Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15697 

1 73 FR 66964. The final rule was signed on 

October 15, 2008 and published in the Federal 

Register on November 12, 2008. The 1978 Pb 

standard (1.5 mg/m3 as a quarterly average) was 

Continued 

(i) Harbor Bay-Fritch Canyon area 

(approximately 5.7 miles); 

(ii) Harbor Bay Short-Creek area 

(approximately 3.3 miles); 

(iii) Short Creek-South Turkey Creek 

area (approximately 2.8 miles); 

(iv) South Turkey Creek area 

(approximately 4.4 miles); and 

(v) Fritch Fortress area (approximately 

5.2 miles). 

(2) Designation of bicycle routes or 

portions of routes shall be implemented 

with a written determination that the 

route is open for public use and that 

such bicycle use is consistent with the 

protection of the park area’s natural, 

scenic and aesthetic values, safety 

considerations and management 

objectives, and will not disturb wildlife 

or park resources. Notice may be 

provided by posting signs and 

identifying routes on maps which shall 

be available in the office of the 

Superintendent and on the park’s Web 

site. 

(3) The Superintendent may open or 

close designated bicycle routes, or 

portions thereof, or impose conditions 

or restrictions for bicycle use after 

taking into consideration public health 

and safety, natural and cultural resource 

protection, carrying capacity, and other 

management activities and objectives. 

(i) The Superintendent will provide 

public notice of all such actions through 

one or more of the methods listed in 

§ 1.7 of this chapter. 

(ii) Violating a closure, condition, or 

restriction is prohibited. 

Dated: March 11, 2014. 

Michael Bean, 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06239 Filed 3–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–EJ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AO21 

Criteria for a Catastrophically Disabled 

Determination for Purposes of 

Enrollment; Correction 

AGENCIES: Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs published in the Federal 

Register on December 3, 2013, a 

document amending its regulation 

concerning the manner in which VA 

determines that a veteran is 

catastrophically disabled for purposes of 

enrollment in priority group 4 for VA 

health care. The Regulation Identifier 

Number, 2900–AO21, in the heading 

was typed incorrectly. This document 

corrects the Regulation Identifier 

Number. 

DATES: Effective: March 21, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Consuela Benjamin, Regulations 

Development Coordinator, Regulation 

Policy and Management, Office of the 

General Counsel, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– 

4902. (This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In final rule document 2013–28858, 

published on December 3, 2013 at 78 FR 

72576, make the following correction: 

On page 72576, in the third column, 

correct the Regulation Identifier Number 

(RIN) in the heading to read ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AO21’’ instead of ‘‘RIN 2900–A021’’. 

Dated: March 18, 2014. 

Janet Coleman, 

Acting Chief, Regulations Development, 

Tracking, and Control, Regulation Policy and 

Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06222 Filed 3–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0663; FRL–9908–09– 

Region9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Lead 

(Pb) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving in part and 

disapproving in part State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Nevada 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead 

(Pb) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). The CAA 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. Nevada has met most 

of the applicable requirements. Where 

EPA is disapproving, in part, Nevada’s 

SIP revisions, most of the deficiencies 

have already been addressed by a 

federal implementation plan (FIP). For 

one remaining deficiency, this final rule 

sets a two-year deadline for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves 

an adequate SIP revision prior to that 

time. EPA remains committed to 

working with Nevada’s environmental 

agencies to develop such a SIP revision. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2013–0663. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

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

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed 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., confidential 

business information (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: Rory 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

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

each state to submit to EPA, within 

three years (or such shorter period as 

the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a primary or 

secondary NAAQS or any revision 

thereof, a SIP that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. EPA 

refers to these specific submissions as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS. 

On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for Pb.1 This NAAQS 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15698 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

modified to a rolling 3-month average not to exceed 

0.15 mg/m3. EPA also revised the secondary 

NAAQS to 0.15 mg/m3 and made it identical to the 

revised primary standard. 2 78 FR 64430, October 29, 2013. 

3The two TSDs are as follows: (1) ‘‘Pb 

Infrastructure SIP Technical Support Document: 

EPA Evaluation of Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 

2008 Pb NAAQS,’’ September 2013 (‘‘Pb TSD’’); and 

(2) ‘‘Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation 

of Nevada Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/

Section 128 Conflict of Interest Requirements,’’ July 

2012 (‘‘Section 128 TSD’’), which was prepared for 

our 2012 rulemaking on Nevada’s infrastructure 

SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 

64737, October 23, 2012). 

4See document number EPA–R09–OAR–2013– 

0663–0010 at http://www.regulations.gov under 

docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0663. 

5NDEP’s comment letter, p 1. 

6 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012. 

7 40 CFR 52.02(b). 

8 39 FR 42510, December 5, 1974. 

9 40 FR 25004, June 12, 1975, adding 40 CFR 

52.1485 to Subpart DD—Nevada. 

10 43 FR 26380, June 19, 1978 and 45 FR 52676, 

August 7, 1980. 

revision triggered a requirement for 

states to submit an infrastructure SIP to 

address the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years. The 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP) submitted 

infrastructure SIP revisions for Pb to 

EPA on October 12, 2011, for the NDEP 

and Washoe County portions of the SIP; 

July 23, 2012, for the Clark County 

portion of the SIP; and August 30, 2012, 

which amended several of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals, including 

the October 12, 2011 submittal for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. We refer to them 

collectively herein as ‘‘Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal.’’ 

On October 29, 2013 (78 FR 64430), 

EPA proposed to approve in part, and 

disapprove in part, these SIP revisions 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are 

taking final action on all three 

submittals since they collectively 

address the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

The rationale supporting EPA’s action 

is explained in our October 29, 2013 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(proposed rule) 2 and the two associated 

technical support documents (TSDs) 3

and will not be restated here. The 

proposed rule and TSDs are available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2013–0663. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed rule opened on October 29, 

2013, the date of its publication in the 

Federal Register, and closed on 

November 29, 2013. During this period, 

EPA received one comment letter from 

NDEP on November 27, 2013 (herein 

‘‘NDEP’s comment letter’’). This letter is 

available in the docket to today’s final 

rule.4

Comment: 

NDEP notes that EPA proposed to 

disapprove the portion of Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permit programs for NDEP and 

Washoe County because the programs 

do not completely satisfy the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for PSD 

permit programs. NDEP also notes, 

however, that EPA recognizes that the 

deficiencies related to the PSD programs 

are adequately addressed by the existing 

federal implementation plan (FIP), for 

which EPA has delegated enforcement 

authority to NDEP and Washoe County 

District Health Department (WCDHD). 

Moreover, NDEP argues that ‘‘its PSD 

program is ultimately SIP-based’’ 5 and 

refers to page 4 of its October 12, 2011 

submittal wherein NDEP states that it 

has full delegation of the federal PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21, including 

provisions that tailored the PSD 

permitting thresholds for greenhouse 

gases. NDEP’s comment letter then 

asserts that the portion of Nevada’s SIP 

found at 40 CFR 52.1485(b), which 

incorporates EPA’s PSD FIP provisions 

in the Nevada SIP, make EPA’s PSD FIP 

a part of the SIP, with the exception of 

the portion applicable to Clark County. 

As such, NDEP believes that the 

elements of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal related to PSD programs 

under the jurisdiction of NDEP and 

WCDHD should be approved. 

Response: 

We disagree with NDEP’s argument 

that Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal should be approved for PSDrelated infrastructure SIP requirements 

for the NDEP and WCDHD jurisdictions. 

We note that NDEP and WCDHD 

submitted similar comments in 2012 

with respect to EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking on infrastructure SIPs for 

the 1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Our response to NDEP’s comment 

largely reiterates our response to NDEP 

and WCDHD’s comments on delegated 

PSD FIP programs during our 2012 

rulemaking on Nevada’s infrastructure 

SIPs.6

The CAA requires each state to adopt 

and submit a plan which provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. See CAA 

section 110(a)(1). Section 110(a)(2) sets 

forth the content requirements for such 

plans, including the requirement for a 

permit program as required in part C 

(‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality,’’ or ‘‘PSD’’) of title I of 

the CAA. Such plans are referred to as 

state implementation plans or SIPs. 

EPA’s authority to promulgate a FIP 

derives from EPA’s determination that a 

state has failed to submit a complete, 

required SIP submission or from EPA’s 

disapproval of a state submission of a 

SIP or SIP revision. See CAA section 

110(c)(1). The SIP, viewed broadly, thus 

includes both portions of the plan 

submitted by the state and approved by 

EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by 

EPA to substitute for a state plan 

disapproved by EPA or not submitted by 

a state.7

In 1974, EPA disapproved each state’s 

SIP with respect to PSD and 

promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the 

SIP deficiency (‘‘PSD FIP’’).8 In 1975, 

EPA codified the PSD FIP in each state’s 

subpart in 40 CFR part 52.9 In 1978 and 

1980, EPA amended the PSD regulations 

following the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977 and related court 

decisions and amended the codification 

of the PSD FIP in each state’s subpart, 

including 40 CFR 52.1485, 

accordingly.10

Since then, EPA has approved the 

PSD SIP for the sources and geographic 

area that lie within the jurisdiction of 

Clark County Department of Air Quality 

(DAQ), and has delegated responsibility 

for conducting PSD review, as per the 

PSD FIP, to NDEP and WCDHD. 

Notwithstanding the delegation, 

however, the Nevada SIP remains 

deficient with respect to PSD for the 

geographic areas and stationary sources 

that lie within NDEP and WCDHD’s 

jurisdictions. As such, EPA’s 

disapproval of the infrastructure SIP 

submittals for those elements that 

require states to have a SIP that includes 

a PSD permit program, including CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

and (J), is appropriate because EPA 

disapproved the state’s submitted plan 

as not adequately addressing PSD 

program requirements. To conclude 

otherwise would be inconsistent with 

the long-standing and current 

disapproval of the SIP for PSD for the 

applicable areas, with the statutory 

foundation upon which the PSD FIP is 

authorized, and with the obligation 

under section 110(a) for each state to 

adopt and submit a plan for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS that 

includes a PSD program. EPA’s 

delegation of the PSD FIP is not the 

same as state adoption and submittal of 

state or district rules meeting PSD 

requirements and EPA’s approval 

thereof. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15699 

11 40 CFR 52.1485. 

12Requirements for condensable PM were 

promulgated in EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation 

rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 73 FR 28321, 

May 16, 2008; codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). 

Requirements for PSD increments for PM2.5 were 

promulgated in EPA’s PSD implementation rule for 

the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR 

64864, October 20, 2010; codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(c). 

13Regarding NDEP’s minor NSR permit program, 

see our proposal (77 FR 38557 at 38564, June 28, 

2012) and final rule (77 FR 59321 at 59325–59326, 

September 27, 2012). Regarding Clark County’s NSR 

permit programs, see our proposal (77 FR 43206, 

July 24, 2012) and final rule (77 FR 64309, October 

18, 2012). These final rules and their context 

specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS are discussed 

further in our Pb TSD. 

14The Nevada State Environmental Commission 

revised Nevada Administrative Code 445B.22097 

(‘‘Standards of quality for ambient air’’), effective 

December 23, 2013, such that the state ambient air 

quality standards for Pb and ozone would reflect 

the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS. NDEP 

submitted the revised rule to EPA as a revision to 

the Nevada SIP on January 3, 2014. It was 

submitted, in part, to address the minor NSR 

requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS for the NDEP portion of the 

Nevada SIP. While EPA may determine this SIP 

revision to be adequate for purposes of minor NSR 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the NDEP portion of the 

SIP, EPA is still required to partially disapprove 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal for section 

110(a)(2)(C) due to other permit program 

deficiencies discussed in this section (section III.B) 

of this final rule for each of the three jurisdictions 

in Nevada. 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and 

based on the evaluation and rationale 

presented in the proposed rule, the 

related TSDs, and this final rule, EPA is 

approving in part and disapproving in 

part Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In 

the following subsections, we list the 

elements for which we are finalizing 

approval or disapproval and provide a 

summary of the basis for those elements 

that are partially disapproved. We also 

describe the consequences of our 

disapprovals. 

A. Summary of Approvals 

EPA is approving Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal with respect to 

the following requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

B. Summary of Disapprovals 

EPA is disapproving Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal 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. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

As explained in our proposed rule, Pb 

TSD, and section II of this final rule, we 

are disapproving Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal for the NDEP 

and Washoe County portions of the SIP 

with respect to the PSD-related 

requirements of CAA sections 

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

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) because 

the Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for PSD permit programs under part C, 

title I of the Act. Both NDEP and 

WCDHD implement the Federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all 

regulated new source review (NSR) 

pollutants, pursuant to delegation 

agreements with EPA.11 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. 

We are disapproving the Clark County 

portion of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal with respect to the PSDrelated requirements of CAA sections 

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

110(a)(2)(J) because Clark County’s SIPapproved PSD permit program does not 

contain provisions that satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

concerning condensable PM and PM2.5

increments under part C, title I of the 

Act and in 40 CFR 51.166.12 As 

discussed in our proposed rule, we 

address these PSD requirements for 

PM2.5 as part of this final rule on 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS because section 

110(a)(2) of the Act requires that each 

SIP contain a comprehensive PSD 

permitting program that addresses all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

We are also disapproving the NDEP 

and Clark County portions of Nevada’s 

Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect 

to section 110(a)(2)(C) because of unique 

circumstances regarding NDEP and 

Clark County’s minor NSR permit 

programs. Specifically, the NDEP and 

Clark County minor NSR programs, as 

approved into the Nevada SIP, lack 

provisions to address the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS, and thus we cannot rely on 

these programs to ensure that new and 

modified sources regulated under minor 

NSR do not interfere with attainment 

and maintenance of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS.13 Note, however, that within 

this final rule, we are not approving or 

disapproving any existing or new minor 

NSR regulation.14

We are disapproving the Clark County 

portion of the SIP for section 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark County 

has repealed its regulation, Section 24, 

that formerly addressed the correlation 

requirement of this subsection, without 

submitting a SIP revision to replace it. 

C. Consequences of Disapprovals 

EPA takes very seriously a 

disapproval of a state plan, as we 

believe that it is preferable, and 

preferred in the provisions of the Clean 

Air Act, that these requirements be 

implemented through state plans. A 

state plan need not contain exactly the 

same provisions that EPA might require, 

but EPA must be able to find that the 

state plan is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act in accordance 

with its obligations under section 

110(k). Further, EPA’s oversight role 

requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act 

requirements by states across the 

country, even while acknowledging that 

individual decisions from source to 

source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. EPA believes these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15700 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

15NDEP submitted a SIP revision on January 3, 

2014 to address some of the deficiencies identified 

in EPA’s 2012 action on NDEP’s minor NSR 

program, as noted in section III.B of this final rule. 

If EPA determines that this SIP revision is adequate 

for purposes of minor NSR for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

EPA approval would remove the obligation for EPA 

to promulgate a FIP by October 29, 2014 for minor 

NSR for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the NDEP portion 

of the Nevada SIP only. 

16On February 2, 2014, Clark County DAQ issued 

a 30-day public notice of proposed amendments to 

air quality regulations related primarily to 

permitting of new stationary sources. These 

proposed rule amendments are intended to address 

the deficiencies identified in EPA’s 2012 

rulemaking on Nevada’s permit program and 

infrastructure SIP submittals for Clark County and 

other new source review requirements that have 

come due since those rulemakings. 

disapprovals are the only path that is 

consistent with the Act at this time. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D of title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal was not 

submitted to meet either of these 

requirements. Therefore, our partial 

disapproval of Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal does not trigger 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 

179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

FIP within two years after finding that 

a state has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a SIP 

submission in whole or in part, unless 

EPA approves a SIP revision correcting 

the deficiencies within that two-year 

period. As discussed in section III.B of 

this final rule and in our Pb TSD, we are 

finalizing several partial disapprovals. 

With one exception, however, these 

disapprovals do not result in new FIP 

obligations, either because EPA has 

already promulgated a FIP to address 

the identified deficiency or because a 

FIP clock has been triggered by EPA’s 

disapproval of a prior SIP submission 

based on the same identified deficiency. 

The provisions for which our final 

partial disapproval do not result in a 

new FIP obligation include: 

• PSD-related requirements in 

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

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J): For 

NDEP and Washoe County, EPA has 

already promulgated the federal PSD 

program (see 40 CFR 52.1485); 

• PSD-related requirements in 

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

and 110(a)(2)(J): For Clark County, 

EPA’s October 18, 2012 final action on 

Clark County’s PSD regulations 

triggered a November 19, 2014 deadline 

for EPA to promulgate a FIP addressing 

this requirement (77 FR 64039); 

• Minor NSR requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C): EPA’s September 27, 2012 

final action on NDEP’s minor NSR 

regulations (77 FR 59321) and October 

18, 2012 final action on Clark County’s 

minor NSR regulations (77 FR 64039) 

triggered deadlines of October 29, 2014 

and November 19, 2014, respectively, 

for EPA to promulgate FIPs addressing 

the identified deficiencies; 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii): For Clark 

County, EPA’s October 23, 2012 final 

action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 

64737) triggered a November 23, 2014 

deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP 

addressing the requirement for 

correlation of stationary source 

emissions with emission limits. 

The one disapproval that triggers a 

new FIP clock concerns the requirement 

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

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) 

regarding PSD increments for PM2.5 in 

Clark County. EPA has not previously 

promulgated a FIP or triggered a FIP 

clock through disapproval of a prior SIP 

submission based on this deficiency. 

Thus, under CAA section 110(c)(1), our 

partial disapproval of the Clark County 

portion of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal based on this deficiency 

requires EPA to promulgate a FIP 

establishing PM2.5 increments for Clark 

County within two years after the 

effective date of this final rule, unless 

the state submits and EPA approves a 

SIP revision that corrects this deficiency 

prior to the expiration of this two-year 

period. 

We anticipate that NDEP will submit 

SIP revisions to address the deficiencies 

identified in EPA’s 2012 actions on 

NDEP’s minor NSR program,15 Clark 

County’s NSR permit programs (i.e., 

both PSD and minor NSR),16 Nevada’s 

infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and today’s final action on Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal prior to 

expiration of the two-year FIP deadline 

triggered by each of these actions. EPA 

approval of such revisions would serve 

to address the partial disapprovals of 

the Nevada Pb Infrastructure Submittal 

where no FIP is currently in place (i.e., 

the disapprovals finalized herein, 

except for those tied to the federal PSD 

programs for sources under NDEP and 

WCDHD’s jurisdiction). 

IV. 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 (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

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 

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 approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into 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 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 partial 

SIP approval and partial SIP 

disapproval under CAA section 110 will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply approves 

certain State requirements, and 

disapproves 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15701 

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. 

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. EPA 

has determined that the 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 approves 

certain pre-existing requirements, and 

disapproves 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 

action. 

E. 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 approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves 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. 

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 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 action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 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 partial 

approval and partial disapproval under 

CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

approves certain State requirements, 

and disapproves certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This 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 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. 

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 (EO) 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 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This 

rule will be effective on April 21, 2014. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 20, 2014. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Lead, Pb, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 28, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. In § 52.1470, in paragraph (e), the 

table is amended by adding entries for: 

■ a. ‘‘Nevada’s Clean Air Act § 110(a)(1) 

and (2) State Implementation Plan for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS, excluding 

appendices A–G for NDEP; and 

excluding the Washoe County District 

Board of Health Agenda, Minutes, 

Certificate of Adoption, Cover Letter to 

NDEP, and Proof of Publication’’; and 

■ b. ‘‘Clark County Portion of Nevada’s 

Clean Air Act § 110(a)(1) and (2) State 

Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, excluding Cover Letter to 

NDEP and Clark County Air Quality 

Regulations’’ after the entry for ‘‘Section 

12—Resources’’. 

The additions as follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 

*******

Nevada’s Clean Air Act 

§ 110(a)(1) and (2) State 

Implementation Plan for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, excluding appendices A–G for 

NDEP; and excluding the 

Washoe County District 

Board of Health Agenda, 

Minutes, Certificate of Adoption, Cover Letter to NDEP, 

and Proof of Publication.

State-wide, within NDEP jurisdiction and Washoe County.10/12/2011 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the 

document begins] 03/21/

2014.

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for NDEP 

and Washoe County for the 

2008 Pb standard. 

Clark County Portion of Nevada’s Clean Air Act 

§ 110(a)(1) and (2) State 

Implementation Plan for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, excluding Cover Letter to NDEP 

and Clark County Air Quality Regulations.

Clark County .......................... 7/23/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the 

document begins] 03/21/

2014.

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for Clark 

County for the 2008 Pb 

standard. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.1472 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1472 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(g) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 12, 2011, July 23, 

2012, and August 30, 2012 are partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

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

for the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Quality (NDEP), Clark 

County, and Washoe County portions of 

the Nevada SIP; for CAA element (D)(ii) 

for the NDEP and Washoe County 

portions of the Nevada SIP; and for CAA 

element 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark 

County portion of the Nevada SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06053 Filed 3–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0012; FRL–9907–41] 

Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. Strain 

A396 Cells and Spent Fermentation 

Media; Exemption From the 

Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of heat-killed 

Burkholderia spp. strain A396 cells and 

spent fermentation media in or on all 

food commodities when applied as a 

biological insecticide to agricultural 

crops and used in accordance with label 

directions and good agricultural 

practices. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., 

submitted a petition to the EPA under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA) requesting an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance. 

This regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of heat-killed Burkholderia 

spp. strain A396 cells and spent 

fermentation media under FFDCA. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 21, 2014. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 20, 2014, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0012, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES