[Federal Register: February 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 27)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7484-7485]
[DOCID:fr08fe08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0147; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-294-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, and -900 Series Airplanes, Equipped with CFM56-7 Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and
-800 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive
inspections to detect damage of the aft strut insulation blanket, and
eventual replacement of the insulation blankets with new, improved
blankets. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability and
require installation of a new heat insulation blanket and new cover
plate on the left and right side engine struts. This proposed AD would
not retain the requirements of the existing AD and would terminate the
requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from reports
of damaged heat insulation blankets on the engine struts. We are
proposing this AD to prevent exposure of the lower surface of the strut
to extreme high temperatures, consequent creation of a source of fuel
ignition, and increased risk of an uncontrollable fire and possible
fuel tank explosion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathrine Rask, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6505; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0147;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-294-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On February 4, 1999, we issued AD 99-04-11, amendment 39-11035 (64
FR 6791, February 11, 1999), for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700,
and -800 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to
detect damage of the aft strut insulation blanket. That AD also
requires eventual replacement of the insulation blankets with new,
improved blankets, which constitutes terminating action for the
requirements of that AD. That AD resulted from reports of damaged aft
strut insulation blankets. We issued that AD to prevent such damage,
which could result in exposure of the lower surface of the strut to
extreme high temperatures, consequent creation of a source of fuel
ignition, and increased risk of an uncontrollable fire and possible
fuel tank explosion.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 99-04-11, we have received reports of failures
of the insulation blankets that were installed in accordance with the
requirements of that AD. A failed heat insulation blanket might go
undetected in that area.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1045, dated July 25, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures
for installing a new heat insulation blanket, P/N S315A213-57, and a
new cover plate on the left and right side engine struts. Accomplishing
the actions specified in the service information is intended to
adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on

other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are
proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 99-04-11 and require
accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin described
previously. This proposed AD would also add Model 737-700C and -900
series airplanes to the applicability.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,148 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 740 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work hour.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                        Work hours         Parts           airplane        Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation (new proposed action)..........               4           $4,730           $5,050       $3,737,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-11035 (64 FR 6791, February 11, 1999) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0147; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
294-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 24,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 99-04-11.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800,
and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1045,
dated July 25, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of damaged heat insulation
blankets on the engine struts. We are issuing this AD to prevent
exposure of the lower surface of the strut to extreme high
temperatures, consequent creation of a source of fuel ignition, and
increased risk of uncontrollable fire and possible fuel tank
explosion.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Installation

    (f) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
install a new heat insulation blanket, P/N S315A213-57, and a new
cover plate on the left and right side engine struts in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-54-1045, dated July 25, 2007.

Parts Installation

    (g) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
heat insulation blanket, P/N S315A213-42 or -47, on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 31, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-2351 Filed 2-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28893-28901]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12243]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812; FRL-9927-89-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone,
Nitrogen Dioxide, and Sulfur Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAA section 110(a)(1) requires
that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, and
that EPA act on such SIPs. We refer to such SIPs as ``infrastructure''
SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP
requirements for new or revised NAAQS including, but not limited to,
legal authority, regulatory structure, resources, permit programs,
monitoring, and modeling necessary to assure attainment and maintenance
of the standards. In addition to our proposed partial approval and
partial disapproval of Nevada's infrastructure SIP, we are proposing to
reclassify certain regions of the state for SO2 emergency
episode planning and remove obsolete language from the Nevada SIP. We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812. 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 directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions
II. Background
    A. Statutory Framework
    B. Regulatory History
    C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements
With GHGs
III. State Submittal and EPA Action
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals
    B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals
    C. Defining the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
    D. Proposed Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency
Episode Planning
    E. Proposed Removal of Historic SIP Provisions
    F. Request for Public Comments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions

    EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Nevada that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submittal of this type arises
out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submittals ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submittals are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and the
requirement to make the submittals is not conditioned upon EPA's taking
any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such
plan'' submittal must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as
``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submittals. 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 program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 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 SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements
therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the
statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the
nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which
specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\ Section
110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D
addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment
area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to
establish a schedule for submittal of such plans for certain pollutants
when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as
nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in
some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.\3\
This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must
determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 25162, at 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section
182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal of emissions
inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are
necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submittal, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submittal in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submittals separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either
individually or in a larger combined action.\4\ Similarly, EPA

interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA 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. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could
be very different for different pollutants, for example because the
content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal to meet
this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required under
the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA also has
to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2)
that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For
example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals
required by part D have to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of
section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals
must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding
enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the air quality prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD
does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated
nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this
example illustrates, each type of SIP submittal may implicate some
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submittal. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document
to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submittals.\9\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or
not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements

contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD regulations.
Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for
the PSD program to address all regulated sources and regulated NSR
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural
PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not
required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely
available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide
grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are
types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has a SIP-approved minor NSR program and whether the program
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of
acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think
it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD 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''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submittal without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submittal. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations 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. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submittal. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to
focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most
likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect
visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future
new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in
order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
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 to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submittals.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies 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 an infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submittals related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR
34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal 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 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).

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

II. Background

A. Statutory Framework

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP
submission within 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised
primary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements
that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must include. Many of the section
110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information and
authorities that constitute the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air
quality management program and SIP submittals that address these
requirements are referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs.'' These
infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as
follows:
     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, PSD, and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
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 three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under
part D (nonattainment NSR), and section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action
does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

B. Regulatory Background

    Between 1997 and 2012, EPA promulgated a series of new or revised
NAAQS for ozone, NO2, and SO2, triggering a
requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS
addressed by this infrastructure SIP proposal include the following:
     2008 ozone NAAQS, which revised the 8-hour ozone standards
to 0.075 ppm.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised the primary 1971
NO2 annual standard of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by
supplementing it with a new 1-hour average NO2 standard of
100 ppb, and retained the secondary annual standard of 53 ppb.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO 2 standard of
0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-
hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2010 SO2 NAAQS, which established a new 1-hour
average SO2 standard of 75 ppb, retained the secondary 3-
hour average SO2 standard of 500 ppb, and established a
mechanism for revoking the primary 1971 annual and 24-hour
SO2 standards.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO 2 standard of 0.5
ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements With GHGs

    With respect to Elements (C) and (J), EPA interprets the Clean Air
Act to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for
a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a
complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for
all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may
also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
Nevada has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that
covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs),
with the exception of the deficiencies in the NDEP and Washoe County
portions of the SIP, described elsewhere in this document.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions.\17\ The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs
as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a
major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that
the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations
on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding
of the Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate
the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that
would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the
Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying
the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that
sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source
thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase
and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40
CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD
rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA
anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved
PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and
content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations
and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by
additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not
expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions
to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent
with the Supreme Court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At present, EPA has determined the Clark County SIP is sufficient
to satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the
PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP
continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the SIP-approved
Clark County PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions
that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision,
this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to
satisfy Elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary
PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those
requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-
approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that
EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme
Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court

decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of Clark County's
infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements C, D(i)(II), and
J.

III. State Submittal and EPA Action

    The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has
submitted several infrastructure SIP submittals pursuant to EPA's
promulgation of specific NAAQS, including:
Ozone
     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS:
Demonstration of Adequacy April 10, 2013.
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Ozone
Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2),
Clark County, Nevada, February 2013.
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration of
Adequacy, February 28, 2013.
NO2
     NDEP letter to EPA, dated May 9, 2013 and Washoe County
letter, dated April 26, 2013, containing the Approved Minutes of the
February 28, 2013 public hearing and the Certificate of Adoption.
     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
Primary NAAQS: Demonstration of Adequacy and appendices, January 18,
2013.
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Nitrogen
Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2), and attachments Clark County, Nevada December 2012.
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan to Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure SIP
Requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) (draft document) and
attachments, January 24, 2014.
SO2
     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Primary NAAQS, and appendices, June 3, 2013.
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Sulfur
Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2), and attachments Clark County, Nevada, May 2013.
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP
Requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2), and attachments, March
28, 2013.
    We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for
public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We
are proposing to act on all of these submittals since they collectively
address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NAAQS addressed by
this proposed rule. We refer to them collectively herein as ``Nevada's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals.''

IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

    We have evaluated Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the
existing provisions of the Nevada SIP for compliance with the
infrastructure SIP requirements (or ``elements'') of CAA section
110(a)(2) and applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (``Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation
Plans''). The Technical Support Document (TSD), which is available in
the docket to this action, includes our evaluation for many elements,
as well as our evaluation of various statutory and regulatory
provisions. For some elements, it refers to older TSDs for prior Nevada
Infrastructure SIPs, which have also been included in the docket.
    Based upon this analysis, we propose to approve the 2008 Ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 Nevada Infrastructure SIP
with respect to the following Clean Air Act 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 stationary sources (full
approval for Clark County).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate
Pollution Transport.
    [ssquf] Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)--significant
contribution to nonattainment, or prongs 1 and 2 (full approval of
NDEP, Clark County and Washoe County for the NO2 NAAQS).
    [ssquf] Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)--interference with
maintenance, or prong 3 (full approval for Clark County).
    [ssquf] Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (full approval)--visibility
transport, or prong 4.
    [ssquf] Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution (full approval for Clark
County).
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional
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) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection (full
approval for Clark County).
     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.
    EPA is taking no action on Interstate Transport--significant
contribution to nonattainment for NDEP, Clark County and Washoe County
on the Ozone and SO2 NAAQS (section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals
with respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources
(for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule and covered by the NDEP
and Washoe County PSD permitting programs).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part, see below):
Interstate pollution transport,
    [ssquf] Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)--interference with
maintenance, or prong 3 (disapproved for all NAAQS addressed by this
proposed rule and covered by the NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting
programs).
    [ssquf] Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution (disapproved for all NAAQS
addressed by this proposed rule and covered by the NDEP and Washoe
County PSD permitting programs).
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility
protection (for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule and covered
by the NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting programs).
    As explained more fully in our TSD, we are proposing to disapprove
the NDEP and Washoe County portions of Nevada's Infrastructure
Submittals with

respect to the PSD-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J). The Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the
statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under
part C, title I of the Act, because NDEP and Washoe County 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.\18\ 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 and do not create new FIP
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA 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 November 7, 2012, and to Washoe County on
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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In EPA's evaluation of Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittal for
Lead (Pb), the requirements under sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) regarding Clark County's PSD
permitting program, specifically PSD increments for PM2.5,
initiated a requirement for the development of a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) or sanctions. This deficiency has been addressed by the
recent changes to the Clark County PSD permitting program, as discussed
in Element C of the TSD.

C. Defining the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region

    In reviewing the Nevada SIP Infrastructure submittal for compliance
with CAA section 110(a)(2)(G), as discussed in section D below, we
noted that the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region has not
been defined in subpart B of 40 CFR part 81. The emergency episode
priority classifications for the Region is provided by 40 CFR 52.1471
for many NAAQS. Additionally, EPA identified the counties of the Nevada
Intrastate Region in a 1972 EPA report titled: Federal Air Quality
Control Regions.\19\ To rectify the apparent Federal Register omission,
we are proposing to define the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region in subpart B of 40 CFR part 81, consistent with Federal Air
Quality Control Regions, as comprised of the following counties: Elko,
Humboldt, Pershing, Lander, Eureka, White Pine, Lincoln, Nye,
Esmeralda, Mineral, and Churchill. On its own, this proposed change
does not alter the priority classification of the Region for emergency
episode purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Federal Air Quality Control Regions, U.S. EPA, January 1972
<http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P10053PA.PDF?Dockey=P10053PA.PDF> (last visited April 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode
Planning

    NDEP's portion of Nevada's SO2 Infrastructure Submittal
requested that EPA reclassify the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Region
with respect to the emergency episode planning requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H. The priority
thresholds for classification of regions are listed in 40 CFR 51.150
while the specific classifications of air quality control regions in
Nevada are listed at 40 CFR 52.1471. Consistent with the provisions of
40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an air quality control region must
rely on the most recent three years of air quality data. Regions
classified Priority I, IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved
emergency episode contingency plans, while those classified Priority
III are not required to have plans.\20\ We interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as
establishing the means for states to review air quality data and
request a higher or lower classification for any given region and as
providing the regulatory basis for EPA to reclassify such regions, as
appropriate, under the authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) and
301(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region is classified as
priority IA for SO2. Priority IA means the region is
classified as Priority I ``primarily because of emissions from a single
point source.'' \21\ As our TSD further clarifies, the point source
appears to have been the copper smelter in McGill, Nevada, within the
Steptoe Valley, operated by the Kennecott Minerals Company. The
Kennecott smelter was the only major source of SO2 emissions
within the Nevada Interstate Region when the priority classifications
were established in 1980.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR 51.150(c).
    \22\ 40 FR 5508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our attainment finding for Steptoe Valley (SO2)
nonattainment area stated that the Kennecott facility ceased operation
in 1983, removed all smelting equipment in 1987, and demolished the
facility's stack in 1993.\23\ It continued on to state ``ambient air
quality monitoring from 1979 to 1983 indicates there were no violations
during the last years of the smelter operation.'' NDEP has not
collected SO2 monitoring data since 1983, nor are they
currently required to do so.\24\ Based on the information above and
presented in our TSD, we are proposing to approve Nevada's request to
reclassify the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Region to Priority III for
SO2 emergency episode planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 67 FR 17939.
    \24\ SO2 monitoring is not required for the Nevada
Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, because it's population
weighted exposure index does not exceed 5000 (million person-tons
per year of SO2), per 40 CFR part 58, appendix D 4.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also evaluated the Las Vegas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region (i.e. Clark County), which is also currently classified as
Priority IA for SO2. Their ambient air quality data for
2011-2013 does not exceed the Priority II level of 260-455 [micro]g/
m\3\ set at 40 CFR 51.150(d)(1). Therefore, based on the last three
years of available data, we are proposing to reclassify the Las Vegas
Intrastate Region to Priority III for SO2.

E. Proposed Removal of Historic SIP Provisions

    NDEP also requested that EPA remove paragraphs (a) and (b) of 40
CFR 52.1475, ``Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur oxides.'' This
section was added to the Nevada SIP ``. . . to promulgate substitute
regulations for the control of SO2 at the Kennecott Copper
Corporation Smelter, McGill, Nevada . . .'' because we had disapproved
Nevada's proposed SO2 emission controls for the Kennecott
smelter.\25\ 40 CFR 52.1475 no longer applies since the Kennecott
smelter is nonexistent and the area was redesignated as attainment.
Since the provision serves no purpose beyond providing historic
information, we are proposing to remove 40 CFR 52.1475 from the Nevada
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 40 FR 5508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Request for Public Comments

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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.
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).
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 this 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 this proposed rule, we
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.
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 pre-existing
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.
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.
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.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
    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
proposed 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 partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of 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.
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.
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.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
    Executive Order 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, Approval and
promulgation of implementation plans, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: May 8, 2015.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-12243 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                             Pyrithiobac (078905)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                           Date: December 28, 2010

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
      * Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
      * Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
      * Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
      * Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
      * Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
      * Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
      * Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
      * Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
      * Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
      * Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
      * USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2001 to 2008.
      * Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2001 to 2008.
      * California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2008.
What are the limitations to the data?
      * Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
      * Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
      * Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
      * Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
      * Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                               December 28, 2010

    Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Pyrithiobac (078905)
                             Sorted Alphabetically

                                                              Percent Crop Ttd.

			Crop
                                                                      Lbs. A.I.
                                                                           Avg.
                                                                           Max.
                                                                              1
Cotton
                                                                         70,000
                                                                             10
                                                                             15

All numbers rounded.

SLUA
SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research
                    California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)
These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.