```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87857-87861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29252]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 87858]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final 
Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 
Regions 1-10 (September 13, 2013).
    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 
Regions 1-10 (January 22, 2015).
    \4\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice 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).
    \6\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
    \7\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS, Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA adopted 2017 as the analytic year for the updated 
ozone modeling information. See 80 FR 46273.
    \9\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Judgment, Nevada v. McCarthy, Case 3:15-cv-00396-HDM-
WGC (D. Nev. June 22, 2016).
    \11\ Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality 
State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for 
Ozone, NO2 and SO2, 80 FR 67652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 87859]]

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Memorandum from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator of 
the EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10 (November 
19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Emission limits for the TS Power Plant are contained in 
Class I Air Quality Operation Permit AP4911-2502 in the docket for 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NOX 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).
    \16\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 87860]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The 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.
    \19\ Memo to Docket from the EPA, Air Quality Policy Division. 
``Contribution Analysis of Receptors in the Updated CSAPR 
Proposal.'' March 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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/laws-regulations/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
```