64430 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Farm Definition) Conducted in a Facility CoLocated on a Farm,’’ 2012. Available at 

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/

AnimalVeterinary/Products/

AnimalFoodFeeds/UCM366906.pdf. 

2. Codex Alimentarius Commission, 

‘‘Codex Alimentarius Commission 

Procedural Manual, Twentieth Edition,’’ 

2011. 

3. FDA, ‘‘Peer Review Report. External Peer 

Review of the FDA/CVM Draft Qualitative 

Risk Assessment: Risk of Activity/Animal 

Food Combinations for Activities (Outside 

the Farm Definition) Conducted in a Facility 

Co-Located on a Farm,’’ 2013. Available at 

http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/

SpecialTopics/PeerReviewofScientific

InformationandAssessments/

ucm079120.htm. 

Dated: October 21, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25124 Filed 10–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–112815–12] 

RIN 1545–BK99 

Mixed Straddles; Straddle-by-Straddle 

Identification Under Section 

1092(b)(2)(A)(i)(I); Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

by cross-reference to temporary 

regulations and notice of public hearing; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

amendments to proposed regulations 

relating to guidance for taxpayers 

electing to establish a mixed straddle 

using straddle-by-straddle 

identification. These amendments 

include a change to the applicability 

date of the proposed regulations 

pursuant to which the proposed 

regulations would apply to transactions 

established after the date of publication 

of the Treasury decision adopting these 

rules as final regulations in the Federal 

Register. The amendments to the 

proposed regulations will affect 

taxpayers who elect to establish a mixed 

straddle using straddle-by-straddle 

identification. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 31, 2013. Request to speak and 

outlines of topics to be discussed at the 

public hearing scheduled for December 

4, 2013, at 10 a.m. must be received by 

October 31, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–112815–12), room 

5205, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 

DC 20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–112815–12), 

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC, or sent electronically 

via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–112815– 

12). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela Lew or Robert B. Williams at 

(202) 622–3950 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The proposed regulations that are the 

subject of these amendments are under 

section 1092 of the Internal Revenue 

Code (Code). The text of temporary 

regulations (TD 9627), published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, August 2, 

2013 (78 FR 46807), serves as the text 

of the proposed regulations. The 

proposed regulations (REG–112815–12) 

were published in the Federal Register 

on Friday, August 2, 2013 (78 FR 

46854). The proposed regulations were 

proposed to apply to all identified 

mixed straddles established after the 

date of filing, August 1, 2013. 

Need for amendments 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

received comments raising concerns 

about the immediate applicability date 

of the temporary regulations. In 

response to those comments, the 

Treasury Department and the IRS are 

amending the temporary regulations to 

limit the application of the identified 

mixed straddle transaction rules in 

§ 1.1092(b)-6T to section 1092(b)(2) 

identified mixed straddles established 

after the date of publication of the 

Treasury decision adopting the rules as 

final regulations in the Federal Register. 

The text of the temporary regulations, as 

amended, continues to serve as the text 

of these proposed regulations, and this 

document amends the proposed 

regulations to conform to the changes to 

the temporary regulations. The Treasury 

Department and the IRS anticipate 

finalizing the regulations no later than 

the end of the current Priority Guidance 

Plan year on June 30, 2014, and will as 

part of that process consider all 

comments received. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Amendments to the Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 is amended by adding entries 

in numerical order to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *. 

Section 1.1092(b)–6 also issued under 26 

U.S.C. 1092(b)(1). 

Section 1.1092(b)–6 also issued under 26 

U.S.C. 1092(b)(2).* * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.1092(b)–6 is 

amended by revising the heading to read 

as follows: 

§ 1.1092(b)–6 Mixed straddles; accrued 

gain and loss associated with a position 

that becomes part of a section 1092(b)(2) 

identified mixed straddle. 

