 

we are proposing to disapprove the 

NDEP and Washoe County portions of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure Submittals with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28899 

18EPA 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’’). 

19Federal Air Quality Control Regions, U.S. EPA, 

January 1972 <http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ 

P10053PA.PDF?Dockey=P10053PA.PDF> (last 

visited April 1, 2015). 

20 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152. 

21 40 CFR 51.150(c). 

22 40 FR 5508. 

23 67 FR 17939. 

24SO2 monitoring is not required for the Nevada 

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, because it’s 

population weighted exposure index does not 

exceed 5000 (million person-tons per year of SO2), 

per 40 CFR part 58, appendix D 4.4.2. 

25 40 FR 5508. 

respect to the PSD-related requirements 

of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 

the PSD requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J). The Nevada SIP does not 

fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for PSD permit programs 

under part C, title I of the Act, because 

NDEP and Washoe County currently 

implement the Federal PSD program in 

40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, pursuant to delegation 

agreements with EPA. See 40 CFR 

52.1485.18 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 

adequately addressed in both areas by 

the federal PSD program and do not 

create new FIP obligations. 

In EPA’s evaluation of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittal for Lead 

(Pb), the requirements under sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J) regarding Clark County’s 

PSD permitting program, specifically 

PSD increments for PM2.5, initiated a 

requirement for the development of a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or 

sanctions. This deficiency has been 

addressed by the recent changes to the 

Clark County PSD permitting program, 

as discussed in Element C of the TSD. 

C. Defining the Nevada Intrastate Air 

Quality Control Region 

In reviewing the Nevada SIP 

Infrastructure submittal for compliance 

with CAA section 110(a)(2)(G), as 

discussed in section D below, we noted 

that the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality 

Control Region has not been defined in 

subpart B of 40 CFR part 81. The 

emergency episode priority 

classifications for the Region is 

provided by 40 CFR 52.1471 for many 

NAAQS. Additionally, EPA identified 

the counties of the Nevada Intrastate 

Region in a 1972 EPA report titled: 

Federal Air Quality Control Regions.19

To rectify the apparent Federal Register 

omission, we are proposing to define the 

Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control 

Region in subpart B of 40 CFR part 81, 

consistent with Federal Air Quality 

Control Regions, as comprised of the 

following counties: Elko, Humboldt, 

Pershing, Lander, Eureka, White Pine, 

Lincoln, Nye, Esmeralda, Mineral, and 

Churchill. On its own, this proposed 

change does not alter the priority 

classification of the Region for 

emergency episode purposes. 

D. Proposed Approval of 

Reclassification Requests for Emergency 

Episode Planning 

NDEP’s portion of Nevada’s SO2

Infrastructure Submittal requested that 

EPA reclassify the Nevada Intrastate Air 

Quality Region with respect to the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H. The priority thresholds for 

classification of regions are listed in 40 

CFR 51.150 while the specific 

classifications of air quality control 

regions in Nevada are listed at 40 CFR 

52.1471. Consistent with the provisions 

of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an 

air quality control region must rely on 

the most recent three years of air quality 

data. Regions classified Priority I, IA, or 

II are required to have SIP-approved 

emergency episode contingency plans, 

while those classified Priority III are not 

required to have plans.20 We interpret 

40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means 

for states to review air quality data and 

request a higher or lower classification 

for any given region and as providing 

the regulatory basis for EPA to reclassify 

such regions, as appropriate, under the 

authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) 

and 301(a)(1). 

The Nevada Intrastate Air Quality 

Control Region is classified as priority 

IA for SO2. Priority IA means the region 

is classified as Priority I ‘‘primarily 

because of emissions from a single point 

source.’’ 21 As our TSD further clarifies, 

the point source appears to have been 

the copper smelter in McGill, Nevada, 

within the Steptoe Valley, operated by 

the Kennecott Minerals Company. The 

Kennecott smelter was the only major 

source of SO2 emissions within the 

Nevada Interstate Region when the 

priority classifications were established 

in 1980.22

Our attainment finding for Steptoe 

Valley (SO2) nonattainment area stated 

that the Kennecott facility ceased 

operation in 1983, removed all smelting 

equipment in 1987, and demolished the 

facility’s stack in 1993.23 It continued 

on to state ‘‘ambient air quality 

monitoring from 1979 to 1983 indicates 

there were no violations during the last 

years of the smelter operation.’’ NDEP 

has not collected SO2 monitoring data 

since 1983, nor are they currently 

required to do so.24 Based on the 

information above and presented in our 

TSD, we are proposing to approve 

Nevada’s request to reclassify the 

Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Region to 

Priority III for SO2 emergency episode 

planning. 

We also evaluated the Las Vegas 

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

(i.e. Clark County), which is also 

currently classified as Priority IA for 

SO2. Their ambient air quality data for 

2011–2013 does not exceed the Priority 

II level of 260–455 mg/m3 set at 40 CFR 

51.150(d)(1). Therefore, based on the 

last three years of available data, we are 

proposing to reclassify the Las Vegas 

Intrastate Region to Priority III for SO2. 

E. Proposed Removal of Historic SIP 

Provisions 

NDEP also requested that EPA remove 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of 40 CFR 

52.1475, ‘‘Control strategy and 

regulations: Sulfur oxides.’’ This section 

was added to the Nevada SIP ‘‘. . . to 

promulgate substitute regulations for the 

control of SO2 at the Kennecott Copper 

Corporation Smelter, McGill, 

Nevada . . .’’ because we had 

disapproved Nevada’s proposed SO2

emission controls for the Kennecott 

smelter.25 40 CFR 52.1475 no longer 

applies since the Kennecott smelter is 

nonexistent and the area was 

redesignated as attainment. Since the 

provision serves no purpose beyond 

providing historic information, we are 

proposing to remove 40 CFR 52.1475 

from the Nevada SIP. 

F. Request for Public Comments 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

28900 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 this 

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 this 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 preexisting requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other pre-existing 

requirements, under State or local law, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 97 / Wednesday, May 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28901 

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, Approval and 

promulgation of implementation plans, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: May 8, 2015. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12243 Filed 5–19–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0616; FRL–9927–23– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Revisions to the New Source Review 

(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Permitting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

two revisions to the New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to update the 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) SIP permitting program consistent 

with federal requirements. New Mexico 

submitted the Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County PSD SIP permitting revisions on 

July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, which 

included a request for parallel 

processing of the submitted 2015 

revisions. These submittals contain 

revisions to address the requirements of 

the EPA’s May 2008, July 2010, and 

October 2012 PM2.5 PSD 

Implementation Rules and to 

incorporate revisions consistent with 

the EPA’s March 2011 Fugitives Interim 

Rule, July 2011 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

Biomass Deferral Rule, and July 2012 

GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG 

PALs Rule. The EPA is proposing to 

find that these revisions to the New 

Mexico SIP meet the Federal Clean Air 

Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA 

regulations, and are consistent with EPA 

policies. We are proposing this action 

under section 110 and part C of title I 

of the Act. The EPA is not approving 

these rules within the exterior 

boundaries of a reservation or other 

areas within any Tribal Nation’s 

jurisdiction. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before June 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0616, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Ms. Ashley Mohr at 

mohr.ashley@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Ms. Ashley Mohr, 

Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013– 

0616. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email, 

if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email 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, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Mohr, (214) 665–7289, 

mohr.ashley@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Ashley Mohr or 

Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. New Mexico’s SIP Submittals 

B. Relevant EPA Rulemakings 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires states to develop and submit to 

the EPA for approval into the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), 

preconstruction review and permitting 

programs applicable to certain new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants for attainment and 

nonattainment areas that cover both 

major and minor new sources and 

modifications, collectively referred to as 

the New Source Review (NSR) SIP. The 

Clean Air Act (CAA) NSR SIP program 

is composed of three separate programs: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD), Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is 

established in part C of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that meet the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)—‘‘attainment areas’’—as well 

as areas where there is insufficient 

information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS