[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36481-36482]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1858-023]

Beaver City Corporation; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following license application has been filed
with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: P-1858-023.
    c. Date Filed: July 30, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Beaver City Corporation (Beaver City).
    e. Name of Project: Beaver City Canyon Plant No. 2 Hydroelectric
Project (Beaver City Project).
    f. Location: The existing hydroelectric project is located on the
Beaver River, in Beaver County, Utah, about 5 miles east of the city of
Beaver. The project currently occupies 10.2 acres of federal land
administered by the U.S. Forest Service, and 2.4 acres of federal land
managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. As proposed, the project
would occupy 10.5 acres of federal land administered by the U.S. Forest
Service and 2.4 acres of federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Jason Brown, Beaver City Manager, 30 West 300
North, Beaver, UT 84713;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Evan Williams,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERC.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/Quick.aspx. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify
the project name and docket number on the first page: Beaver City
Canyon Plant No. 2 Hydroelectric Project (P-1858-023).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is ready for
environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The existing Beaver City Project consists of: (1) a small
reservoir with a normal pool elevation of 6,769 feet, a surface area of
about 0.15 acres, and a storage capacity of approximately 1-acre-foot;
(2) a 15.5-foot-high by 65-foot-wide diversion dam; (3) a 30-inch-
diameter, 11,632-foot-long steel penstock; (4) a 34-foot-long by 41-
foot-wide stone powerhouse containing an impulse turbine and one
generating unit with an installed capacity of 625 kilowatts; (5) a 4-
foot-wide by 150-foot-long tailrace channel; (6) a 12.5-kilovolt,
approximately 21,000-foot-long transmission line; and (7) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated average annual generation (2012 to 2017) is
4,446 megawatt-hours.
    Beaver City Corporation proposes to abandon the existing: (1)
powerhouse; (2) portion of penstock between the existing powerhouse and
proposed new powerhouse; (3) buried line from the turbine generator to
the transformer on the west side of the existing powerhouse; (4) old
transformer; (5) overhead line from the old transformer to the start of
the transmission line on the west bank of the Beaver River; and (6)
tailrace. As such, Beaver City proposes to remove approximately 50 feet
of the existing penstock, increase the existing project boundary, and
construct: (1) a new 40-foot-long by 27-foot-wide metal-walled
powerhouse, with a reinforced concrete foundation, to contain one new
turbine-generator with an installed capacity of 720 kilowatts; (2) a
new approximately 35-foot-long buried line from the new turbine-
generator to the new transformer; (3) a new approximately 33-foot-long
buried line from the new transformer to a 40-foot-tall intermediate
pole of wood and metal construction; (4) a new 120-foot-long overhead
line from the intermediate pole to the start of the existing
transmission line; and (5) a new 43-foot-long tailrace that tailrace
varies from 7.5 feet wide adjacent to powerhouse to 19 feet wide at
point of discharge. The section of tailrace adjacent to the powerhouse
would be a 9-foot-long by 7.5-foot-wide concrete structure and would
terminate prior to the ordinary high-water mark of the Beaver River.
The remainder of the tailrace would be of earthen construction, rock-
lined, and shaped to return flow to the river with minimal turbulence.
The new powerhouse, power distribution facilities, and tailrace would
be constructed approximately 50 feet upstream (south) of the existing
powerhouse and enclosed by approximately 240 feet of 8-foot-tall chain-
link perimeter fence. Beaver City proposes to preserve the existing
powerhouse and operate it as a museum.
    m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. The applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date
of issuance of this notice either: (1) evidence of the date on which
the certifying agency received the certification request; (2) a copy of
the water quality certification; or (3) evidence of waiver of water
quality certification.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

Deadline for Filing Comments, Recommendations, and Agency Terms and
Conditions/Prescriptions--August 12, 2022
Licensee's Reply to REA Comments--September 26, 2022

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Dated: June 13, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13120 Filed 6-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 59017]
[DOCID:fr16no09-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [74 FR 57718,
November 9, 2009].

Status: Closed meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE.,Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: November 12, 2009 at 2
p.m.

Change in the Meeting: Additional Item.
    The following matter will also be considered during the 2 p.m.
closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 12, 2009, at 2 p.m.:
Consideration of Amicus participation.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 10, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27443 Filed 11-12-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54479-54480]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1998-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1998-DR), dated June 27, 2011, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
June 27, 2011.

    Fremont, Harrison, Mills, Monona, Pottawattamie, and Woodbury
Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated
for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A
and B], including direct Federal assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-22398 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10960-10964]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0635; FRL-8286-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to
the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Visible Emissions and Particulate
Matter Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Nevada Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan. These revisions concern visible emissions and
particulate matter regulations. EPA is proposing this action under the
Clean Air Act obligation to take action on State submittals of
revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to
approve updated visible emissions and particulate matter rules in the
Nevada State Implementation Plan because doing so will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards or any other requirement of the Clean Air Act. EPA is taking
comments on this proposal and plans to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0635, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at 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 e-mail.

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 e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
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: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4126.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What regulations did the State submit?
    B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?
    C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
    B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the regulations
    D. Proposed action and public comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What regulations did the State submit?

    The State of Nevada's Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a
large revision to the applicable Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP)
on January 12, 2006. The January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal
includes new and amended statutes and rules as well as requests for
rescission of certain rules in the existing SIP. The January 12, 2006
SIP revision submittal supersedes the regulatory portion of an earlier
submittal dated February 16, 2005.\1\ On March 26, 2006, we found that
the Nevada SIP submittal dated January 12, 2006 satisfied the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal also includes
documentation of public notice and hearing for certain new or
amended rules for which EPA is proposing approval. The January 12,
2006 SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the earlier
submittal in that it did not include this documentation. Our
consideration of the rules submitted on January 12, 2006 and
evaluated herein takes into account the public participation
documentation contained in the earlier submittal. Public
participation documentation for the rescission of NAC 445.535, also
evaluated herein, was also included in the February 16, 2005 SIP
submittal and is taken into account in this proposed action. NAC
445.535 (which had been recodified as NAC 445B.089) was repealed for
the purposes of State law by the Nevada State Environmental
Commission effective March 5, 1998. NDEP has also provided
documentation of public process for rescission of NAQR article
<IP_ADDRESS> (re-codified as NAC 445.828), which was repealed by the
commission for purposes of State law effective October 15, 1985. CAA
section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing prior
to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent submittal to
EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary purpose of this SIP revision is to clarify and
harmonize the provisions approved by EPA into the applicable SIP with
the current provisions adopted by the State. Because this revision
incorporates so many changes from the 1970s and 1980s vintage SIP
regulations, EPA has decided to review and act on the submittal in a
series of separate actions. The first such action, related to various
definitions, sulfur emission rules, and restrictions on open burning
and use of incinerators, was proposed in the Federal Register on
September 13, 2005 (70 FR 53975) and finalized on March 27, 2006 (71 FR
15040). The second such action, related to statutory authority, was
proposed in the Federal Register on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413) and
finalized on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51766). A third action, related to
most of the State's requests for rescission, and fourth action, related
to monitoring and VOC rules, were proposed on August 28, 2006 (71 FR
50875) and August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51793), respectively, and finalized
on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 11) and December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71486),
respectively.
    In today's notice, we are taking another step in the process of
acting on the State's January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal by
proposing action on the State's request for approval of six amended
rules related to visible emissions and particulate matter and for
rescission of two related rules. The remaining portions of the
submittal will be acted on in future Federal Register actions.
    The following two tables list the provisions of the Nevada Air
Quality Regulations (NAQR) or Nevada Administrative Code (NAC)
addressed by this proposal. Table 1 list the amended rules submitted by
NDEP for approval into the SIP and addressed herein. If approved, the
submitted rules in table 1 would replace existing rules in the
applicable SIP.

       Table 1.--Amended Rules Submitted for Approval Into the SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NAC No.                NAC Title          Adopted     Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
445B.22017............  Visible emissions:         10/04/05     01/12/06
                         Maximum opacity;
                         determination.
                         (Effective April 1,
                         2006.).
445B.2202.............  Visible emissions:         10/04/05     01/12/06
                         Exceptions for
                         stationary sources.
                         (Effective April 1,
                         2006.).
445B.22027............  Emissions of               01/22/98     01/12/06
                         particulate matter:
                         Maximum allowable
                         throughput for
                         calculating emissions
                         rates.
445B.2203.............  Emissions of               09/09/99     01/12/06
                         particulate matter:
                         Fuel-burning
                         equipment.
445B.22033............  Emissions of               01/22/98     01/12/06
                         particulate matter:
                         Sources not otherwise
                         limited.
445B.22037............  Emissions of               10/03/95     01/12/06
                         particulate matter:
                         Fugitive dust..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 lists two related rules in the existing SIP for which NDEP
has requested rescission. If we approve the rescission requests, the
two rules listed in table 2 would be deleted from the applicable SIP.

Table 2.--Related SIP Rules for Which the State Has Requested Rescission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Submittal     Approval
        SIP provision               Title           date         date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAQR Article <IP_ADDRESS>........  Opacity from        12/29/78     06/18/82
                                kilns.
NAC 445.535..................  Kilogram-           10/26/82     03/27/84
                                calorie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?

    In January 1972, pursuant to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the
Governor of Nevada submitted the original Nevada SIP to EPA. EPA
approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other
portions under section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). See 37
FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). For some of the disapproved portions of the
original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions under CAA section
110(c).\2\ This original SIP included various rules, codified as
articles within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various
statutory provisions codified in chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised
Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980's, Nevada reorganized and re-codified
its air quality rules into sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality
regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality
statutes in chapter 445B (``Air Pollution'') of title 40 (``Public
Health and Safety'') of the NRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA section 110(c) in
substitution of disapproved State provisions are referred to as
Federal Implementation Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevada adopted and submitted many revisions to the original set of
regulations and statutes in the SIP, some of which EPA approved on
February 6, 1975 at 40 FR 5508; on March 26, 1975 at 40 FR 13306; on
January 9, 1978 at 43 FR 1341; on January 24, 1978 at 43 FR 3278; on
August 21, 1978 at 43 FR 36932; on July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46384; on
April 14, 1981 at 46 FR 21758; on August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43141; on
March 8, 1982 at 47 FR 9833; on April 13, 1982 at 47 FR 15790; on June
18, 1982 at 47 FR 26386; on June 23, 1982 at 47 FR 27070; on March 27,
1984 at 49 FR 11626. Since 1984, EPA has approved very few revisions to
Nevada's applicable SIP despite numerous changes that have been adopted
by the State Environmental Commission. As a result, the version of the
rules enforceable by NDEP is often quite different from the SIP version
enforceable by EPA.

C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    The purpose of this proposal is to present EPA's conclusions and
rationale with respect to the State's January 12, 2006 submittal of
amended visible emissions and particulate matter rules and requests for
rescission of two related rules from the applicable SIP. The technical
support document (TSD) that we prepared for this proposed rulemaking
provides additional detail concerning these amended rules and
rescission requests and our evaluation of them.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?

    Under CAA section 110(k)(2), EPA is obligated to take action on
submittals by States of SIPs and SIP revisions. CAA section 110(k)(3)
authorizes EPA to approve or disapprove, in whole or in severable part,
such submittals.
    EPA has reviewed the visible emissions and particulate matter rules
and related rescission requests submitted on January 12, 2006 by NDEP
for compliance with the CAA requirements for SIPs in general set forth
in CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51 and also for compliance
with CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and
193.\3\ Relevant EPA guidance and policy documents that we used to help
evaluate enforceability include ``Review of State Implementation Plans
and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' dated
September 23, 1987, from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, et al. As described below, EPA is proposing approval
of the submitted visible emissions and particulate matter rules and
related rescission requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 193 prohibits
modifications in control requirements that were in effect before the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area unless
the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions
of the nonattainment pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe that all six of the submitted rules evaluated herein
(see table 1, above) are consistent with the relevant statutory and
regulatory provisions, as well as policy and guidance regarding
enforceability and SIP relaxations and that proposed approval of the
six submitted rules provides the basis to approve the rescission
requests for the two related rules in the applicable SIP (see table 2,
above). A short discussion of our rationale is provided in the
following paragraphs.
    1. NAC 445B.22017 (Visible emissions: Maximum opacity;
determination), NAC 445B.2202 (Visible emissions: Exceptions for
stationary sources), NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of particulate matter:
Maximum allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates), and NAC
445B.22037 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive dust). Generally,
these submitted rules retain or enhance the requirements set forth in
the corresponding rules in the current applicable SIP. Compared to the
current applicable SIP rules, the amended rules include a different,
but acceptable, formulation defining the basic 20% opacity standard and
a lower (i.e., more stringent) project-size exemption threshold (from
20 acres to 5 acres) for the requirement to implement a dust control
program and obtain a surface area disturbance permit from NDEP.
    The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal contained multiple versions of
the two visible emissions rules, NAC 445B.22017 and 445B.2202,
reflecting the contingent effective dates adopted by the State
Environmental Commission for amendments to these rules. The amendments
adopted by the commission (but made effective at an indefinite future
date) removed an exemption to the application of the opacity limit that
we otherwise would have found unapprovable. In adopting the amendments
to the rules (and associated contingent effective dates), the State
Environmental Commission committed to publishing a notice when the
amendments (removing the unapprovable exemption) become effective. On
April 1, 2006, the State Environmental Commission issued such a notice
and thus the unobjectionable (and approvable) versions of the two
visible emissions rules are now in effect and form the basis for our
proposed action on these rules herein.
    2. NAQR Article <IP_ADDRESS> (Opacity from kilns). Based on our
findings above concerning the two visible emissions rules, i.e., NAC
445B.22017 and NAC 445B.2202, we find retention of NAQR Article
<IP_ADDRESS> (Opacity from kilns) in the SIP to be unnecessary and thus we
propose to approve NDEP's request for rescission of that rule.
    3. NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-burning
equipment) and NAC 445B.22033 (Emissions of particulate matter: Sources
not otherwise limited). These submitted rules contain the same basic
emissions limits and exemptions as the corresponding current applicable
SIP rules, but the limits in the submitted rules apply to
``PM10'' as opposed to ``particulate matter.''
``PM10'' refers to particles with diameters equal to or less
than a nominal 10 microns and is the basis for a NAAQS, while
``particulate matter'' (PM) refers more inclusively to

any material (except uncombined water) that exists in a finely divided
form as a liquid or solid at reference conditions. Thus, except for
sources whose ``PM'' consists only of particles of a size that are
``PM10'', simple replacement of ``PM'' with
``PM10'' without any downward adjustment in the formula that
establishes the allowable emission limit represents a relaxation in the
limit with respect to PM10 emissions.
    Given the hypothetical nature of this relaxation, we reviewed in
detail the permit conditions for four major sources to determine
whether the change from PM to PM10 in the allowable limit
would in effect result in an increase in PM10 emissions. Based on this
review and for a variety or reasons, we have determined that no such
increase would occur. For certain emission units at these sources, the
PM emissions subject to NAC 445.731 and/or 445.732 are comprised
entirely of particles that are also PM10. For certain other
emissions units, the potentials to emit are less than the allowable
limits under either the existing SIP rules NAC 445.731 and 445.732 or
the submitted rules NAC 445B.2203 or 445B.22033. Lastly, other
emissions sources are subject to other federally enforceable emission
limits (e.g., limits established under PSD requirements or NSPS) that
would be unaffected by our action proposed herein and that are more
stringent, in some cases by an order of magnitude, than the allowable
limits under either the existing SIP rules or submitted rules.
Therefore, we have determined that replacement of the existing SIP
rules NAC 445.731 and NAC 445.732 with submitted rules NAC 445B.2203
and NAC 445B.22033 would not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS for the purposes of CAA section 110(l).
    Because submitted rules NAC 445B.2203 and 445B.22033 would apply to
a major stationary source (Sunrise power plant) in the Las Vegas
PM10 nonattainment area, we reviewed these two submitted
rules for compliance with applicable nonattainment area requirements in
part D of title I of the Act. Based on review of the EPA-approved
PM10 attainment plan for Las Vegas Valley, we have concluded
that neither NAC 445B.2203 nor 445B.22033 need be made more stringent
at this time to meet nonattainment planning requirements although the
rules may need to be revised if we determined that Las Vegas Valley has
failed to meet the 2006 attainment date for the PM10 NAAQS.
We also have concluded that approval of NAC 445B.2203 and 445B.22033
would be consistent with CAA section 193 because the Sunrise power
plant normally runs on natural gas and all of the PM generated using
natural gas is also PM10. The same is true for the cooling
tower at the Sunrise power plant. Thus, approval of NAC 445B.2203 and
445B.22033 would not result in an increase in PM10 emissions
which otherwise would have been required to be offset by equivalent
emissions reductions to satisfy CAA section 193.
    4. NAC 445.535, Kilogram-calorie. This rule is one of the current
applicable SIP rules for which NDEP requested rescission in its January
12, 2006 SIP revision submittal. NAC 445.535 defines a measurement unit
used in current applicable SIP rule NAC 445.731, which would be
superseded in the applicable SIP if we finalize our proposed approval
of submitted rule NAC 445B.2203. As such, we find that retention of NAC
445.535 in the applicable SIP is unnecessary, and as such, we propose
to approve NDEP's request for rescission of NAC 445.535 from the
applicable SIP.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Regulations

    In connection with NAC 445B.22017, an amended rule for which we are
proposing approval herein, we note that the term ``6-minute period'' is
used [see NAC 445B.22017(3)] and that the term ``six-minute period'' is
specifically defined in NAC 445B.172, a provision that has not been
submitted to EPA for approval. Assuming that ``6-minute period'' is
intended to be the same as ``six-minute period'' as defined in NAC
445B.172, NDEP should submit NAC 445B.172 to EPA for approval into the
applicable SIP to assure correct and consistent interpretation of NAC
445B.22017(3).

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing approval of the following provisions
submitted to EPA on January 12, 2006:
     NAC 445B.22017 (Visible emissions: Maximum opacity;
determination) (effective April 1, 2006),
     NAC 445B.2202 (Visible emissions: Exceptions for
stationary sources) (effective April 1, 2006),
     NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum
allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates),
     NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-
burning equipment),
     NAC 445B.22033 (Emissions of particulate matter: Sources
not otherwise limited), and
     NAC 445B.22037 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive
dust).
    Based on our proposed approval of these submitted rules, we are
also proposing to approve the State's request to rescind NAQR Article
<IP_ADDRESS> (Opacity from kilns) and NAC 445.535 (Kilogram-calorie). If
finalized as proposed, this action would incorporate the six submitted
rules into the federally-enforceable SIP \4\ and rescind NAQR Article
<IP_ADDRESS> and NAC 445.535 therefrom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Final approval of these rules would supersede the following
rules in the applicable SIP (superseding rule shown in parentheses)
when sources come into compliance with the new rule: NAC 445.721
(NAC 445B.22017); NAQR Article 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.5
(NAC 445B.2202); NAC 445.731 (NAC 445B.2203), NAC 445.732 (NAC
445B.22033), and NAC 445.734 (NAC 445B.22037). NAC 445.729 would not
be superseded by the corresponding submitted rule NAC 445B.22027
because the former is relied upon by certain SIP rules (e.g., NAC
445.730) that are being retained in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will accept comments from the public on this proposed approval
for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely proposes to approve state rules as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely proposes to approve state rules implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E7-4428 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P