* * * * * 

Martin Franks, 

Branch Chief, Publications & Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel, (Procedure & Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2013–25360 Filed 10–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0663; FRL–9902–10– 

Region9] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; 

Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements 

for Lead (Pb) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Nevada on 

October 12, 2011, July 23, 2012, and 

August 30, 2012, pursuant to the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act) for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

2008 Lead (Pb) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). We refer to 

such SIP revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

SIPs because they are intended to 

address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised NAAQS 

including, but not limited to, legal 

authority, regulatory structure, 

resources, permit programs, monitoring, 

and modeling necessary to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. We are taking comments on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64431 

1 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended 

by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). 

2 77 FR 46361 at 46362 thru 46365. 

3 73 FR 66964. The final rule was signed on 

October 15, 2008 and published in the Federal 

Register on November 12, 2008. The 1978 Pb 

Continued 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 29, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2013–0663, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mays.rory@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

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

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework and Scope of 

Infrastructure SIPs 

B. Regulatory Background 

II. The State’s Submittals 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. Proposed Approvals 

B. Proposed Disapprovals 

C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework and Scope of 

Infrastructure SIPs 

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

each state to submit to EPA, within 

three years after the promulgation of a 

primary or secondary NAAQS or any 

revision thereof, a SIP that provides for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Many of 

the section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate 

to the general information and 

authorities that constitute the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air quality 

management program and SIP 

submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ These 

infrastructure SIP elements are as 

follows: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

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

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (i) section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs required under part D 

[nonattainment new source review 

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

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

In addition, this rulemaking does not 

address three substantive issues that are 

not integral to acting on a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at 

sources, that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule.’’ 1

Instead, EPA has indicated that it has 

other authority to address any such 

existing SIP defects in other 

rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed 

rationale for why these issues are not 

part of the scope of infrastructure SIP 

rulemakings can be found in EPA’s 

August 3, 2012 proposed rule entitled 

‘‘Partial Approval and Disapproval of 

Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for 

Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter’’ in 

section I.C. (‘‘Scope of the Infrastructure 

SIP Evaluation’’).2

B. Regulatory Background 

On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for Pb.3 This action 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64432 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

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. 

4See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions 1–10 (October 14, 2011). 

5See letter dated October 12, 2011 from Colleen 

Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

6See letter dated July 23, 2012 from Colleen 

Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

7See letter dated August 30, 2012 from Colleen 

Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 8 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012. 

9EPA 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’’). 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) by October 15, 2011. EPA 

issued guidance in 2011 for such 

infrastructure SIPs entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Section 110 Infrastructure SIPs for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS’’ (‘‘EPA’s 2011 Pb 

Guidance’’).4

II. The State’s Submittals 

The Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) 

submitted ‘‘Nevada’s Clean Air Act 

§ 110(a)(1) and (2) State Implementation 

Plan for the 2008 Pb NAAQS’’ on 

October 12, 2011,5 which included the 

NDEP and Washoe County Air Quality 

Management Division (AQMD) portions 

of the state’s Pb infrastructure SIP 

submittal; and submitted the ‘‘Clark 

County Lead Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan’’ on July 23, 2012,6

which is the Clark County Department 

of Air Quality (DAQ) portion of the 

state’s Pb infrastructure SIP submittal. 

On August 30, 2012, NDEP submitted 

the ‘‘Revisions to Nevada’s Clean Air 

Act § 110(a)(2) State Implementation 

Plan Submittals,’’ 7 which amended 

several of the state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals, including the October 12, 

2011 submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

These submittals included cover 

letters from the NDEP Administrator to 

the Region IX Regional Administrator 

and tables for each air quality 

management jurisdiction in Nevada (i.e., 

NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe 

County Health District) that list and 

discuss how state and local provisions 

address the elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2). Each submittal also includes 

attachments that, among other things, 

compile the State and local rules and 

statutes that are currently approved into 

the Nevada SIP or that apply locally and 

are supportive of Nevada meeting the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, and 

provide evidence of public notice and 

an opportunity for public comment or 

hearing prior to adoption and submittal 

of the SIP revisions. We find that these 

submittals meet the procedural 

requirements for public participation 

under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 

CFR 51.102. 

We are proposing to act on all three 

submittals since they collectively 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

We refer to them collectively herein as 

‘‘Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal.’’ 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

EPA has evaluated Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal and the existing 

provisions of the Nevada SIP for 

compliance with the CAA section 110(a) 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Our Pb Infrastructure SIP Technical 

Support Document (‘‘Pb TSD’’) contains 

more detailed evaluations and is 

available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking, which may be accessed 

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

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2013– 

0663. We also rely on our technical 

support document (TSD) for the conflict 

of interest requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 (‘‘Section 128 

TSD’’), which was prepared for our 2012 

rulemaking on Nevada’s infrastructure 

SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997 fine 

particulate (PM2.5), and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.8 That Section 128 TSD is also 

included in the public docket for 

today’s rulemaking. 

A. Proposed Approvals 

Based upon our evaluation as 

presented in the TSDs, EPA proposes to 

approve Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport. 

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

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

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

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

B. Proposed Disapprovals 

EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada’s 

Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect 

to the following infrastructure SIP 

requirements (details of the partial 

disapprovals are presented after this 

list): 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport. 

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

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

As explained more fully in our Pb 

TSD, we are proposing to disapprove 

the NDEP and Washoe County portions 

of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal 

with respect to the PSD-related 

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

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

110(a)(2)(J) because the Nevada SIP does 

not fully satisfy the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for PSD permit 

programs under part C, title I of the Act. 

Both NDEP and Washoe County AQMD 

currently implement the Federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all 

regulated new source review (NSR) 

pollutants, pursuant to delegation 

agreements with EPA. See 40 CFR 

52.1485.9 Accordingly, although the 

Nevada SIP remains deficient with 

respect to PSD requirements in both the 

NDEP and Washoe County portions of 

the SIP, these deficiencies are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64433 

10Requirements for condensable PM were 

promulgated in EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation 

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

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

Requirements for PSD increments for PM2.5 were 

promulgated in EPA’s PSD implementation rule for 

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

64864, October 10, 2010; codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(c). 

11The concept of a ‘‘comprehensive’’ PSD 

program (i.e., covering the PSD requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including GHGs) has 

been discussed in numerous infrastructure SIP 

rulemakings. See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on Nevada’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 77 FR 64737 

at 64738–64739, October 23, 2012. This concept is 

also discussed in EPA’s 2011 Pb Guidance, page 6. 

12 77 FR 64039, October 18, 2012. 

13Regarding NDEP’s minor NSR permit program, 

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

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

September 27, 2012). Regarding Clark County’s 

permit program, see our proposed (77 FR 43206, 

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

18, 2012). These final rules and their context 

specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS are discussed 

further in our Pb TSD. 

14 77 FR 59321, September 27, 2012. 

15 77 FR 64039, October 18, 2012. 16 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012. 

adequately addressed in both areas by 

the federal PSD program. 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

Clark County portion of Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal with respect to 

the PSD-related requirements of CAA 

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

and 110(a)(2)(J) because Clark County’s 

SIP-approved PSD permit program does 

not contain provisions that satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

concerning condensable particulate 

matter (PM) and PM2.5 increments under 

part C, title I of the Act and in 40 CFR 

51.166.10 We address these PSD 

requirements as part of this proposal on 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS because section 

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

SIP contain a comprehensive PSD 

permitting program that addresses all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHG).11 As explained 

in more detail below and in our Pb TSD, 

our proposed disapproval of the Clark 

County portion of Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal based on these 

PSD program deficiencies would, if 

finalized, trigger a FIP obligation with 

respect to the requirements concerning 

PM2.5 increments in Clark County but 

would not trigger a FIP obligation with 

respect to the requirements concerning 

condensable PM, as a FIP clock to 

address this requirement has already 

been triggered by EPA’s 2012 action on 

the NSR rules submitted for sources 

under Clark County’s jurisdiction.12

Our proposed disapprovals of the 

NDEP and Clark County portions of the 

Nevada Pb Infrastructure Submittal with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(C) also stem 

from unique circumstances regarding 

NDEP and Clark County’s permit 

programs for the regulation of new and 

modified minor sources and minor 

modifications of major sources, herein 

referred to as ‘‘minor NSR.’’ Within this 

infrastructure SIP proposal, we are not 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

existing minor NSR regulations. 

However, in 2012, EPA finalized 

rulemakings on Nevada’s submittals 

addressing minor NSR for sources under 

NDEP and Clark County DAQ 

jurisdiction, which included limited 

disapprovals.13 Upon review of those 

actions, we found that the NDEP and 

Clark County minor NSR programs lack 

provisions to address the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. Accordingly, we cannot rely 

on NDEP and Clark County’s existing 

minor NSR programs to ensure that new 

and modified sources not captured by 

the major NSR permitting programs do 

not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Therefore, with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(C), we propose to find that the 

Nevada SIP does not meet the minor 

NSR program requirements for sources 

under NDEP and Clark County 

jurisdiction for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

As described in our Pb TSD, the 

resulting FIP obligations for these minor 

NSR program deficiencies have already 

been triggered by EPA’s 2012 actions on 

the NSR rules submitted for sources 

under NDEP 14 and Clark County 

jurisdiction.15 As such, our proposed 

disapproval of Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal with respect to 

the minor NSR requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the NDEP and 

Clark County portions of the Nevada SIP 

would not trigger a new FIP obligation 

because a FIP obligation already exists 

for the same identified SIP deficiencies. 

For the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (regarding interference 

with other states’ required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality), we propose to disapprove 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure SIP for the 

reasons discussed above and in our Pb 

TSD in connection with the PSD-related 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C). 

With respect to the requirement in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) concerning 

compliance with section 126 

requirements regarding interstate 

pollution abatement, EPA proposes to 

disapprove the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal, for the reasons 

discussed above and in our Pb TSD in 

connection with the PSD-related 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C). 

For Section 110(a)(2)(F), we propose 

to disapprove the Clark County portion 

of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal 

with respect to subsection 

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

has repealed its regulation, Section 24, 

which formerly addressed the 

correlation requirement of this 

subsection, without submitting a SIP 

revision to replace it. 

As discussed in our Pb TSD, the 

resulting FIP obligation for this 

stationary source correlation 

requirement for the Clark County 

portion of the Nevada SIP has already 

been triggered by EPA’s 2012 action on 

Nevada’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.16 As such, we 

propose that this disapproval for section 

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

portion of the Nevada SIP for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS does not trigger a new FIP 

obligation because a FIP obligation 

already exists for the same identified 

SIP deficiency. 

For the PSD related requirements of 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) we propose to 

disapprove Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal for the reasons discussed 

above and in our Pb TSD in connection 

with the PSD-related requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C). 

EPA takes very seriously a proposal to 

disapprove a state plan, as we believe 

that it is preferable, and preferred in the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, that 

these requirements be implemented 

through state plans. A state plan need 

not contain exactly the same provisions 

that EPA might require, but EPA must 

be able to find that the state plan is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act. Further, EPA’s oversight role 

requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act 

requirements by states across the 

country, even while acknowledging that 

individual decisions from source to 

source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. EPA believes these 

proposed disapprovals are the only path 

that is consistent with the Act at this 

time. 

C. Consequences of Proposed 

Disapprovals 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

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

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

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

sanctions clock. Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal was not 

submitted to meet either of these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64434 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

requirements. Therefore, any action we 

take to finalize the described partial 

disapprovals will not trigger mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179. 

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

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

FIP within two years after finding that 

a State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a State 

implementation plan submission in 

whole or in part, unless EPA approves 

a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within that two-year 

period. As discussed in section III.B of 

this proposed rule and in our Pb TSD, 

we are proposing several partial 

disapprovals. With one exception, 

however, these disapprovals would not 

result in new FIP obligations, either 

because EPA has already promulgated a 

FIP to address the identified deficiency 

or because a FIP clock has been 

triggered by EPA’s disapproval of a prior 

SIP submission based on the same 

identified deficiency. The provisions for 

which our proposed disapproval, if 

finalized, would not result in a new FIP 

obligation include: 

• PSD-related requirements in 

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

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

NDEP and Washoe County, EPA has 

already promulgated the federal PSD 

program (see 40 CFR 52.1485); 

• PSD-related requirements in 

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

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

EPA’s October 18, 2012 final action on 

Clark County’s PSD regulations 

triggered a November 19, 2014 deadline 

for EPA to promulgate a FIP addressing 

this requirement (77 FR 64039); 

• Minor NSR requirement in section 

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

final action on NDEP’s minor NSR 

regulations (77 FR 59321) and October 

18, 2012 final action on Clark County’s 

minor NSR regulations (77 FR 64039) 

triggered deadlines of October 29, 2014 

and November 19, 2014, respectively, 

for EPA to promulgate FIPs addressing 

the identified deficiencies; 

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

County, EPA’s October 23, 2012 final 

action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

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

64737) triggered a November 23, 2014 

deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP 

addressing the requirement for 

correlation of stationary source 

emissions with emission limits. 

The one disapproval that would 

trigger a new FIP clock concerns the 

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

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

regarding PSD increments for PM2.5 in 

Clark County. EPA has not previously 

promulgated a FIP or triggered a FIP 

clock through disapproval of a prior SIP 

submission based on this deficiency. 

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

partial disapproval of the Clark County 

portion of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal based on this deficiency 

would, if finalized, require EPA to 

promulgate a FIP establishing PM2.5

increments for Clark County within two 

years after the effective date of our final 

rule, unless the State submits and EPA 

approves a SIP revision that corrects 

this deficiency prior to the expiration of 

this two-year period. 

We anticipate that NDEP will submit 

SIP revisions that adequately address 

the deficiencies identified in EPA’s 

2012 actions on NDEP’s minor NSR 

program, Clark County’s permit program 

(i.e., both PSD and minor NSR), 

Nevada’s infrastructure SIPs for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, and today’s proposed action on 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal 

prior to expiration of the 2-year FIP 

deadline triggered by each of these 

actions. We further anticipate that EPA 

approval of such revisions would also 

serve to adequately address the partial 

disapprovals of the Nevada Pb 

Infrastructure SIP where no FIP is 

currently in place (i.e., the disapprovals 

proposed herein, except for those tied to 

the federal PSD programs for sources 

under NDEP and Washoe County Health 

District’s jurisdiction). We stand ready 

to work with the State of Nevada to 

develop such SIP revisions. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, because this 

proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA 

section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply proposes to approve 

certain State requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule, we 

certify that this proposed action will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed partial SIP 

approval and partial SIP disapproval 

under CAA section 110 will not in-andof 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64435 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

proposed action. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

certain other State requirements, for 

inclusion into the SIP and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

proposing action would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed partial 

approval and partial disapproval under 

CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Particulate matter, Pb, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: September 30, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25586 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 127, 403, 501, 

and 503 

[EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274; FRL–9902– 

11–OECA] 

Extension of Comment Period for the 

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency is extending the 

comment period for the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule, published on 

July 30, 2013. EPA is soliciting public 

comment on a new regulation that 

would require electronic reporting for 

current paper-based NPDES reports. 

This action will save time and resources 

for permittees, states, tribes, territories, 

and EPA while improving compliance 

and providing better protection of the 

Nation’s waters. The proposed Clean 

Water Act regulation would require 

permittees and regulators to use 

existing, available information 

technology to electronically report 

information and data related to the 

NPDES permit program in lieu of filing 

written reports. In response to requests 

from stakeholders, this action extends 

the comment period for 45 days. 

DATES: Comments on the preliminary 

plan published on July 30, 2013 (78 FR 

46006), will be accepted through 

December 12, 2013. Comments provided 

electronically will be considered timely 

if they are submitted by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on December 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OECA–2009–0274 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS