80 FR 68486 - Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark County
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 68486-68490 | |
| FR Document | 2015-28276 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 68486-68490] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-28276] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0673; FRL-9936-69-Region 9] Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of sulfur (SOX ), and particulate matter (PM) emissions. We are proposing action on rescissions of local rules that regulate these pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015. [[Page 68487]] ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR- 2015-0673, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on- line instructions. 2. Email: [email protected]. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Instructions: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for further instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. For the full EPA public comment policy and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972- 3073, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. Which rules has the county rescinded? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission? B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria? C. What are the deficiencies? D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules E. Proposed Action and Public Comment III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. Which rules has the county rescinded? On November 20, 2014, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a SIP revision that includes amendments to two local rules adopted by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners (``Clark County'') and rescissions of four local Clark County rules.\1\ In this action, we are proposing action on the rescissions. The EPA will take action on the rule amendments in a separate rulemaking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Under state law, NDEP is the Governor's designee for maintaining the Nevada SIP. NDEP is also the agency responsible for air quality planning and permitting within the entire state except for Clark County and Washoe County. In Clark County, air quality planning and permitting jurisdiction, with certain exceptions, lies with the Clark County Board of County Commissioners, which acts through the county's Department of Air Quality (DAQ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes to approve, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the EPA's date and citation of approval. Table 1--Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule section of the Clark County Air Quality Regulations Title Local effective SIP approval date FR Citation (CCAQR) date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 29..................... Sulfur Contents December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981.. 46 FR 43141. of Fuel Oil. Section 30, subsections 30.1- Incinerators..... December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981.. 46 FR 43141. 30.7 (excluding subsection 30.4). Section 30, subsection 30.4.... [exemptions for September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982.... 47 FR 26386. certain types of incinerators]. Section 30, subsection 30.8.... [related to September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982.... 47 FR 26386. maximum allowable emission rates]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes disapprove, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the EPA's date and citation of approval. Table 2--Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Disapproval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local effective Rule section of the (CCAQR) Title date SIP approval date FR citation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 52, subsections 52.1- Handling of December 28, 1978 April 14, 1981... 46 FR 21758. 52.10 (excluding subsections Gasoline at 52.4.2.3 and 52.7.2). Service Stations, Airports and Storage Tanks. Section 52, subsections [related to vapor September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982.... 47 FR 26386. 52.4.2.3 and 52.7.2. recovery and sales information]. Section 60 (excluding Evaporation and June 28, 1979.... April 14, 1981... 46 FR 21758. subsections 60.4.2-60.4.3). Leakage. Section 60, subsection 60.4.2.. [General September 3, 1981 March 20, 1984... 49 FR 10259. prohibition on the use of cutback asphalt]. Section 60, subsection 60.4.3.. [Exceptions to September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982.... 47 FR 26386. subsection 60.4.2]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 68488]] On May 20, 2015, the submittal for Clark County was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these rules? This rule rescissions include four sections of the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP, Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60. Previously, NDEP submitted, and the EPA approved into the SIP, various subsections of these rules separately. As a result, the SIP elements concerning each of these Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) rules consist of several subsections as identified in Tables 1 and 2.\2\ These sections were repealed locally on April 5, 2011.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Unless otherwise specified, all references to CCAQR Sections in this document are to those sections in their entirety. \3\ The SIP approved versions of CCAQR sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 rules were all approved into the SIP prior to 1985. The County has since updated the locally effective rules several times. Clark County's most recently adopted local rules differed substantially from the SIP-approved versions. The most recently adopted local versions were the subject of the county's local repeal action. However, we understand that the intent of the county and NDEP in submitting the repeal of these later-adopted (not SIP-approved) versions of the rules is to remove the SIP-approved versions of the rules from the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules? Clark County adopted a number of rules to meet CAA national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment requirements in the late 1970s and 1980s, and submitted many of these for incorporation into the Nevada SIP. The rules that were approved into the SIP included CCAQR Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60. Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 establish limits and control measures to reduce emissions of SOX , PM, and VOCs from the combustion of fuels (Section 29), incinerators (Section 30), gasoline dispensing facilities (Section 52) and other processes and industries that use solvents, degreasing, surface coating, and cutback asphalt (Section 60). Clark County began a process to revise the CCAQR in May 2005. In part, Clark County was concerned with regulatory conflict resulting from the delegation of authority or the local incorporation by reference of federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for many source categories covered under existing local rules. As a result, Clark County repealed Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 on April 5, 2011. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) associated with today's proposal has more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission? Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements in effect before November 15, 1990. Stringency: Generally, rules must be protective of the NAAQS, and must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in nonattainment areas for ozone and Reasonably Available Control Methods (RACM), including RACT, for PM nonattainment areas. Clark County is currently designated as a maintenance area for the revoked 1997 ozone standard, and as attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. (40 CFR 81.329). Clark County regulates a PM10 maintenance area for the 1987 standard and is currently designated as attainment for the 2010 SO2 standard. (40 CFR 81.329). Therefore, these rules are not currently subject to CAA RACT, RACM, or analogous stringency standards. Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA section 110(l). We note that, despite its current ozone NAAQS attainment designations, air quality monitoring data from 2012-2014 suggest that ozone concentrations within Clark County no longer meet the 2008 ozone standard, so SIP changes that would allow an increase in ozone precursor emissions (such VOC emissions) may not be protective of the NAAQS. Section 29 limited the sulfur content of fuel oils in order to reduce SOX emissions, a precursor for PM. Section 30 regulated the operation of incinerators, and limited the emissions of PM. Section 52 regulated the operation of gasoline dispensing facilities, and limited the emissions of VOCs. Section 60 regulated the use, storage, and disposal of solvents in large scale degreasing and coating operations, and for cutback asphalt. Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110(l) requirements, Clark County must demonstrate that the rescission of Sections 29, 30, 52 and 60 would not interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement. General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any rule adopted before November 15, 1990 in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutant. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate these requirements include the following: 1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 4. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992. B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria? We have concluded that CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 are appropriate for rescission. Clark County is currently designated as attainment or maintenance for each of the NAAQS. As a result, Clark County rules are not required to meet RACT or analogous standards, and are subject to the general savings clause in CAA section 193. Clark County also documented that these two rescissions should not increase emissions of ozone precursors, and that any additional emissions would not interfere with the maintenance of applicable NAAQS for SO2 and PM. This satisfies the requirements on plan revisions. However, CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 are not appropriate for rescission as summarized below and described in more detail in our TSD. C. What are the deficiencies? Clark County has not demonstrated that rescinding CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 would satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Specifically, we propose to disapprove the rescissions of [[Page 68489]] sections 52 and 60 based on the following concerns: 1. The rescission of Section 52 from the SIP would allow an increase in VOC emissions, as any other applicable Federal or State rules or standards would not apply to the same breadth of sources as the SIP-approved rule. This would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 2. The rescission of Section 60 would allow an increase in VOC emissions. Subsection 60.4 prohibits the use of cutback asphalt in summer months, with certain exceptions, which is not prohibited by any other Federal or State rules that would apply absent subsection 60.4. Removing this prohibition would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules While Clark County is no longer enforcing these rules, Clark County Sections 52 and 60 would remain federally enforceable as part of the applicable SIP if the EPA were to finalize today's proposed disapproval of the rescissions of these two rules. E. Proposed Action and Public Comment As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval of the Clark County rule rescissions submitted by NDEP on November 20, 2014. We are proposing to approve the rescissions of CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 and to disapprove the rescissions of Sections 52 and 60. Final approval of the rescissions of Clark County Sections 29 and 30 would remove the rules from the Nevada SIP. Final disapproval of the rescissions of Clark County Sections 52 and 60 would retain both rules in the Nevada SIP. Neither sanctions nor a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would be imposed should the EPA finalize this disapproval. Sanctions would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the SIP submittal that we are partially disapproving is not a required SIP submittal. Similarly, EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this instance under CAA section 110(c)(1) because the partial disapproval of the SIP revision retains existing SIP rules and does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP for the area that a FIP must correct. We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP approval and disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that the EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.'' The EPA has determined that the proposed approval and disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to approve and disapprove the removal of pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the EPA develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP and does not alter the [[Page 68490]] relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP revision under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population Executive Order (E.O). 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: October 19, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2015-28276 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![68486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Technology (BACT), in PM2.5 III. Incorporation by Reference application of those requirements would
nonattainment areas classified as In this rule, the EPA is proposing to be inconsistent with the CAA; and
Serious or above (see CAA section include in a final EPA rule regulatory • Does not provide the EPA with the
189(b)(1)(B)). SJVUAPCD regulates a text that includes incorporation by discretionary authority to address
PM2.5 nonattainment area classified as reference. In accordance with disproportionate human health or
Serious for the 1997 PM2.5 standard (40 requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is environmental effects with practical,
CFR 81.305). A BACM/BACT evaluation proposing to incorporate by reference appropriate, and legally permissible
is generally performed in context of a the SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD rules as methods under Executive Order 12898
broader plan. described in Table 1 of this notice. The (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Guidance and policy documents that EPA has made, and will continue to In addition, the SIP is not approved
we use to evaluate enforceability, make, these documents available to apply on any Indian reservation land
revision/relaxation and rule stringency electronically through or in any other area where the EPA or
requirements include the following: www.regulations.gov and in hard copy an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
at the appropriate EPA office (see the tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Indian country, the rule does not have
General Preamble for the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information). tribal implications and will not impose
Implementation of Title I of the Clean substantial direct costs on tribal
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR IV. Statutory and Executive Order governments or preempt tribal law as
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 Reviews specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
(April 28, 1992). FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation required to approve a SIP submission
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
that complies with the provisions of the
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Act and applicable Federal regulations Environmental protection, Air
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). (CAA section 110(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a)). pollution control, Incorporation by
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Common VOC & Other Rule EPA’s role is to approve State choices, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, provided that they meet the criteria of matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
2001 (the Little Bluebook). the Act. Accordingly, this proposed requirements.
4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; action merely proposes to approve State Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the law as meeting Federal requirements Dated: October 19, 2015.
General Preamble; Clean Air Act and does not impose additional Jared Blumenfeld,
Amendments of 1990 Implementation of requirements beyond those imposed by Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX State law. For that reason, this proposed
[FR Doc. 2015–28278 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November action:
25, 1992. • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
action’’ subject to review by the Office
5. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with
of Management and Budget under
Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01–001). AGENCY
October 4, 1993);
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation • Does not impose an information 40 CFR Part 52
criteria? collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
We believe these rules are consistent [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0673; FRL–9936–69–
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 9]
with CAA requirements and relevant • Is certified as not having a
guidance regarding enforceability, significant economic impact on a Partial Approval and Disapproval of
stringency and SIP revisions. The TSDs substantial number of small entities Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark
have more information on our under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 County
evaluation. U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
C. Public Comment and Proposed • Does not contain any unfunded AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Action mandate or significantly or uniquely Agency (EPA).
affect small governments, as described ACTION: Proposed rule.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
approve the submitted rules because we • Does not have Federalism Agency (EPA) is proposing a partial
believe they fulfills all relevant implications as specified in Executive approval and partial disapproval of
requirements. We will accept comments Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, revisions to the Clark County portion of
from the public on this proposal until 1999); the Nevada State Implementation Plan
December 7, 2015. Unless we receive • Is not an economically significant (SIP). These revisions concern volatile
convincing new information during the regulatory action based on health or organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of
comment period, we intend to publish safety risks subject to Executive Order sulfur (SOX), and particulate matter
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
a final approval action that will 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); (PM) emissions. We are proposing
incorporate these rules into the federally • Is not a significant regulatory action action on rescissions of local rules that
enforceable SIP. While we are proposing subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR regulate these pollutants under the
to fully approve the rules, the TSDs 28355, May 22, 2001); Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are
discuss why fee provisions in these • Is not subject to requirements of taking comments on this proposal and
rules limit the creditable emission Section 12(d) of the National plan to follow with a final action.
reductions from these rules in some Technology Transfer and Advancement DATES: Any comments must arrive by
CAA planning actions. Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because December 7, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68700/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 68487
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, policy and general guidance on making B. Are there other versions of these rules?
identified by docket number EPA–R09– effective comments, please visit http:// C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved
OAR–2015–0673, by one of the www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting- rules?
following methods: epa-dockets. II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Docket: Generally, documents in the for rescission?
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line docket for this action are available B. Do the rule rescissions meet the
instructions. electronically at www.regulations.gov or evaluation criteria?
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 C. What are the deficiencies?
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection California. While all documents in the E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, docket are listed at III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. www.regulations.gov, some information I. The State’s Submittal
Instructions: Once submitted, may be publicly available only at the
comments cannot be edited or hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted A. Which rules has the county
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any material, large maps), and some may not rescinded?
comment received to its public docket. be publicly available in either location On November 20, 2014, the Nevada
Do not submit electronically any (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy Division of Environmental Protection
information you consider to be materials, please schedule an (NDEP) submitted a SIP revision that
Confidential Business Information (CBI) appointment during normal business includes amendments to two local rules
or other information whose disclosure is hours with the contact listed in the FOR adopted by the Clark County Board of
restricted by statute. If you need to FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. County Commissioners (‘‘Clark
include CBI as part of your comment, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: County’’) and rescissions of four local
please visit http://www.epa.gov/ Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– Clark County rules.1 In this action, we
dockets/comments.html for further 3073, Gong.Kevin@epa.gov. are proposing action on the rescissions.
instructions. Multimedia submissions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA will take action on the rule
(audio, video, etc.) must be Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ amendments in a separate rulemaking.
accompanied by a written comment. and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. Table 1 lists the rule rescissions that
The written comment is considered the the EPA herein proposes to approve,
official comment and should include Table of Contents with the date the rule was first locally
discussion of all points you wish to I. The State’s Submittal effective and the EPA’s date and citation
make. For the full EPA public comment A. Which rules has the county rescinded? of approval.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE RESCISSIONS PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
Rule section of the Clark County Air
Quality Regulations Title Local effective date SIP approval date FR Citation
(CCAQR)
Section 29 ............................................. Sulfur Contents of Fuel Oil ................... December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981 .... 46 FR 43141.
Section 30, subsections 30.1–30.7 (ex- Incinerators ............................................ December 29, 1978 August 27, 1981 .... 46 FR 43141.
cluding subsection 30.4).
Section 30, subsection 30.4 .................. [exemptions for certain types of inciner- September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386.
ators].
Section 30, subsection 30.8 .................. [related to maximum allowable emis- September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386.
sion rates].
Table 2 lists the rule rescissions that effective and the EPA’s date and citation
the EPA herein proposes disapprove, of approval.
with the date the rule was first locally
TABLE 2—SUBMITTED RULE RESCISSIONS PROPOSED FOR DISAPPROVAL
Rule section of the Title Local effective date SIP approval date FR citation
(CCAQR)
Section 52, subsections 52.1–52.10 Handling of Gasoline at Service Sta- December 28, 1978 April 14, 1981 ........ 46 FR 21758.
(excluding subsections 52.4.2.3 and tions, Airports and Storage Tanks.
52.7.2).
Section 52, subsections 52.4.2.3 and [related to vapor recovery and sales in- September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386.
52.7.2. formation].
Section 60 (excluding subsections Evaporation and Leakage ..................... June 28, 1979 ....... April 14, 1981 ........ 46 FR 21758.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60.4.2–60.4.3).
Section 60, subsection 60.4.2 ............... [General prohibition on the use of cut- September 3, 1981 March 20, 1984 ..... 49 FR 10259.
back asphalt].
Section 60, subsection 60.4.3 ............... [Exceptions to subsection 60.4.2] ......... September 3, 1981 June 18, 1982 ....... 47 FR 26386.
1 Under state law, NDEP is the Governor’s Clark County and Washoe County. In Clark County, through the county’s Department of Air Quality
designee for maintaining the Nevada SIP. NDEP is air quality planning and permitting jurisdiction, (DAQ).
also the agency responsible for air quality planning with certain exceptions, lies with the Clark County
and permitting within the entire state except for Board of County Commissioners, which acts
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68700/page/2.svg)
![68490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
relationship or the distribution of power adopted by voluntary consensus The Environmental Protection
SUMMARY:
and responsibilities established in the standards bodies. NTTAA directs the Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, announcing an extension to the
13132 does not apply to this action. explanations when the Agency decides comment period for the proposed rule
not to use available and applicable on improvements to the generator
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
voluntary consensus standards. regulations published in the Federal
With Indian Tribal Governments
The EPA believes that this action is Register on September 25, 2015. EPA is
This action does not have tribal not subject to requirements of Section proposing to revise the hazardous waste
implications, as specified in Executive 12(d) of NTTAA because application of generator regulations under the
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, those requirements would be Resource Conservation and Recovery
2000), because the SIP revisions that the inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. Act (RCRA) to improve compliance and
EPA is proposing to approve and thereby enhance protection of human
disapprove would not apply on any J. Executive Order 12898: Federal health and the environment.
Indian reservation land or in any other Actions To Address Environmental Specifically, EPA proposes to revise
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe Justice in Minority Populations and certain components of the hazardous
has demonstrated that a tribe has Low-Income Population waste generator regulatory program;
jurisdiction, and the EPA notes that it Executive Order (E.O). 12898 (59 FR address gaps in the regulations; provide
will not impose substantial direct costs 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal greater flexibility for hazardous waste
on tribal governments or preempt tribal executive policy on environmental generators to manage their hazardous
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does justice. Its main provision directs waste in a cost-effective and protective
not apply to this action. federal agencies, to the greatest extent manner; reorganize the hazardous waste
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of practicable and permitted by law, to regulations to make them more user-
Children From Environmental Health make environmental justice part of their friendly and thus improve their
Risks and Safety Risks mission by identifying and addressing, usability by the regulated community;
as appropriate, disproportionately high and make technical corrections and
The EPA interprets Executive Order and adverse human health or conforming changes to address
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as environmental effects of their programs, inadvertent errors, remove obsolete
applying only to those regulatory policies, and activities on minority references to programs that no longer
actions that concern health or safety populations and low-income exist, and improve the readability of the
risks, such that the analysis required populations in the United States. regulations. The comment period is
under section 5–501 of the Executive The EPA lacks the discretionary being extended to December 24, 2015.
Order has the potential to influence the authority to address environmental DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
regulation. This action is not subject to justice in this rulemaking. published September 25, 2015 (80 FR
Executive Order 13045 because it is not 57918) must be received on or before
an economically significant regulatory List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
December 24, 2015.
action based on health or safety risks Environmental protection, Air ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR pollution control, Incorporation by identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed reference, Intergovernmental relations, RCRA–2012–0121, to the Federal
SIP revision under section 110 and Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate eRulemaking Portal: http://
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act matter, Reporting and recordkeeping www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile instructions for submitting comments.
regulations but simply approves and organic compounds. Once submitted, comments cannot be
disapproves the removal of certain State
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. edited or withdrawn. The EPA may
requirements from the SIP.
Dated: October 19, 2015. publish any comment received to its
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Jared Blumenfeld,
public docket. Do not submit
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, electronically any information you
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Distribution, or Use consider to be Confidential Business
[FR Doc. 2015–28276 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
This proposed rule is not subject to Information (CBI) or other information
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
significant regulatory action under etc.) must be accompanied by a written
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comment. The written comment is
Executive Order 12866. AGENCY considered the official comment and
I. National Technology Transfer and should include discussion of all points
Advancement Act 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264,
265, 268, 270, 273, and 279 you wish to make. The EPA will
Section 12(d) of the National generally not consider comments or
Technology Transfer and Advancement [EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0121; FRL–9936–51– comment contents located outside of the
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law OSWER] primary submission (i.e. on the web,
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) cloud, or other file sharing system). For
directs the EPA to use voluntary RIN 2050–AG70 additional submission methods, the full
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
consensus standards in its regulatory EPA public comment policy,
activities unless to do so would be Hazardous Waste Generator information about CBI or multimedia
inconsistent with applicable law or Improvements submissions, and general guidance on
otherwise impractical. Voluntary AGENCY: Environmental Protection
making effective comments, please visit
consensus standards are technical Agency (EPA). http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
standards (e.g., materials specifications, commenting-epa-dockets.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
test methods, sampling procedures, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
comment period.
business practices) that are developed or more detailed information on specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68700/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:02:52
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:02:52
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015. | |
| Contact | Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972- 3073, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 68486 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR