38556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

administrative review, if the exporter or 

producer wishes the Department to use 

the weighted-average purchase price 

paid to the market economy supplier(s) 

to value all of the input (from all 

sources). Furthermore, the proposed 

rule will require that exporters or 

producers also establish on the 

administrative record that the market 

economy input at issue was produced in 

a market economy, rather than merely 

being sold through a market economy 

supplier. There will be no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping burdens on 

U.S. importers as a result of this rule. 

Description of Any Significant 

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That 

Accomplish the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes and That Minimize 

Any Significant Economic Impact of the 

Proposed Rule on Small Entities 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 603(c), the 

Department’s analysis considered 

significant alternatives. The alternatives 

which the Department considered are: 

(1) The preferred alternative of 

modifying 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1) to (a) 

establish that if substantially all of an 

input is purchased from market 

economy suppliers as a share of total 

purchases of that input from all sources 

during the investigation or review 

period, the Department will use the 

weighted-average purchase price paid to 

market economy suppliers to value all 

of the input and (b) require that the 

market economy input at issue actually 

be produced in one or more market 

economy countries, and not just be sold 

through market economy countries; (2) 

modify the regulation with respect to 

(1)(a), but not (1)(b); (3) modify the 

regulation with respect to (1)(b), but not 

(1)(a); or (4) maintain the status quo 

with respect to the valuation of inputs 

purchased from a market economy 

supplier and paid for in a market 

economy currency. 

Factors of production for the subject 

merchandise will be assigned a value in 

the calculation of the weighted average 

dumping margin and antidumping duty 

assessment rate, whether the assigned 

value is a market economy purchase 

price, a surrogate value from a market 

economy country, or a combination of 

the two. Accordingly, the economic 

impact of providing information and 

argument to the Department in relation 

to the valuation of the factors of 

production for entities individually 

examined in the Department’s 

antidumping proceedings is roughly 

equivalent under each of the abovenoted alternatives. 

In relation to the possible impact of 

the alternatives on the amount of 

antidumping duties to be paid by 

importers of record of the subject 

merchandise, the value of a factor of 

production is one of numerous elements 

in the calculation of a weighted average 

margin of dumping. Whether a 

particular factor value will have any 

impact on the resulting weighted 

average dumping margin is not certain. 

To the extent that a small U.S. importer 

will be economically impacted by this 

rule, it will only be through an increase 

or decrease in the cash deposits and 

duties posted by that importer as a 

result in the change of a weighted 

average dumping margin. In those 

circumstances where a change in the 

value of an input as a result of this 

regulatory modification does have an 

impact on the weighted average 

dumping margin, the impact to the 

small U.S. importer will depend on 

whether the publicly sourced value is 

higher or lower than the market 

economy purchase price(s). 

In this regard, the Department is 

required by 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)(1)(b) to 

rely on the best information available 

for valuing the producer’s factors of 

production. The proposed modification 

to the regulation addresses the 

Department’s concerns that a market 

economy input price may not be the 

best available information when: (1) 

Market economy purchases of an input 

are insufficient in proportion to NME 

purchases for the Department to 

objectively conclude that the purchase 

price for the input would have been the 

same had the firm purchased solely 

from market economy suppliers and (2) 

the reported pricing of an NMEproduced input purchased from a 

market economy supplier (or reseller) 

can be distorted by NME cost or supply 

factors. Accordingly, the Department 

considers that the first, preferred 

alternative is the only alternative that 

fully addresses the Department’s policy 

concerns explained in the Background 

section of this Notice. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain a collection 

of information for purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as 

amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antidumping, Business and 

industry, Cheese, Confidential business 

information, Countervailing duties, 

Freedom of information, Investigations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: June 15, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

For the reasons stated, 19 CFR part 

351 is proposed to be amended as 

follows: 

PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND 

COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 

1. The authority citation for 19 CFR 

part 351 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 

note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et 

seq.; and 19 U.S.C. 3538. 

2. In § 351.408, revise paragraph (c)(1) 

to read as follows: 

Information used to value factors. The 

Secretary normally will use publicly 

available information to value factors. 

However, where a factor is produced in 

one or more market economy countries, 

purchased from one or more market 

economy suppliers and paid for in 

market economy currency, the Secretary 

normally will use the price(s) paid to 

the market economy supplier(s) if 

substantially all of the total volume of 

the factor is purchased from the market 

economy supplier(s). For purposes of 

this provision, the Secretary defines the 

term ‘‘substantially all’’ to be 85 percent 

or more of the total purchase volume of 

the factor used in the production of 

subject merchandise. In those instances 

where less than substantially all of the 

total volume of the factor is produced in 

one or more market economy countries 

and purchased from one or more market 

economy suppliers, the Secretary 

normally will weight-average the actual 

price(s) paid for the market economy 

portion and the surrogate value for the 

nonmarket economy portion by their 

respective quantities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15436 Filed 6–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Parts 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 

125, 126, 127, 128, 129, and 130 

[Public Notice [7927]] 

Export Control Reform Transition Plan 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2012– 

15070 appearing on pages 37346–37349 

in the issue of Thursday, June 21, 2012 

make the following correction: 

On page 37346, in the third column, 

in the document’s heading, the CFR 

parts affected should read ‘‘22 CFR Parts 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 38557 

1We note that the stationary source permitting 

rules that are the subject of this proposed rule are 

not intended to satisfy the requirements for preconstruction review and permitting of major 

sources or major modifications under part C 

(‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration of air 

quality’’) or part D (‘‘Plan requirements for 

nonattainment areas’’) of title I of the Clean Air Act. 

120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 

128, 129, and 130’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2012–15070 Filed 6–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0141; FRL–9694–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the applicable state 

implementation plan for the State of 

Nevada. The submitted revisions 

include new or amended State rules 

governing applications for, and issuance 

of, permits for stationary sources, but 

not including review and permitting of 

major sources and major modifications 

under parts C and D of title I of the 

Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing this 

action under the Clean Air Act 

obligation to take action on State 

submittals of revisions to state 

implementation plans. The intended 

effect of the limited approval and 

limited disapproval action is to update 

the applicable state implementation 

plan with current State rules with 

respect to permitting, and to set the 

stage for remedying deficiencies in the 

permitting rules with respect to certain 

new or revised national ambient air 

quality standards. If finalized as 

proposed, this limited disapproval 

action would not trigger sanctions under 

section 179 of the Clean Air Act but 

would trigger an obligation on EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan unless the State of Nevada corrects 

the deficiencies, and EPA approves the 

related plan revisions within two years 

of the final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0141, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (AIR– 

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at 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 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is 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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., 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: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street (AIR–3), San 

Francisco, CA 94105, phone number 

(415) 972–3534, fax number (415) 947– 

3579, or by email at 

yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. Which rules did the state submit? 

B. What is the regulatory history of the 

Nevada SIP? 

C. What are the existing Nevada rules 

governing NSR in the Nevada SIP? 

D. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

1. Previous Deficiencies in Prior-Submitted 

NSR Rules 

2. New Deficiencies in NSR Rules 

3. Conclusion 

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. Which rules did the state submit? 

On January 24, 2011, the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) submitted a revision to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

to EPA for approval or disapproval 

under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). NDEP’s submittal 

includes certain new or amended State 

rules [i.e., certain sections of Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC)] that govern 

applications for, and issuance of, 

permits for stationary sources [a process 

referred to herein as ‘‘New Source 

Review’’ (NSR) and rules referred to 

herein as ‘‘NSR rules’’].1 NDEP’s 

January 24, 2011 submittal also includes 

a rescission of one definition from the 

existing SIP (the definition of ‘‘special 

mobile equipment’’). In addition to the 

NSR rules, NDEP’s January 24, 2011 

submittal contains evidence of public 

notice and adoption of the rules, or 

amendments to the rules, since March 

2006. Evidence of public notice and 

adoption of the NSR rules or 

amendments that predate March 2006 

were previously submitted by NDEP in 

SIP revision submittals dated February 

16, 2005 and January 12, 2006. By letter 

dated February 17, 2011, we found that 

the January 24, 2011 submittal fulfills 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. 

On November 9, 2011, NDEP replaced 

one of the NSR rules, that had been 

submitted on January 24, 2011 (NAC 

445B.3457) and that had been submitted 

as a temporary regulation, with the 

version of the rule that had been 

adopted by the State Environmental 

Commission (SEC) as a permanent 

regulation, and enclosed the related 

evidence of public notice and adoption 

for the permanent regulation. 

On May 21, 2012, NDEP submitted a 

small set of additional NSR-related rules 

[and one definition from the Nevada 

Revised Statutes (NRS)] to supplement 

the NSR rules submitted on January 24, 

2011 and November 9, 2011. NDEP’s 

May 21, 2012 submittal also includes 

certain clarifications concerning the 

previously-submitted NSR rules, and 

documentation supporting the selection 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS