Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0673-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Nevada;, Clark County
Posted Date: 2015-11-05T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68486-68490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28276]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0673; FRL-9936-69-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, 
Clark County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a 
partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to the Clark 
County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of sulfur 
(SOX), and particulate matter (PM) emissions. We are 
proposing action on rescissions of local rules that regulate these 
pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking 
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015.

[[Page 68487]]

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0673, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part 
of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html 
for further instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) 
must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is 
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all 
points you wish to make. For the full EPA public comment policy and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov or 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: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3073, Gong.Kevin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. Which rules has the county rescinded?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
    B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the deficiencies?
    D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. Which rules has the county rescinded?

    On November 20, 2014, the Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection (NDEP) submitted a SIP revision that includes amendments to 
two local rules adopted by the Clark County Board of County 
Commissioners (``Clark County'') and rescissions of four local Clark 
County rules.\1\ In this action, we are proposing action on the 
rescissions. The EPA will take action on the rule amendments in a 
separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under state law, NDEP is the Governor's designee for 
maintaining the Nevada SIP. NDEP is also the agency responsible for 
air quality planning and permitting within the entire state except 
for Clark County and Washoe County. In Clark County, air quality 
planning and permitting jurisdiction, with certain exceptions, lies 
with the Clark County Board of County Commissioners, which acts 
through the county's Department of Air Quality (DAQ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes to 
approve, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the 
EPA's date and citation of approval.

                            Table 1--Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rule section of the Clark
 County Air Quality Regulations        Title         Local effective   SIP approval date        FR Citation
            (CCAQR)                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 29.....................  Sulfur Contents    December 29, 1978  August 27, 1981..  46 FR 43141.
                                  of Fuel Oil.
Section 30, subsections 30.1-    Incinerators.....  December 29, 1978  August 27, 1981..  46 FR 43141.
 30.7 (excluding subsection
 30.4).
Section 30, subsection 30.4....  [exemptions for    September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
                                  certain types of
                                  incinerators].
Section 30, subsection 30.8....  [related to        September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
                                  maximum
                                  allowable
                                  emission rates].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes 
disapprove, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the 
EPA's date and citation of approval.

                          Table 2--Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Disapproval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Local effective
  Rule section of the (CCAQR)          Title               date        SIP approval date        FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 52, subsections 52.1-    Handling of        December 28, 1978  April 14, 1981...  46 FR 21758.
 52.10 (excluding subsections     Gasoline at
 52.4.2.3 and 52.7.2).            Service
                                  Stations,
                                  Airports and
                                  Storage Tanks.
Section 52, subsections          [related to vapor  September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
 52.4.2.3 and 52.7.2.             recovery and
                                  sales
                                  information].
Section 60 (excluding            Evaporation and    June 28, 1979....  April 14, 1981...  46 FR 21758.
 subsections 60.4.2-60.4.3).      Leakage.
Section 60, subsection 60.4.2..  [General           September 3, 1981  March 20, 1984...  49 FR 10259.
                                  prohibition on
                                  the use of
                                  cutback asphalt].
Section 60, subsection 60.4.3..  [Exceptions to     September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
                                  subsection
                                  60.4.2].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68488]]

    On May 20, 2015, the submittal for Clark County was deemed by 
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    This rule rescissions include four sections of the Clark County 
portion of the Nevada SIP, Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60. Previously, 
NDEP submitted, and the EPA approved into the SIP, various subsections 
of these rules separately. As a result, the SIP elements concerning 
each of these Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) rules 
consist of several subsections as identified in Tables 1 and 2.\2\ 
These sections were repealed locally on April 5, 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unless otherwise specified, all references to CCAQR Sections 
in this document are to those sections in their entirety.
    \3\ The SIP approved versions of CCAQR sections 29, 30, 52, and 
60 rules were all approved into the SIP prior to 1985. The County 
has since updated the locally effective rules several times. Clark 
County's most recently adopted local rules differed substantially 
from the SIP-approved versions. The most recently adopted local 
versions were the subject of the county's local repeal action. 
However, we understand that the intent of the county and NDEP in 
submitting the repeal of these later-adopted (not SIP-approved) 
versions of the rules is to remove the SIP-approved versions of the 
rules from the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?

    Clark County adopted a number of rules to meet CAA national ambient 
air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment requirements in the late 
1970s and 1980s, and submitted many of these for incorporation into the 
Nevada SIP. The rules that were approved into the SIP included CCAQR 
Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60.
    Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 establish limits and control measures 
to reduce emissions of SOX, PM, and VOCs from the combustion 
of fuels (Section 29), incinerators (Section 30), gasoline dispensing 
facilities (Section 52) and other processes and industries that use 
solvents, degreasing, surface coating, and cutback asphalt (Section 
60).
    Clark County began a process to revise the CCAQR in May 2005. In 
part, Clark County was concerned with regulatory conflict resulting 
from the delegation of authority or the local incorporation by 
reference of federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for 
many source categories covered under existing local rules. As a result, 
Clark County repealed Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 on April 5, 2011.
    The EPA's technical support document (TSD) associated with today's 
proposal has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?

    Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of 
that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a 
revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant 
CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on 
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General 
Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements 
in effect before November 15, 1990.
    Stringency: Generally, rules must be protective of the NAAQS, and 
must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in 
nonattainment areas for ozone and Reasonably Available Control Methods 
(RACM), including RACT, for PM nonattainment areas. Clark County is 
currently designated as a maintenance area for the revoked 1997 ozone 
standard, and as attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. (40 CFR 
81.329). Clark County regulates a PM10 maintenance area for 
the 1987 standard and is currently designated as attainment for the 
2010 SO2 standard. (40 CFR 81.329). Therefore, these rules 
are not currently subject to CAA RACT, RACM, or analogous stringency 
standards.
    Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would 
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other 
applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA section 
110(l). We note that, despite its current ozone NAAQS attainment 
designations, air quality monitoring data from 2012-2014 suggest that 
ozone concentrations within Clark County no longer meet the 2008 ozone 
standard, so SIP changes that would allow an increase in ozone 
precursor emissions (such VOC emissions) may not be protective of the 
NAAQS.
    Section 29 limited the sulfur content of fuel oils in order to 
reduce SOX emissions, a precursor for PM. Section 30 
regulated the operation of incinerators, and limited the emissions of 
PM. Section 52 regulated the operation of gasoline dispensing 
facilities, and limited the emissions of VOCs. Section 60 regulated the 
use, storage, and disposal of solvents in large scale degreasing and 
coating operations, and for cutback asphalt. Therefore, consistent with 
CAA section 110(l) requirements, Clark County must demonstrate that the 
rescission of Sections 29, 30, 52 and 60 would not interfere with 
attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS or any other 
applicable CAA requirement.
    General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification 
of any rule adopted before November 15, 1990 in areas designated as 
nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the modification insures 
equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutant.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate these 
requirements include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, 
November 25, 1992.

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?

    We have concluded that CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 are appropriate for 
rescission. Clark County is currently designated as attainment or 
maintenance for each of the NAAQS. As a result, Clark County rules are 
not required to meet RACT or analogous standards, and are subject to 
the general savings clause in CAA section 193. Clark County also 
documented that these two rescissions should not increase emissions of 
ozone precursors, and that any additional emissions would not interfere 
with the maintenance of applicable NAAQS for SO2 and PM. 
This satisfies the requirements on plan revisions.
    However, CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 are not appropriate for 
rescission as summarized below and described in more detail in our TSD.

C. What are the deficiencies?

    Clark County has not demonstrated that rescinding CCAQR Sections 52 
and 60 would satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(l). 
Specifically, we propose to disapprove the rescissions of

[[Page 68489]]

sections 52 and 60 based on the following concerns:
    1. The rescission of Section 52 from the SIP would allow an 
increase in VOC emissions, as any other applicable Federal or State 
rules or standards would not apply to the same breadth of sources as 
the SIP-approved rule. This would constitute a relaxation of the SIP 
and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    2. The rescission of Section 60 would allow an increase in VOC 
emissions. Subsection 60.4 prohibits the use of cutback asphalt in 
summer months, with certain exceptions, which is not prohibited by any 
other Federal or State rules that would apply absent subsection 60.4. 
Removing this prohibition would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and 
would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

 D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules

    While Clark County is no longer enforcing these rules, Clark County 
Sections 52 and 60 would remain federally enforceable as part of the 
applicable SIP if the EPA were to finalize today's proposed disapproval 
of the rescissions of these two rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a 
partial approval and partial disapproval of the Clark County rule 
rescissions submitted by NDEP on November 20, 2014. We are proposing to 
approve the rescissions of CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 and to disapprove 
the rescissions of Sections 52 and 60. Final approval of the 
rescissions of Clark County Sections 29 and 30 would remove the rules 
from the Nevada SIP. Final disapproval of the rescissions of Clark 
County Sections 52 and 60 would retain both rules in the Nevada SIP.
    Neither sanctions nor a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would be 
imposed should the EPA finalize this disapproval. Sanctions would not 
be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the SIP submittal that we 
are partially disapproving is not a required SIP submittal. Similarly, 
EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this instance under CAA section 
110(c)(1) because the partial disapproval of the SIP revision retains 
existing SIP rules and does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP for the 
area that a FIP must correct.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval 
for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

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 SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval 
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will 
not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but 
simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State 
requirements from the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

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 action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 
proposed SIP approval and disapproval under section 110 and subchapter 
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new 
requirements but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain 
State requirements from the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 
for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of 
the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various 
consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from 
this disapproval does not mean that the EPA either can or must conduct 
a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. 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.

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.'' The EPA has determined that the proposed approval and 
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 and disapprove the removal of 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 action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA 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 approves and 
disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP and 
does not alter the

[[Page 68490]]

relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this action.

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 
revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove would not 
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA 
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and 
the 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 action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety 
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 
This proposed SIP revision under section 110 and subchapter I, part D 
of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new 
regulations but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain 
State requirements from the SIP.

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.

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 the 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 the 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 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.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (E.O). 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.
    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this 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, Sulfur 
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: October 19, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-28276 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P