
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28893-28901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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

[[Page 28894]]

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, (415) 972-3856, 
kelly.thomasp@epa.gov.

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

[[Page 28895]]

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

[[Page 28896]]

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).

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

[[Page 28897]]

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

[[Page 28898]]

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

[[Page 28899]]

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

[[Page 28900]]

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.

[[Page 28901]]

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


