68486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Technology (BACT), in PM2.5

nonattainment areas classified as 

Serious or above (see CAA section 

189(b)(1)(B)). SJVUAPCD regulates a 

PM2.5 nonattainment area classified as 

Serious for the 1997 PM2.5 standard (40 

CFR 81.305). A BACM/BACT evaluation 

is generally performed in context of a 

broader plan. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

5. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA, 

January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01–001). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with CAA requirements and relevant 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

stringency and SIP revisions. The TSDs 

have more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rules because we 

believe they fulfills all relevant 

requirements. We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal until 

December 7, 2015. Unless we receive 

convincing new information during the 

comment period, we intend to publish 

a final approval action that will 

incorporate these rules into the federally 

enforceable SIP. While we are proposing 

to fully approve the rules, the TSDs 

discuss why fee provisions in these 

rules limit the creditable emission 

reductions from these rules in some 

CAA planning actions. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD rules as 

described in Table 1 of this notice. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

(CAA section 110(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Act. Accordingly, this proposed 

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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 19, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28278 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0673; FRL–9936–69– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of 

Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark 

County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a partial 

approval and partial disapproval of 

revisions to the Clark County portion of 

the Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of 

sulfur (SOX), and particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. We are proposing 

action on rescissions of local rules that 

regulate these pollutants under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

December 7, 2015. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 68487 

1Under state law, NDEP is the Governor’s 

designee for maintaining the Nevada SIP. NDEP is 

also the agency responsible for air quality planning 

and permitting within the entire state except for 

Clark County and Washoe County. In Clark County, 

air quality planning and permitting jurisdiction, 

with certain exceptions, lies with the Clark County 

Board of County Commissioners, which acts 

through the county’s Department of Air Quality 

(DAQ). 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0673, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or 

withdrawn. The EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. If you need to 

include CBI as part of your comment, 

please visit http://www.epa.gov/

dockets/comments.html for further 

instructions. Multimedia submissions 

(audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. For the full EPA public comment 

policy and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov or 

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: 

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3073, Gong.Kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. Which rules has the county rescinded? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the request 

for rescission? 

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. Which rules has the county 

rescinded? 

On November 20, 2014, the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) submitted a SIP revision that 

includes amendments to two local rules 

adopted by the Clark County Board of 

County Commissioners (‘‘Clark 

County’’) and rescissions of four local 

Clark County rules.1 In this action, we 

are proposing action on the rescissions. 

The EPA will take action on the rule 

amendments in a separate rulemaking. 

Table 1 lists the rule rescissions that 

the EPA herein proposes to approve, 

with the date the rule was first locally 

effective and the EPA’s date and citation 

of approval. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE RESCISSIONS PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL

Rule section of the Clark County Air 

Quality Regulations 

(CCAQR) 

Title Local effective date SIP approval date FR Citation 

Section 29 ............................................. Sulfur Contents of Fuel Oil ................... December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981 .... 46 FR 43141. 

Section 30, subsections 30.1–30.7 (excluding subsection 30.4).Incinerators ............................................ December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981 .... 46 FR 43141. 

Section 30, subsection 30.4 .................. [exemptions for certain types of incinerators].September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386. 

Section 30, subsection 30.8 .................. [related to maximum allowable emission rates].September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386. 

Table 2 lists the rule rescissions that 

the EPA herein proposes disapprove, 

with the date the rule was first locally 

effective and the EPA’s date and citation 

of approval. 

TABLE 2—SUBMITTED RULE RESCISSIONS PROPOSED FOR DISAPPROVAL

Rule section of the 

(CCAQR) Title Local effective date SIP approval date FR citation 

Section 52, subsections 52.1–52.10 

(excluding subsections 52.4.2.3 and 

52.7.2).

Handling of Gasoline at Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks.December 28, 1978 April 14, 1981 ........ 46 FR 21758. 

Section 52, subsections 52.4.2.3 and 

52.7.2.

[related to vapor recovery and sales information].September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386. 

Section 60 (excluding subsections 

60.4.2–60.4.3).

Evaporation and Leakage ..................... June 28, 1979 ....... April 14, 1981 ........ 46 FR 21758. 

Section 60, subsection 60.4.2 ............... [General prohibition on the use of cutback asphalt].September 3, 1981 March 20, 1984 ..... 49 FR 10259. 

Section 60, subsection 60.4.3 ............... [Exceptions to subsection 60.4.2] ......... September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2Unless otherwise specified, all references to 

CCAQR Sections in this document are to those 

sections in their entirety. 

3The SIP approved versions of CCAQR sections 

29, 30, 52, and 60 rules were all approved into the 

SIP prior to 1985. The County has since updated the 

locally effective rules several times. Clark County’s 

most recently adopted local rules differed 

substantially from the SIP-approved versions. The 

most recently adopted local versions were the 

subject of the county’s local repeal action. However, 

we understand that the intent of the county and 

NDEP in submitting the repeal of these lateradopted (not SIP-approved) versions of the rules is 

to remove the SIP-approved versions of the rules 

from the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP. 

On May 20, 2015, the submittal for 

Clark County was deemed by operation 

of law to meet the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

This rule rescissions include four 

sections of the Clark County portion of 

the Nevada SIP, Sections 29, 30, 52, and 

60. Previously, NDEP submitted, and 

the EPA approved into the SIP, various 

subsections of these rules separately. As 

a result, the SIP elements concerning 

each of these Clark County Air Quality 

Regulations (CCAQR) rules consist of 

several subsections as identified in 

Tables 1 and 2.2 These sections were 

repealed locally on April 5, 2011.3

C. What is the purpose of the SIPapproved rules? 

Clark County adopted a number of 

rules to meet CAA national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment requirements in the late 

1970s and 1980s, and submitted many 

of these for incorporation into the 

Nevada SIP. The rules that were 

approved into the SIP included CCAQR 

Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60. 

Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 establish 

limits and control measures to reduce 

emissions of SOX, PM, and VOCs from 

the combustion of fuels (Section 29), 

incinerators (Section 30), gasoline 

dispensing facilities (Section 52) and 

other processes and industries that use 

solvents, degreasing, surface coating, 

and cutback asphalt (Section 60). 

Clark County began a process to revise 

the CCAQR in May 2005. In part, Clark 

County was concerned with regulatory 

conflict resulting from the delegation of 

authority or the local incorporation by 

reference of federal New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) 

for many source categories covered 

under existing local rules. As a result, 

Clark County repealed Sections 29, 30, 

52, and 60 on April 5, 2011. 

The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) associated with today’s 

proposal has more information about 

these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

request for rescission? 

Once a rule has been approved as part 

of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from 

the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To 

approve such a revision, the EPA must 

determine whether the revision meets 

relevant CAA criteria for stringency, if 

any, and complies with restrictions on 

relaxation of SIP measures under CAA 

section 110(l), and the General Savings 

Clause in CAA section 193 for SIPapproved control requirements in effect 

before November 15, 1990. 

Stringency: Generally, rules must be 

protective of the NAAQS, and must 

require Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) in nonattainment 

areas for ozone and Reasonably 

Available Control Methods (RACM), 

including RACT, for PM nonattainment 

areas. Clark County is currently 

designated as a maintenance area for the 

revoked 1997 ozone standard, and as 

attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. 

(40 CFR 81.329). Clark County regulates 

a PM10 maintenance area for the 1987 

standard and is currently designated as 

attainment for the 2010 SO2 standard. 

(40 CFR 81.329). Therefore, these rules 

are not currently subject to CAA RACT, 

RACM, or analogous stringency 

standards. 

Plan Revisions: States must 

demonstrate that SIP revisions would 

not interfere with attainment, 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA 

under the provisions of CAA section 

110(l). We note that, despite its current 

ozone NAAQS attainment designations, 

air quality monitoring data from 2012– 

2014 suggest that ozone concentrations 

within Clark County no longer meet the 

2008 ozone standard, so SIP changes 

that would allow an increase in ozone 

precursor emissions (such VOC 

emissions) may not be protective of the 

NAAQS. 

Section 29 limited the sulfur content 

of fuel oils in order to reduce SOX

emissions, a precursor for PM. Section 

30 regulated the operation of 

incinerators, and limited the emissions 

of PM. Section 52 regulated the 

operation of gasoline dispensing 

facilities, and limited the emissions of 

VOCs. Section 60 regulated the use, 

storage, and disposal of solvents in large 

scale degreasing and coating operations, 

and for cutback asphalt. Therefore, 

consistent with CAA section 110(l) 

requirements, Clark County must 

demonstrate that the rescission of 

Sections 29, 30, 52 and 60 would not 

interfere with attainment and reasonable 

further progress of the NAAQS or any 

other applicable CAA requirement. 

General Savings Clause: CAA section 

193 prohibits the modification of any 

rule adopted before November 15, 1990 

in areas designated as nonattainment for 

an air pollutant unless the modification 

insures equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of the relevant pollutant. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate these requirements 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

We have concluded that CCAQR 

Sections 29 and 30 are appropriate for 

rescission. Clark County is currently 

designated as attainment or 

maintenance for each of the NAAQS. As 

a result, Clark County rules are not 

required to meet RACT or analogous 

standards, and are subject to the general 

savings clause in CAA section 193. 

Clark County also documented that 

these two rescissions should not 

increase emissions of ozone precursors, 

and that any additional emissions 

would not interfere with the 

maintenance of applicable NAAQS for 

SO2 and PM. This satisfies the 

requirements on plan revisions. 

However, CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 

are not appropriate for rescission as 

summarized below and described in 

more detail in our TSD. 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

Clark County has not demonstrated 

that rescinding CCAQR Sections 52 and 

60 would satisfy the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l). Specifically, we 

propose to disapprove the rescissions of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 68489 

sections 52 and 60 based on the 

following concerns: 

1. The rescission of Section 52 from 

the SIP would allow an increase in VOC 

emissions, as any other applicable 

Federal or State rules or standards 

would not apply to the same breadth of 

sources as the SIP-approved rule. This 

would constitute a relaxation of the SIP 

and would not be protective of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

2. The rescission of Section 60 would 

allow an increase in VOC emissions. 

Subsection 60.4 prohibits the use of 

cutback asphalt in summer months, 

with certain exceptions, which is not 

prohibited by any other Federal or State 

rules that would apply absent 

subsection 60.4. Removing this 

prohibition would constitute a 

relaxation of the SIP and would not be 

protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

D. Federal and Local Enforcement of 

Rules 

While Clark County is no longer 

enforcing these rules, Clark County 

Sections 52 and 60 would remain 

federally enforceable as part of the 

applicable SIP if the EPA were to 

finalize today’s proposed disapproval of 

the rescissions of these two rules. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, we are proposing a partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the 

Clark County rule rescissions submitted 

by NDEP on November 20, 2014. We are 

proposing to approve the rescissions of 

CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 and to 

disapprove the rescissions of Sections 

52 and 60. Final approval of the 

rescissions of Clark County Sections 29 

and 30 would remove the rules from the 

Nevada SIP. Final disapproval of the 

rescissions of Clark County Sections 52 

and 60 would retain both rules in the 

Nevada SIP. 

Neither sanctions nor a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) would be 

imposed should the EPA finalize this 

disapproval. Sanctions would not be 

imposed under CAA section 179(b) 

because the SIP submittal that we are 

partially disapproving is not a required 

SIP submittal. Similarly, EPA would not 

promulgate a FIP in this instance under 

CAA section 110(c)(1) because the 

partial disapproval of the SIP revision 

retains existing SIP rules and does not 

reveal a deficiency in the SIP for the 

area that a FIP must correct. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed disapproval for 

the next 30 days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the E.O. 

B. 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 SIP approval and 

partial SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply approves and 

disapproves the removal of certain State 

requirements from the SIP. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. 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 on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP approval 

and disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply approves and 

disapproves the removal of certain State 

requirements from the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for the EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the Clean Air Act 

prescribes that various consequences 

(e.g., higher offset requirements) may or 

will flow from this disapproval does not 

mean that the EPA either can or must 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this action. 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. 

D. 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.’’ The 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

approval and 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 and disapprove the removal of 

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 action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA 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 approves and disapproves the 

removal of certain State requirements 

from the SIP and does not alter the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

F. 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 revisions that the 

EPA is proposing to approve and 

disapprove would not apply on any 

Indian reservation land or in any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and the 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 action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The 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 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 

SIP revision under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply approves and 

disapproves the removal of certain State 

requirements from the SIP. 

H. 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. 

I. 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 the 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 the 

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 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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (E.O). 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. 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 19, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28276 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 

265, 268, 270, 273, and 279 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0121; FRL–9936–51– 

OSWER] 

RIN 2050–AG70 

Hazardous Waste Generator 

Improvements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

announcing an extension to the 

comment period for the proposed rule 

on improvements to the generator 

regulations published in the Federal 

Register on September 25, 2015. EPA is 

proposing to revise the hazardous waste 

generator regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) to improve compliance and 

thereby enhance protection of human 

health and the environment. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to revise 

certain components of the hazardous 

waste generator regulatory program; 

address gaps in the regulations; provide 

greater flexibility for hazardous waste 

generators to manage their hazardous 

waste in a cost-effective and protective 

manner; reorganize the hazardous waste 

regulations to make them more userfriendly and thus improve their 

usability by the regulated community; 

and make technical corrections and 

conforming changes to address 

inadvertent errors, remove obsolete 

references to programs that no longer 

exist, and improve the readability of the 

regulations. The comment period is 

being extended to December 24, 2015. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

published September 25, 2015 (80 FR 

57918) must be received on or before 

December 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2012–0121, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more detailed information on specific 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS