Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87857 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents Proposed for Incorporation 

by Reference 

This document proposes to amend 

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 3, 2016, and effective 

September 15, 2016. FAA Order 

7400.11A is publicly available as listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface at Weed Airport, 

Weed, CA. This airspace is necessary to 

support the development of IFR 

operations in standard instrument 

approach and departure procedures at 

the airport. Class E airspace would be 

established within a 4.3-mile radius of 

the airport, with a segment extending 

from the 4.3-mile radius to 6 miles north 

of the airport. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, 

and effective September 15, 2016, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current, is non-controversial and 

unlikely to result in adverse or negative 

comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 3, 2016, and 

effective September 15, 2016, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E5 Weed, CA [New] 

Weed Airport, CA 

(Lat. 41°28′51′′ N., long. 122°27′16′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile 

radius of Weed Airport, and within 2 miles 

each side of the 348° bearing from the airport 

4.3-mile radius to 6 miles north of the 

airport. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on 

November 21, 2016. 

Tracey Johnson, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2016–29138 Filed 12–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0812; FRL–9956–11– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Infrastructure Requirements To 

Address Interstate Transport for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection on 

April 10, 2013, and supplemented on 

March 25, 2016. The SIP revision and 

supplement address the interstate 

transport requirements of Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with respect to the 2008 ozone (O3) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). The EPA’s rationale for 

proposing to approve Nevada’s April 10, 

2013 SIP revision and March 25, 2016 

supplement is described in this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 5, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0812 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For 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: Tom 

Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3856, 

kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submittals 

III. The EPA’s Assessment 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

87858 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone; Final Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

2Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10 

(September 13, 2013). 

3Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10 

(January 22, 2015). 

4Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 

(Aug. 8, 2011). 

5Notice of Availability of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport 

Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 

46271 (August 4, 2015). 

6Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 75706 

(December 3, 2015). 

7Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 

(October 25, 2016). 

8The EPA adopted 2017 as the analytic year for 

the updated ozone modeling information. See 80 FR 

46273. 

9For purposes of the CSAPR Update, the western 

U.S. (or the West) consists of the 11 western 

contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

10See Judgment, Nevada v. McCarthy, Case 3:15– 

cv–00396–HDM–WGC (D. Nev. June 22, 2016). 

11Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, NO2 and 

SO2, 80 FR 67652. 

12Memorandum from Gina McCarthy, Assistant 

Administrator of the EPA, to Regional Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10 (November 19, 2012). 

I. Background 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require 

states to address structural SIP 

requirements to implement, maintain 

and enforce the NAAQS no later than 

three years after the promulgation of a 

new or revised standard. Section 

110(a)(2) outlines the specific 

requirements that each state is required 

to address in this SIP submission that 

collectively constitute the 

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

management program. SIP submittals 

that address these requirements are 

referred to as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs’’ (I– 

SIP). In particular, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ (prong 

1) or ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

(prong 2) of the applicable air quality 

standard in any other state. This action 

addresses the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements of prongs 1 and 2 for 

Nevada’s I–SIP submissions. 

On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone.1 This action 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an I–SIP to address the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years of issuance 

of the revised NAAQS. 

On September 13, 2013, the EPA 

issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ which provides 

‘‘advice on the development of 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS . . . as well as infrastructure 

SIPs for new or revised NAAQS 

promulgated in the future.’’ 2 The EPA 

followed that guidance with an 

additional memo specific to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) 

requirements for the 2008 O3 standard 

on January 22, 2015 entitled, 

‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport 

‘‘Good Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS Under CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ (2015 Transport 

Memo).3 While this memo did not 

provide specific guidance to western 

states regarding how to address the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), it did contain 

preliminary modeling information for 

western states. This 2015 Transport 

Memo, following the approach used in 

the EPA’s prior Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR),4 provided data 

identifying ozone monitoring sites that 

were projected to be in nonattainment 

or have maintenance problems for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2018. Also, the 

EPA provided the projected 

contribution estimates from 2018 

anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

and volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions in each state to ozone 

concentrations at each of the projected 

sites. 

On August 4, 2015, the EPA 

published a Federal Register Notice 

entitled, ‘‘Notice of Availability of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Updated Ozone Transport Modeling 

Data for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.’’ 5

This Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

was an update of the preliminary air 

quality modeling data that was released 

January 22, 2015, and was also used to 

support the proposed Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS (‘‘CSAPR Update’’), 

which proposed to address interstate 

transport obligations in the eastern 

United States.6 The EPA’s modeling was 

updated a second time with the release 

of the final Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS (‘‘CSAPR Update’’).7 The 

CSAPR Update addresses CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the 

eastern United States. 

The CSAPR Update modeling 

provided data used to identify ozone 

monitoring sites that are projected to be 

nonattainment or have maintenance 

problems (following the CSAPR 

approach) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

2017.8 The modeling further provided 

the projected ozone contribution 

estimates from 2017 anthropogenic NOX

and VOC emissions in each state to 

ozone concentrations at each of the 

projected monitoring sites. While the 

CSAPR Update did not finalize any 

determinations regarding upwind state 

contributions to air quality problems in 

the 11 western states,9 the supportive 

modeling included data on potential 

interstate transport impacts among 11 

western states, including Nevada. In this 

action, we are utilizing these data to 

evaluate the state’s submittals and any 

interstate transport obligations under 

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

The EPA is obligated, pursuant to a 

judgment by the District of Nevada in 

Nevada vs. McCarthy, to take final 

action by February 13, 2017 on section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 of 

Nevada’s April 2013 SIP revision and 

March 25, 2016 supplement.10 We 

previously took action on the other I– 

SIP elements covered by Nevada’s 

submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

on November 3, 2015.11

II. State Submittals 

On April 10, 2013, the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) submitted its 2008 ozone 

NAAQS I–SIP (2013 submittal). 

Nevada’s 2013 Submittal quoted the 

decision from the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 

(2012), which instructed the EPA to 

quantify each state’s significant 

contribution to air quality problems in 

other states before requiring states to 

submit SIPs addressing the interstate 

transport requirements with respect to 

such pollution. Nevada’s submittal also 

cited an EPA memorandum that 

explained, in light of the D.C. Circuit 

decision, ‘‘EPA cannot deem a SIP 

deficient for failing to meet the good 

neighbor provision, if the EPA has not 

quantified the state’s obligation.’’ 12 The 

state concluded that, ‘‘Because US EPA 

has not informed Nevada of its 

contribution to any ozone NAAQS 

attainment problem in downwind states, 

the NDEP concludes that it is not 

obligated to address this requirement at 

this time.’’ Subsequent to Nevada’s 

submission, however, the U.S. Supreme 

Court reversed the D.C. Circuit with 

respect to states’ obligations to submit a 

SIP addressing these requirements. See 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87859 

13We have summarized the primary concerns 

raised in Nevada’s 2016 Supplement. The complete 

details of Nevada’s analysis can be found in the 

2016 Supplement, which is contained in the docket 

for this action. 

14Emission limits for the TS Power Plant are 

contained in Class I Air Quality Operation Permit 

AP4911–2502 in the docket for this action. 

15NOX SIP Call, Final Rule, 63 FR 57371 (October 

27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Final 

Rule, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update Rule, Proposed 

Rule, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015). 

16The EPA notes that there may be additional 

criteria to evaluate regarding collective contribution 

of transported air pollution at certain locations in 

the West. 

17 Data file with 2017 Ozone Contributions 

included in docket for this action. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 

S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 

Despite the NDEP’s conclusion with 

respect to the state’s obligation to 

submit a SIP addressing the interstate 

transport requirements, the 2013 

Submittal also included information 

intended to demonstrate that emissions 

from the state do not contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. In particular, the 2013 

Submittal referenced the EPA’s 

proposed CAIR rule and modeling, 

which excluded Western States, 

including Nevada, from its analysis. 

Finally, the 2013 Submittal discussed 

prevailing wind directions and nearby 

nonattainment areas in Phoenix, 

Arizona, and throughout California, 

concluding ‘‘NDEP finds it reasonable to 

conclude that the Phoenix 

nonattainment area is not significantly 

influenced by winds from Nevada.’’ 

Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s 

vacatur of the D.C. Circuit’s EME Homer 

City decision, on March 25, 2016, 

Nevada supplemented the Interstate 

Transport portions of its 2013 I–SIP 

submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

(2016 Supplement). The 2016 

Supplement acknowledges and 

addresses the EPA modeling released in 

the 2015 Transport Memo which was 

updated by the August 2015 NODA. The 

2016 Supplement acknowledges that the 

EPA’s modeling showed that emissions 

from Nevada impact air quality in 

California and provides multiple 

reasons to support its conclusion that 

Nevada nonetheless does not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any downwind states.13 For example, 

the 2016 Supplement states that Nevada 

contributes slightly more than 1% of 

2008 Ozone NAAQS at monitors in 

Madera and Fresno, but notes that this 

contribution is less than 1% of the 

projected 2017 design values for those 

monitors. It notes that even if the 

interstate transport contribution were 

eliminated, these monitors would not 

attain the 2008 ozone standard. The 

monitors are located within an extreme 

nonattainment area that has until 2031 

to attain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The 

2016 Supplement contends that the one 

percent screening threshold used in 

CSAPR to identify upwind states linked 

to downwind ozone problems is not 

appropriate in cases where the total 

contribution of upwind states to a 

downwind air quality problem are 

minimal and where the downwind 

design values are significantly higher 

than the NAAQS, particularly in light of 

high background concentrations. 

The 2016 Supplement discusses 

current emissions of ozone precursors, 

controls in place for current sources, 

and the planned shutdown of several 

coal-fired electrical generating units. It 

briefly discusses VOC emissions, 

explaining that these are 

overwhelmingly from biogenic sources, 

which are uncontrollable; from mobile 

sources, which are federally regulated; 

and from fires, which are also 

uncontrollable. For NOX emissions 

sources, the 2016 Supplement relies on 

the 2011 National Emissions Inventory, 

and notes that on-road and off-road 

mobile sources comprise 90% of mobile 

source NOX emissions, which in turn 

comprise 75% of state-wide NOX

emissions. As mentioned for VOC 

emissions, on-road and off-road mobile 

sources are primarily regulated at the 

federal level, though Nevada has several 

programs that control mobile source 

emissions, including the Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicle annual 

Inspection and Maintenance program. 

According to the 2016 Supplement, fuel 

combustion is the second largest source 

of NOX in Nevada, and nearly half of 

that source sector is comprised of the 

electric generation sub-sector, mostly 

from facilities using coal for fuel. For 

Nevada’s three coal-fired energy 

generation units (EGU), the 2016 

Supplement explains that the last 

remaining boiler at the Reid Gardner 

Generating Station will shut down by 

December 2017 while the two units at 

the North Valmy Generating Station are 

planned to shut down in 2021 and 2025. 

Furthermore, NOX emissions controls at 

the remaining EGU facility, the TS 

Power Plant, include selective catalytic 

reduction system and low NOX coal 

burners.14 The 2016 Supplement 

concludes by reaffirming the 2013 

submittal’s conclusion that ‘‘ozone and 

ozone precursor emissions from Nevada 

do not contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard in any other 

state.’’ 

III. The EPA’s Assessment 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Prong 1 and Prong 2 

The EPA proposes to approve 

Nevada’s SIP submissions pertaining to 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 

and 2, with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As explained below, the EPA’s 

proposal is based on the state’s 

submission and the EPA’s analysis of 

several factors and available data. 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2 

requirement is satisfied, the EPA first 

must determine whether a state’s 

emissions will contribute significantly 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of a NAAQS in other 

states. If a state is determined not to 

make such contribution or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS, then the 

EPA can conclude that the state’s SIP 

complies with the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In several prior 

federal rulemakings interpreting section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), The EPA has evaluated 

whether a state will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of a NAAQS by first 

identifying downwind receptors that are 

expected to have problems attaining or 

maintaining the NAAQS.15 The EPA has 

then determined which upwind states 

contribute to these identified air quality 

problems in amounts sufficient to 

warrant further evaluation to determine 

if the state can make emission 

reductions to reduce its contribution. 

CSAPR and the CSAPR Update used a 

screening threshold (1% of the NAAQS) 

to identify such contributing upwind 

states warranting further review and 

analysis. The EPA believes contribution 

from an individual state equal to or 

above 1% of the NAAQS could be 

considered significant where the 

collective contribution of emissions 

from one or more upwind states is 

responsible for a considerable portion of 

the downwind air quality problem 

regardless of where the receptor is 

geographically located.16 The EPA’s air 

quality modeling supporting the CSAPR 

Update evaluated contributions from 

upwind states to downward receptors. 

The modeling information indicates that 

emissions from Nevada contribute 

amounts exceeding the 1% threshold at 

receptors in two projected downwind 

nonattainment areas, Madera County 

and Fresno County, California.17

Although The EPA’s modeling 

indicates that emissions from Nevada 

contribute above the 1% threshold to 

two projected downwind air quality 

problems, the EPA examined several 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

87860 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

18The stated range is based on the highest 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor in each 

area. All nonattainment and maintenance receptors 

had upwind contributions of well over 17%, except 

for some receptors in Dallas and Houston. 

19Memo to Docket from the EPA, Air Quality 

Policy Division. ‘‘Contribution Analysis of 

Receptors in the Updated CSAPR Proposal.’’ March 

10, 2016. 

20To the extent that the 2013 Submittal relies on 

analysis conducted for CAIR, the EPA notes that the 

modeling conducted for that rulemaking did not 

include the western United States. The EPA’s more 

recent modeling does consider western states. 

Moreover, CAIR only addressed the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, and the record for CAIR therefore contains 

no data evaluating the impact of emissions from 

Nevada to other states relative to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Finally, while the EPA suggested that 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment problems were ‘‘likely’’ 

not affected by transported pollution in the west, 

the EPA took no final action determining that 

western states do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in other states. Rather, as the 2013 

Submittal notes, the EPA did not further analyze 

those states. 69 FR at 4581. 

factors to determine whether emissions 

from Nevada should be considered to 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS at those 

sites, including the air quality and 

contribution modeling, receptor data, 

and the statewide measures reducing 

emissions of VOCs and NOX. The EPA 

notes that no single piece of information 

is by itself dispositive of the issue for 

purposes of this analysis. Instead, the 

EPA has considered the total weight of 

all the evidence taken together to 

evaluate whether Nevada significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in those areas. 

One such factor that the EPA 

considers relevant to determining the 

nature of a projected receptor’s 

interstate transport problem is the 

magnitude of ozone attributable to 

transport from all upwind states 

collectively contributing to the air 

quality problem. In CSAPR and the 

CSAPR Update Rule, the EPA used the 

1% air quality threshold to identify 

linkages between upwind states and 

downwind maintenance receptors. 

States whose contributions to a specific 

receptor meet or exceed the threshold 

were considered to be linked to that 

receptor. The linked states’ emissions 

(and available emission reductions) 

were then analyzed further as a second 

step to the EPA’s contribution analysis. 

States whose contributions to all 

receptors that were below the 1% 

threshold did not require further 

evaluation to address interstate 

transport and we therefore determined 

that those states made insignificant 

contributions to downwind air quality. 

Therefore, the EPA determined that the 

states below the threshold do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. The EPA used the 1% threshold 

in the East because prior analysis 

showed that, in general, nonattainment 

problems result from a combined impact 

of relatively small individual 

contributions from upwind states, along 

with contributions from in-state sources. 

The EPA has observed that a relatively 

large portion of the air quality problem 

at most ozone nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the East is the 

result of the collective contribution from 

a number of upwind states. 

Specifically, the EPA found the total 

upwind states’ contribution to ozone 

concentration (from linked and 

unlinked states) based on modeling for 

2017 ranges from 17% to 68% to 

identified downwind air quality 

problems in the East, with between 4 

and 11 states each contributing above 

1% to the downwind air quality 

problem.18 19 Thus, irrespective of the 

1% air quality threshold in the East, the 

EPA has found that the collective 

contributions from upwind states 

represent a large portion of the ozone 

concentrations at projected air quality 

problems. Further, in the East, the EPA 

found that the 1% threshold is 

appropriate to capture a high percentage 

of the total pollution transport affecting 

downwind receptors. By comparison, 

the CSAPR Update modeling 

information indicates the total upwind 

(linked or unlinked) states’ contribution 

to ozone concentration at the projected 

nonattainment site in Fresno, California 

(Monitor ID 60190242) and Madera, 

California (Monitor ID 60390004), is 

comparatively small, with only one state 

contributing above 1% to the downwind 

air quality problem. 

Nevada is the only state that 

contributes greater than the 1% 

threshold to the projected 2017 levels of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS to the receptor 

in Fresno. The total contribution from 

all states to the Fresno receptor is less 

than 2.6% of the ozone concentration at 

this receptor. Nevada is also the only 

state that contributes greater than 1% to 

the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS to a receptor in Madera, 

and the total contribution from all states 

is less than 2.2% of the ozone 

concentration at this receptor. The EPA 

believes that a 2.6% and 2.2% 

cumulative ozone contribution from all 

upwind states is negligible, particularly 

when compared to the relatively large 

contributions from upwind states in the 

East or in certain other areas of the 

West. For these reasons, the EPA 

believes the emissions that result in 

transported ozone from upwind states 

have limited impacts on the projected 

air quality problems in Madera County, 

and Fresno County, California, and 

therefore these receptors should not be 

treated as receptors for purposes of 

determining the interstate transport 

obligations of upwind states under 

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

This analysis is consistent with 

Nevada’s determination that it would 

not be appropriate to determine that the 

state is linked to air quality problems in 

California. However, the EPA does not 

agree with the rationale provided by the 

state in its 2016 Supplement.20 For 

example, the EPA does not agree that 

upwind states should not be required to 

reduce emissions to downwind air 

quality problems simply because the 

downwind design values are 

significantly higher than the NAAQS. 

Although upwind reductions might not 

bring such areas into attainment, such 

reductions, where otherwise warranted, 

may still play an important role in 

improving air quality in downwind 

states and, therefore, improving public 

health and welfare. Moreover, the EPA 

does not agree that high levels of 

background concentrations at a 

particular monitor should necessarily 

excuse an upwind state from reducing 

emissions where such emissions 

reductions may nonetheless improve 

downwind air quality. Nonattainment 

and/or maintenance receptors in 

different parts of the Country may 

experience differing amounts of 

measured ozone from background 

sources (that are outside of the U.S.). 

But in some cases, areas with high 

background ozone may still have a 

relatively large amount of ozone from 

the collective contribution of upwind 

U.S. emissions. Therefore, regardless of 

the level of background ozone, 

emissions reductions from upwind 

states may be an important component 

of solving the local nonattainment 

problem. 

In this case, the modeling data 

conducted to support the CSAPR 

Update show that Nevada contributes 

either less than 1% of the NAAQS to 

projected air quality problems in other 

states, or where it contributes above 1% 

of the NAAQS to a projected downwind 

air quality problem in California, the 

EPA proposes to find, based on the 

overall weight of evidence, that these 

particular receptors are not significantly 

impacted by transported ozone from 

upwind states. Emissions reductions 

from Nevada are not necessary to 

address interstate transport because the 

total collective upwind state ozone 

contribution to these receptors is 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 87861 

relatively low compared to the air 

quality problems typically addressed by 

the good neighbor provision. 

Additionally, Nevada has demonstrated 

that both VOC and NOX emissions are 

decreasing and will continue to go 

down. The EPA therefore believes that 

Nevada’s impact on downwind 

receptors in California are insignificant 

and will continue to remain 

insignificant. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

Nevada’s SIP as meeting the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is 

proposing this approval based on the 

overall weight of evidence from 

information and analysis provided by 

Nevada, as well as the recent air quality 

modeling released in the EPA’s August 

4, 2015 NODA, and other data analysis 

that confirms that emissions from 

Nevada will not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in California or any other state. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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, and 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 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA 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. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Approval and 

promulgation of implementation plans, 

Environmental protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 22, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–29252 Filed 12–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; Report No. 3056] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: A Petition for Reconsideration 

(Petition) has been filed in the 

Commission’s rulemaking proceeding 

by Karen Brinkmann, on behalf of 

Alaska Communications. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before December 21, 2016. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before January 3, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Minard, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, phone: (202) 418– 

7400, TTY: (202) 418–0484 or by email: 

Alexander.Minard@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Report No. 3056, released 

November 25, 2016. The full text of the 

Petition is available for viewing and 

copying at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554 

or may be accessed online via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System at: https://www.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. The Commission will not send a 

copy of this document pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because this document 

does not have an impact on any rules of 

particular applicability. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS