Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46361 

September 25, 2009, guidance to ensure 

that the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Kentucky. 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Kentucky’s infrastructure submissions, 

provided to EPA on August 26, 2008, 

and on July 17, 2012, addressed the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with the exceptions of elements 

(C) and (J) (as related to the PSD 

requirements of this element). 

With respect to element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is today proposing 

to determine that Kentucky’s SIP 

satisfies this infrastructure element 

contingent upon EPA taking final action 

to approve Kentucky’s July 17, 2012, 

submission requesting approval of KRS 

Chapters 11A.020, 11A.030, 11A.040, 

224.10–020 and 224.10–100 into the SIP 

to address sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

Today’s action is also proposing 

approval of KRS Chapters 11A.020, 

11A.030, 11A.040, 224.10–020 and 

224.10–100 into the SIP. 

With respect to elements 110(a)(2)(C) 

and 110(a)(2)(J) relating to the PSD 

requirements, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve these 

requirements based upon the 

commitment made by Kentucky to 

submit the requisite SIP revision to 

address the Commonwealth’s current 

NSR PM2.5 Rule SIP deficiencies. 

Consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the 

CAA, if the Commonwealth fails to 

comply with its commitment, this 

proposed condition approval would 

automatically be treated as a 

disapproval of these elements. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the Commonwealth, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19017 Filed 8–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047; FRL–9707–3] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone 

and Fine Particulate Matter 

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 to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each State adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. On 

February 1, 2008, February 26, 2008, 

September 15, 2009, and December 4, 

2009 the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) 

submitted revisions to Nevada’s SIP, 

which describe the State’s provisions for 

implementing, maintaining, and 

enforcing the standards listed above. On 

July 5, 2012, NDEP submitted a 

supplement to these SIP revisions, 

including certain statutory and 

regulatory provisions. We encourage the 

State to submit a revised SIP to address 

the deficiencies identified in this 

proposal, and we stand ready to work 

with the State to develop a revised plan. 

We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 4, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2011–0047, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: r9_airplanning@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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46362 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

2The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the 

3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

3The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 was published in 

the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144). 

4Notwithstanding EPA’s finding of failure to 

submit, footnote 2 of the findings notice noted that 

Nevada had submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS on February 1, 2008. (See 73 

FR 16205 at 16207). 

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 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP 

Evaluation 

II. The State’s Submittals 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. Proposed Approvals 

B. Proposed Disapprovals 

C. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals 

(Parallel Processing) 

D. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals 

(Clark County NSR) 

E. Discussion of CAA SIP Revision 

Requirements 

F. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

I.A. Statutory Framework 

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

each state to submit to EPA, within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a primary or secondary 

NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP 

that provides for the ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such 

NAAQS. EPA refers to these specific 

submissions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs 

because they are intended to address 

basic structural SIP requirements for 

new or revised NAAQS. The 

infrastructure SIP elements include: 

• 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). 

I.B. Regulatory History 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone 1 and a new 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently revised the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 

21, 2006.3 Each of these actions 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of section 

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

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into 

a Consent Decree with EarthJustice that 

obligated EPA to make official findings 

in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of 

the CAA as to whether states had made 

required complete SIP submissions, 

pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2), by December 15, 2007 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and by 

October 5, 2008 for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA made such findings for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as published 

on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205), and 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, as published 

on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62902). For 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA found that 

Nevada had failed to make a complete 

submittal to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2).4 For the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA found that Nevada had 

made a complete submittal to address 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2). 

I.C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP 

Evaluation 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various 

states across the country. Commenters 

on EPA’s recent proposals for some 

states raised concerns about EPA 

statements that it was not addressing 

certain substantive issues in the context 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46363 

5See, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). 

6For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

7For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ‘‘Rule 

To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25,162 (May 12, 

2005)(defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

8See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

9For example, EPA issued separate guidance to 

states with respect to SIP submissions to meet 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet 

Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. In addition, 

EPA bifurcated the action on these ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provisions within section 110(a)(2) and 

in most instances, substantive administrative 

Continued 

of acting on those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.5 Those commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that 

it would address two issues separately 

and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources, 

that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); and (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’’). EPA notes that there are 

two other substantive issues for which 

EPA likewise stated in other proposals 

that it would address the issues 

separately: (i) Existing provisions for 

minor source new source review 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and (ii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs that 

may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. 

EPA intended the statements in other 

proposals concerning these four issues 

merely to be informational, and to 

provide general notice of the potential 

existence of provisions within the 

existing SIPs of some states that might 

require future corrective action. EPA did 

not want states, regulated entities, or 

members of the public to be under the 

misconception that the Agency’s 

approval of the infrastructure SIP 

submission of a given state should be 

interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIPapproved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these NAAQS should not be 

construed as explicit or implicit 

reapproval of any existing provisions 

that relate to these four substantive 

issues. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.6 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.7

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).8 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. Likewise, 

EPA has previously decided that it 

could take action on different parts of 

the larger, general ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

for a given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on all subsections.9 Finally, EPA 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46364 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

actions occurred on different tracks with different 

schedules. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

11See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). 

12 Id. at page 2. 

13 Id. at attachment A, page 1. 

14 Id. at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicate that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

15See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

notes that not every element of section 

110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, 

for each new or revised NAAQS and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission 

for that NAAQS. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be 

very different than what might be 

necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 

the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a 

state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.10

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.11 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 12 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 13 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 14 For the 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a State’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.15 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, neither the 

2007 Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance 

explicitly referred to the SSM, director’s 

discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR 

Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a comprehensive review of 

each and every provision of an existing 

SIP merely for purposes of assuring that 

the state in question has the basic 

structural elements for a functioning SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS. Because 

SIPs have grown by accretion over the 

decades as statutory and regulatory 

requirements under the CAA have 

evolved, they may include some 

outmoded provisions and historical 

artifacts that, while not fully up to date, 

nevertheless may not pose a significant 

problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46365 

16EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 76 FR 21,639 

(April 18, 2011). 

17EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82,536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34,641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67,062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

18EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42,342 at 

42,344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 

(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

19See letter dated February 1, 2008 from Leo M. 

Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, to Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 20See letter dated February 26, 2008 from Leo M. 

Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, to Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 21See letter dated September 15, 2009 from Leo 

M. Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, to Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 22See letter dated December 4, 2009 from Leo M. 

Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, to Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

23A small number of Washoe County regulations 

included as attachment B to the 2009 PM2.5

Supplement have already been approved into the 

Nevada SIP (e.g., the emergency episode 

provisions); most have not been approved. 

However, we understand that the submittal of the 

Washoe County regulations in attachment B was for 

information purposes, and that the specific Washoe 

County regulations submitted for approval into the 

SIP include only those submitted as part of NDEP’s 

submittal dated July 5, 2012. We also understand 

attachment C to have been submitted for 

information purposes. 

24See letter dated July 5, 2012 from Colleen 

Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. This SIP 

revision was also submitted to revise Nevada’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

NAAQS, which was submitted on October 12, 2011. 

EPA will address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in a separate 

rulemaking. 

25Under EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ procedure, 

EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 

the State’s proposed rulemaking. If the State’s 

proposed plan is changed, EPA will evaluate that 

subsequent change and may publish another notice 

Continued 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the 

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.16 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.17

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.18

II. The State’s Submittals 

On February 1, 2008, the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) submitted the ‘‘CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in the 

Current Nevada State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone’’ to address 

the infrastructure SIP requirements for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS (‘‘2008 Ozone 

Submittal’’).19 On February 26, 2008, 

NDEP submitted the ‘‘CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in the 

Current Nevada State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for PM2.5’’ to address the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2008 PM2.5

Submittal’’).20 On September 15, 2009, 

NDEP submitted the ‘‘CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in the 

Current Nevada State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for PM2.5’’ to address the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2009 PM2.5

Submittal’’).21 Each of these three 

submittals included a cover letter from 

the NDEP Administrator to the Region 

IX Regional Administrator, a table 

listing the elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2) followed by NDEP’s discussion 

of the provisions in the existing Nevada 

SIP that address each element, and 

attachments that compile the State rules 

and statutes that are currently approved 

into the Nevada SIP. 

On December 4, 2009, NDEP 

submitted the ‘‘Current CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in the 

Washoe County Portion of the Nevada 

PM2.5 SIP’’ to address the infrastructure 

SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for the Washoe County portion 

of the State (‘‘2009 PM2.5

Supplement’’).22 Like the three earlier 

submittals, the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement 

contained a table listing the elements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) followed by 

Washoe County’s discussion of the 

provisions in the existing (Washoe 

County portion of the) Nevada SIP that 

address each element, and attachments 

that include the Washoe County District 

Board of Health (DBOH) air pollution 

control regulations cited in the County’s 

evaluation of the adequacy of the 

existing SIP for Washoe County in 

meeting the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for PM2.5,23 the PSD 

delegation agreement between the 

Washoe County District Health 

Department and EPA, and an Interlocal 

Agreement among the Washoe County 

District Board of Health, Washoe 

County, and the cities of Reno and 

Sparks concerning the Washoe County 

District Health Department. 

On July 5, 2012, NDEP submitted 

‘‘Revisions to Nevada’s Clean Air Act 

§ 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan 

Submittals; Parallel Processing Request’’ 

to address certain infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2012 

Submittal’’).24 This submittal served as 

a supplement to the four prior ozone 

and PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals 

and was submitted under the parallel 

processing mechanism provided by 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V, Section 2.3. 

The 2012 Submittal includes a number 

of provisions, including statutes, 

regulations, and non-regulatory 

provisions, that are currently effective 

under State law but that have not been 

adopted specifically for submittal to 

EPA as SIP revisions under CAA section 

110. NDEP also included unofficial 

copies of these provisions with a request 

for ‘‘parallel processing’’ 25 and stated 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46366 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is 

made, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the 

plan after responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 

after the plan has been fully adopted by Nevada and 

submitted formally to EPA for approval into the 

SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3. 

We note that because NDEP’s rulemaking process 

here is for purposes of adopting the 2012 Submittal 

as a SIP revision under CAA section 110, including 

existing statutes and regulations (without revision) 

and updating non-regulatory provisions, we do not 

expect any significant changes between the 

proposed and final plans. 

its intention to open a public comment 

period on July 13, 2012, provide 

opportunity for a public hearing on 

August 15, 2012, and to submit these 

provisions as a formal SIP submittal by 

the end of August 2012. 

NDEP did not provide notice and an 

opportunity for public comment or 

hearing prior to adoption and submittal 

of the 2008 Ozone Submittal, the 2008 

PM2.5 Submittal, the 2009 PM2.5

Submittal, or the 2009 PM2.5

Supplement in reliance on EPA 

guidance that indicated that, where a 

State was simply certifying that the 

existing SIP met the infrastructure 

requirements with respect to the new or 

revised NAAQS, no public process was 

required. EPA’s views on this matter 

have changed, and we now recognize 

submittals by States in response to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) 

do represent SIP submittals, even if they 

simply certify the existing SIP as 

sufficient. 

As SIP revisions, such submittals 

require public notice, and opportunity 

for comment and hearing. We find, 

however, that, in this instance, because 

NDEP has provided notice, and 

opportunity to comment and hearing in 

connection with the 2012 Submittal, 

described above, and because NDEP’s 

notice refers to the 2008 Ozone 

Submittal, the 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, the 

2009 PM2.5 Submittal, and the 2009 

PM2.5 Supplement, in addition to the 

2012 Submittal, NDEP will have met the 

procedural requirements for public 

participation under CAA section 

110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102 for all five 

infrastructure SIP submittals on which 

we are proposing action today when 

NDEP submits the related 

documentation to us with the 2012 

Submittal. 

We are proposing to act on all five 

submittals since they collectively 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We refer 

to them collectively herein as ‘‘Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals.’’ 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

EPA has evaluated Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the 

existing provisions of the Nevada SIP 

for compliance with the CAA section 

110(a) requirements for the 1997 ozone, 

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

Our three Technical Support Documents 

(TSDs) contain more detailed 

evaluations and are available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking, 

which may be accessed online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047. The three 

Technical Support Documents are as 

follows: (1) ‘‘Overarching TSD’’ for CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), parts 

of (D) and (E), and (F) thru (M); (2) 

‘‘2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD’’ for CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3) ‘‘Section 128 

TSD’’ for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

which addresses compliance with the 

conflict of interest requirements of CAA 

section 128. All proposals below apply 

to our evaluation of Nevada’s 

infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

unless a specific distinction is made as 

to which of Nevada’s five submittals or 

which of these three NAAQS a given 

proposal applies. 

III.A. Proposed Approvals 

Based upon our evaluation as 

presented in the TSDs, EPA proposes to 

approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals 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. (Please 

see our 2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD for 

our evaluation of Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5

Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement 

regarding interstate transport 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.) 

• 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. (Please 

see our Section 128 TSD for our 

evaluation of Nevada’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals regarding the conflict of 

interest requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii).) 

• 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) (in part): 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. 

In connection with our proposed 

partial approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we are 

proposing to approve certain statutes, 

regulations, and other materials, that 

were included in the 2009 PM2.5

Supplement and the 2012 Submittal to 

supplement the four earlier submittals. 

First, with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) (i.e., necessary assurances 

for adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority), EPA is proposing to approve 

an interlocal agreement among the 

Washoe County District Board of Health, 

Washoe County and the cities of Reno 

and Sparks concerning the Washoe 

County District Health Department, and 

a comprehensive revision to Section 12 

(‘‘Resources’’) of the Nevada SIP. The 

interlocal agreement was submitted as 

attachment D to the 2009 PM2.5

Supplement and the revision to Section 

12 was submitted as attachment A to 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal. Nevada’s 

revision to Section 12 (‘‘Resources’’) 

includes updated information 

concerning funding and personnel 

supporting the functions of the three air 

pollution control agencies administering 

CAA programs in Nevada: NDEP, Clark 

County Department of Air Quality, and 

Washoe County Health District’s Air 

Quality Management Division (AQMD). 

If finalized as proposed, NDEP’s 2012 

revision to Section 12 will entirely 

replace the existing SIP version of 

Section 12, approved on May 31, 1972 

(37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP. 

Second, in connection with our 

proposed approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (i.e., 

State board conflict of interest 

requirements under CAA section 128), 

EPA is proposing to approve Nevada 

Revised Statutes (NRS) sections 

232A.020, 281A.150, 281A.160, 

281A.400, 281A.410, and 281A.420, as 

provided in Attachment B of Nevada’s 

2012 Submittal, into the Nevada SIP. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46367 

26NDEP included, in attachment B of the 2012 

Submittal, certain statutes for inclusion in the 

Nevada SIP in support of the Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals. While both NRS 445B.503 and NRS 

439.390 are included as exhibits to revised Section 

11 (‘‘Intergovernmental Consultation’’), only the 

former is included in attachment B to the 2012 

Submittal. We have assumed that the absence of 

NRS 439.390 in attachment B was inadvertent, and 

that NDEP intends NRS 439.390 to be included in 

the Nevada SIP, but we request confirmation from 

NDEP on this matter. 

27 In the 2012 Submittal, NDEP also included an 

updated version of a statute that is also cited in the 

revised Section 11 (‘‘Intergovernmental 

Consultation’’) but that is already approved into the 

SIP, NRS section 445B.500 (‘‘Establishment and 

administration of program; contents of program; 

designation of air pollution control agency of 

county for purposes of federal act; powers and 

duties of local air pollution control board; notice of 

public hearings; delegation of authority to 

determine violations and levy administrative 

penalties; cities and smaller counties: regulation of 

certain electric plants prohibited’’), approved at 71 

FR 51766 (August 31, 2006). We have reviewed the 

updated version of NRS 445B.500 and note that the 

only changes relative to the existing SIP version of 

NRS 445B.500 relate to hearing boards, hearing 

officers, and school districts and, thus, are 

administrative in nature. As such, we propose 

herein to approve the updated version of NRS 

445B.500 that was included in attachment B to the 

2012 Submittal as a revision to the Nevada SIP. 

28A copy of our separate, concurrent proposal is 

available in the docket for this action and online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2011–0047. 

29EPA 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 to Washoe County (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’’). 

30See EPA’s proposal signed on July 13, 2012, 

and included in the docket of this infrastructure SIP 

proposal. 

Third, in connection with our 

proposed approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part) 

and (M), EPA is proposing to approve a 

comprehensive revision to Section 11 

(‘‘Intergovernmental Consultation’’) of 

the Nevada SIP, which is included as 

Attachment D to Nevada’s 2012 

Submittal. Nevada’s revision to Section 

11 (‘‘Intergovernmental Consultation’’) 

includes updated information 

concerning consultation among the 

three air pollution control agencies 

administering CAA programs in Nevada 

(NDEP, Clark County Department of Air 

Quality, and Washoe County Health 

District’s Air Quality Management 

Division) as well as regional planning 

and transportation agencies that also 

have certain air-quality-planning-related 

responsibilities. If finalized as proposed, 

NDEP’s 2012 revision to Section 11 will 

entirely replace the existing SIP version 

of Section 11, approved on May 31, 

1972 (37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP. 

Nevada’s 2012 revision to Section 11 

(‘‘Intergovernmental Consultation’’) 

cites a number of statutes, two of which 

are included as exhibits to Section 11, 

NRS section 445B.503 (‘‘Local air 

pollution control board in county whose 

population is 700,000 or more: 

Cooperation with regional planning 

coalition and regional transportation 

commission; prerequisites to adoption 

or amendment of plan, policy or 

program’’) and NRS section 439.390 

(‘‘District board of health: Composition; 

qualifications of members’’), that would 

be new to the SIP.26 We have reviewed 

them and find them acceptable and are 

proposing to approve them in 

connection with our proposed approval 

of the 2012 revised Section 11 of the 

Nevada SIP.27

Fourth, in connection with our 

proposed approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 

(F)(iii), we note that EPA has proposed 

to approve three Nevada Administrative 

Code (NAC) sections cited by NDEP in 

its 2012 Submittal, NAC sections 

445B.315(3), 445B.3368, and 445B.346, 

in a separate rulemaking (see 77 FR 

38557, June 28, 2012). While we believe 

that the three cited NAC sections are 

generally supportive of the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii), we believe that the 

existing Nevada SIP, even without the 

three cited NAC sections, is adequate to 

meet the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) with 

respect to sources under NDEP 

jurisdiction. See our Overarching TSD. 

Fifth and last, in connection with our 

proposed approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), our 

proposed approval with respect to this 

element for the Washoe County portion 

of the SIP relies on final approval of 

four Washoe County rules, 030.218, 

030.230, 030.235, and 030.970, that 

were included in the 2012 Submittal. 

We proposed approval of these four 

Washoe County rules in a separate 

rulemaking signed on July 19, 2012.28

III.B. Proposed Disapprovals 

EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the following infrastructure 

SIP requirements (details of the partial 

approvals and 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. (Please 

see our 2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD for 

our evaluation of Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5

Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement 

regarding interstate transport 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.) 

• 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. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K) (in part): Air 

quality modeling and submission of 

modeling data. 

As explained more fully in our 

Overarching TSD, we are proposing to 

disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the SIP with respect 

to the permitting-related requirements 

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

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

110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) because the 

Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (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 NSR pollutants, pursuant to 

delegation agreements with EPA. See 40 

CFR 52.1485.29 Accordingly, although 

the Nevada SIP remains deficient with 

respect to PSD requirements in both the 

NDEP and Washoe County portions of 

the SIP, these deficiencies are 

adequately addressed in both areas by 

the Federal PSD program. 

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

to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the 

requirement that the SIP include a 

program to provide for enforcement of 

the emissions limitations described in 

section 110(a)(2)(A). For the permittingrelated requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C), we propose to approve the 

Clark County portion of the SIP, 

contingent on finalizing our proposed 

approval of Clark County’s SIP revisions 

for the review of new or modified 

stationary sources,30 and to disapprove 

the NDEP and Washoe County portions 

of the SIP, for the reasons discussed at 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

31Section IV.G.7 of the June 22, 2011 Regional 

Haze SIP proposal (See 76 FR 36450 at 36466) 

stated the following: ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of 

the Act requires SIP revisions to contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or other types of 

emission activity within the state from emitting any 

air pollutant in amounts that will interfere with 

another state’s plan to protect visibility. Nevada 

submitted its SIP for Interstate Transport to EPA on 

February 7, 2007, which EPA approved and 

promulgated in the Federal Register on July 31, 

2007 (70 FR 41629). In our Federal Register Notice, 

we deferred action on whether Nevada interferes 

with other states’ plans to address regional visibility 

impairment caused by regional haze until we 

received Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. As explained 

in Section IV.D.2. of this notice, NDEP relied on the 

[Western Regional Air Partnership’s] source 

apportionment modeling to demonstrate that 

Nevada’s emissions are projected to have a minimal 

contribution to sulfate and nitrate extinction in 

each of 24 Class I areas in five adjacent states. 

Moreover, none of the neighboring western states 

have requested emission reductions from Nevada in 

order to meet their [reasonable progress goals]. 

Therefore, in proposing to approve Nevada’s 

[Regional Haze] SIP, we are proposing to find that 

this plan revision contains adequate provisions to 

protect visibility in other states.’’ 

the start of section III.B of this notice 

and our Overarching TSD. 

With respect to the requirements 

regarding interstate transport in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we propose to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5

Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement. 

We propose to partially disapprove the 

submission because it relies on 

irrelevant factors and lacks any 

technical analysis to support the State’s 

conclusion with respect to interstate 

transport. We also propose to partially 

approve the submission, however, based 

on EPA’s supplemental evaluation of 

relevant technical information, which 

supports a finding that emissions from 

Nevada do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See our 

2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD. 

For the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA previously 

approved an interstate transport SIP 

submitted by Nevada as satisfying the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(D)(i)(I). See 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 

2007). 

For the requirement of CAA section 

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

with other states’ required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality), we propose to approve the 

Clark County portion of the SIP, and to 

disapprove the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the SIP, for the 

reasons discussed at the start of section 

III.B of this notice and our Overarching 

TSD. With respect to the requirement of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

(regarding interference with other states’ 

required measures to protect visibility), 

EPA previously approved Nevada’s 

interstate transport SIP as satisfying this 

requirement for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of EPA’s 

action on Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. 

See 77 FR 17334 at 17339 (March 26, 

2012). For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, we propose the same 

interpretations and conclusions that we 

proposed as part of EPA’s proposed 

action on the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. 

See 76 FR 36450 at 36466, June 22, 

2011. In other words, we propose to find 

that Nevada’s SIP-approved Regional 

Haze Plan contains adequate provisions 

to protect visibility in other states, and 

therefore meets the visibility 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.31

With respect to the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA 

proposes to approve Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the Clark County portion of 

the Nevada SIP, contingent on finalizing 

EPA’s proposed approval of Clark 

County’s SIP revisions for the review of 

new or modified stationary sources, and 

to disapprove the SIP with respect to the 

NDEP and Washoe County portions of 

the Nevada SIP, for the reasons 

discussed at the start of section III.B of 

this notice and in our Overarching TSD. 

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

to approve the Clark County portion of 

the SIP, contingent on finalizing EPA’s 

proposed approval of Clark County’s SIP 

revisions for the review of new or 

modified stationary sources, for 

subsections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii). See our Overarching 

TSD. We propose to disapprove 

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

County portion of the SIP because Clark 

County has repealed its regulation, 

Section 24, that formerly addressed the 

correlation requirement of this 

subsection, without submitting a SIP 

revision to replace it. For the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the SIP, we 

propose to approve Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for all 

three subsections. Note, however, that 

our proposed approval of subsections 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for 

the Washoe County portion of the SIP is 

contingent on finalizing EPA’s proposed 

approval of Washoe County Air Quality 

Regulations 030.218, 030.230, 030.235, 

and 030.970. See our Overarching TSD. 

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

approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as meeting the consultation, 

public notification, and visibility 

requirements of this section. Our 

proposed approval with respect to the 

consultation requirements of this 

section are contingent on finalizing 

EPA’s proposed approval of certain 

provisions of Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, 

as described in section III.A of this 

notice. For the permitting-related 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), we 

propose to approve the Clark County 

portion of the SIP, contingent on 

finalizing EPA’s proposed approval of 

Clark County’s SIP revisions for the 

review of new or modified stationary 

sources, and to disapprove the NDEP 

and Washoe County portions of the SIP, 

for the reasons discussed at the start of 

section III.B of this notice and in our 

Overarching TSD. 

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

to approve the Clark County portion of 

the SIP contingent on finalizing EPA’s 

proposed approval of Clark County’s SIP 

revisions for the review of new or 

modified stationary sources. See our 

Overarching TSD. We propose to 

disapprove the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the SIP with respect 

to the permit modeling requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(K), for the reasons 

discussed at the start of section III.B of 

this notice and our Overarching TSD. 

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. 

III.C. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals 

(Parallel Processing) 

Several of our proposed approvals 

rely on Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, which 

was made under the parallel processing 

mechanism provided by 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, Section 2.3. If Nevada is 

not able to submit the fully adopted SIP 

revision anticipated by its 2012 

Submittal by the end of August 2012, as 

stated in the letter transmitting the 2012 

Submittal, EPA must still take final 

action by September 30, 2012, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46369 

32 In its 2008 and 2009 Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, Nevada did not submit any information 

on personnel or funding for Clark County and did 

so for Washoe County only for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

33 In its 2008 and 2009 Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, Nevada did not submit any information 

about consultation within Clark County. For 

Washoe County, the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement 

included a copy of the ‘‘Interlocal Agreement 

Concerning the Washoe County District Health 

Department’’ as Attachment D. This agreement 

partially addresses the consultation requirements of 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(J) and (M), since it defines 

membership and other aspects of the DBOH’s 

operation such that Washoe County and the two 

incorporated cities (Reno and Sparks) each have 

two representatives on the seven-member DBOH. 

However, it is insufficient to address the 

consultation requirements of CAA section 121. For 

example, it does not identify a process to consult 

with Federal Land Managers having authority over 

Federal land affected by the County’s air plans. 

consistent with the terms of the consent 

decree entered October 20, 2011 in 

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 

3:11–cv–00190 and the settlement 

agreement entered November 30, 2011 

in Sierra Club et al v. Lisa Jackson, Case 

No. 3:10–cv–04060–CRB, as amended. 

Therefore, as a contingency for such a 

case, we propose, in the alternative, to 

disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements. 

For Section 110(a)(2)(E), in the 

absence of the anticipated SIP revisions, 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 

PM2.5 Submittal, 2009 PM2.5 Submittal, 

and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement have not 

provided necessary assurances of 

adequate personnel and funding for 

Clark County DAQ and Washoe County 

AQMD to carry out the SIP, as required 

by section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).32 More 

broadly, the SIP still contains outdated 

information in Section 12 

(‘‘Resources’’), as approved on May 31, 

1972 (37 FR 10842). On this basis, we 

propose, in the alternative, to 

disapprove Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

subsection 110(a)(2)(E)(i). Nonetheless, 

Nevada has provided necessary 

assurances of adequate legal authority to 

carry out the SIP at both the state and 

county levels. In other words, our 

proposed approval regarding the 

Nevada’s legal authority for subsections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) do 

not rely on Nevada’s 2012 Submittal. 

With respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), pertaining to conflict of 

interest requirements, absent receipt of 

the SIP revisions embodied by Nevada’s 

2012 Submittal—especially the Nevada 

Ethics in Government statutory 

provisions included in that submittal— 

we propose, in the alternative, to 

disapprove Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals as they do 

not address the various conflict of 

interest requirements. 

Our proposed approval of subsections 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for 

the Washoe County portion of the SIP 

are contingent upon finalizing EPA’s 

proposed approval of four Washoe 

County regulations. Thus, absent receipt 

of these SIP revisions as embodied by 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, we propose, 

in the alternative, to disapprove these 

two subsections for the Washoe County 

portion of the SIP because the local 

regulations supportive of these 

requirements are currently not in the 

SIP. 

Lastly, in the absence of the SIP 

revisions anticipated by Nevada’s 2012 

Submittal, Nevada’s formal submittals 

(i.e., the 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 

PM2.5 Submittal, 2009 PM2.5 Submittal, 

and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement) have not 

met the consultation requirements of 

sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 110(a)(2)(M).33

These four submittals highlight 

provisions for notification and 

opportunity for comment in connection 

with rulemaking and issuing permits 

and make a commitment to maintain a 

process of consultation. 

However, sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 

110(a)(2)(M) address more than just 

rulemaking or permits, although such 

consultation may be relevant as part of 

the process for consultation required 

under CAA section 121. Moreover, a 

commitment to maintain an acceptable 

process of consultation is not a 

substitute for the identification of the 

process itself as part of the Nevada SIP. 

More broadly, the SIP still contains 

outdated information in Section 11 

(‘‘Intergovernmental Relations’’), as 

approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 

10842). While the Nevada SIP does have 

a number of statutes that authorize the 

state and counties to cooperate with 

local governments (see, e.g., NRS 

445B.210, 445B.220, 445B.235, and 

445B.500), such cooperation is optional 

and similarly not a substitute for a 

process for consultation that exists as 

part of the SIP. On this basis, we 

propose, in the alternative, to 

disapprove Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the consultation requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(J) and section 

110(a)(2)(M). 

III.D. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals 

(Clark County NSR) 

Several proposed approvals for the 

Clark County portion of the SIP rely on 

EPA finalizing its proposal of July 13, 

2012 on Clark County’s NSR program 

revisions. If EPA is unable to finalize 

the approvals embodied in that 

proposal, upon which our infrastructure 

SIP proposal relies (see our Overarching 

TSD for more details), EPA must still 

take final action by September 30, 2012, 

consistent with the terms of the consent 

decree entered October 20, 2011 in 

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 

3:11–cv–00190 and the settlement 

agreement entered November 30, 2011 

in Sierra Club et al. v. Lisa Jackson, Case 

No. 3:10–cv–04060–CRB, as amended. 

As a contingency for such a case, EPA 

proposes, in the alternative, to 

disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for the Clark County portion 

of the SIP with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C), pertaining to 

the requirement for a program for the 

review of new or modified stationary 

sources, including the PSD 

requirements under CAA title 1, part C; 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

pertaining to interference with other 

states’ required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality; 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), pertaining 

to notification of other states affected by 

new or modified stationary sources, as 

per section 126(a); 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii), pertaining to the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment to monitor 

emissions from stationary sources, and 

periodic reports on those emissions; 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J), pertaining to 

CAA title 1, part C (relating to 

prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality); and 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K), pertaining to 

permit modeling. 

III.E. Discussion of CAA SIP Revision 

Requirements 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

All of the elements of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals that we are 

proposing to approve, as explained in 

our Overarching TSD and Section 128 

TSD, would improve the SIP by 

replacing obsolete provisions and by 

providing new provisions addressing 

the resources, conflict of interest, 

stationary source monitoring, and 

consultation requirements of the CAA. 

We propose to determine that our 

approval of these elements of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals would 

comply with CAA section 110(l) 

because the proposed SIP revision 

would not interfere with the on-going 

process for ensuring that requirements 

for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS 

are met, and the submitted SIP revision 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

clarifies and updates the SIP. Our 

Overarching TSD and Section 128 TSD 

contain a more detailed discussion of 

our evaluation. 

III.F. 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 Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals were not submitted to 

meet either of these 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 

Federal Implementation Plan (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. With respect to our proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of Nevada’s submissions related to 

interstate transport under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), however, we propose 

to conclude that any FIP obligation 

resulting from finalization of the partial 

disapproval would be satisfied by our 

determination that there is no 

deficiency in the SIP to correct. 

Finalization of this proposed 

disapproval also would not require any 

further action on Nevada’s part given 

EPA’s conclusion that the SIP is 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

IV.A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

IV.B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

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). 

IV.C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I 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-and-of 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. 

IV.D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the 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, 

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. 

IV.E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely 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. 

IV.F. Executive Order 13175, 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

proposing action would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46371 

IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection 

of Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

under CAA section 110 will not in-andof 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. 

IV.H. 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. 

IV.I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

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. 

IV.J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19015 Filed 8–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817; FRL–9712–5] 

RIN 2060–AQ93 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement 

Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: The EPA has been requested 

to hold a public hearing on its proposed 

rule, ‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of Performance 

for Portland Cement Plants,’’ which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 18, 2012. The EPA will hold the 

hearing on August 16, 2012, in 

Arlington, Texas. 

DATES: The public hearing will be held 

on August 16, 2012. The Administrator 

will keep the record of the public 

hearing open for 30 days after 

completion of the hearing to provide an 

opportunity for submission or rebuttal 

and supplementary information. The 

date for submitting comments on the 

proposed rule is unchanged from 

August 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at 

the Arlington Municipal Building in the 

City Council Chambers located at 101 

W. Abram Street, Arlington, Texas 

76010; Telephone: (817) 459–6122. 

The public hearing will convene at 

9:00 a.m. and will continue until 7:00 

p.m. A lunch break is scheduled from 

12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. The EPA’s 

Web site for the rulemaking, which 

includes the proposal and information 

about the hearing, can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/ 

pcempg.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you would like to present oral testimony 

at the public hearing, please contact Ms. 

Pamela Garrett, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D243–01), 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone: (919) 541–7966; fax 

number: (919) 541–5450; email address: 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov (preferred 

method for registering). The last day to 

register to present oral testimony in 

advance will be Tuesday, August 14, 

2012. If using email, please provide the 

following information: The time you 

wish to speak (morning or afternoon), 

name, affiliation, address, email address 

and telephone and fax numbers. Time 

slot preferences will be given in the 

order requests are received. 

Additionally, requests to speak will be 

taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special 

accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. 

Questions concerning the proposed 

rule (77 FR 42368, July 18, 2012) should 

be addressed to Ms. Sharon Nizich, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards; Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Minerals and Manufacturing 

Group (D243–04); Environmental 

Protection Agency; Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27111; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2825; fax number: 

(919) 541–5450; email address: 

nizich.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public hearing: The proposal for 

which the EPA is holding the public 

hearing was published in the Federal 

Register on July 18, 2012, and is 

available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/FR-2012-07-18/pdf/2012-16166.pdf 

and also in the docket identified below. 

The public hearing will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present oral comments regarding the 

EPA’s proposed standards, including 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS