Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Excess Emissions Provisions, 75690-75694 [E6-21500]

Download as PDF 75690 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules Exemptions (40 CFR 52.21(x) and (y)) and Pollution Control Projects (40 CFR 52.21(z)). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy action,’’ as that term is defined in Executive Order 13211, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132 Federalism This action does not have Federalism implications because it does not have VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Dec 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not ‘‘economically significant’’ under Executive Order 12866. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing two actions related to excess emissions provisions that were previously approved by EPA into the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan. These proposed actions include approval of a State request for rescission of certain provisions related to excess emissions and correction of an error made by the Agency in approving another provision also related to excess emissions. We are proposing to correct the error by disapproving the previously approved provision and thereby deleting the provision from the plan. The proposed approval of the rescission request is contingent upon receipt of certain public notice and hearing documentation from the State of Nevada. EPA is proposing these actions under the Clean Air Act authority to correct errors in approving, and obligation to take action on, State submittals of revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to correct a past error in approving a particular provision into the plan and to allow for the rescission of closely-related provisions. EPA is taking comments on this proposal and plans to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2006–0926, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 1, 2006. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E6–21502 Filed 12–15–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0926; FRL–8257–6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Excess Emissions Provisions Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4126. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal? Rule No. Title or text NAC 445.677 ............................. II. What Is the Background for This Proposal? jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL II. What Is the Background for This Proposal? III. How Are We Evaluating These Provisions? IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions? A. NAC 445.667 B. NAQR Article 2.5.4 V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal? This document provides notice of EPA’s proposed actions on the following State rules approved by EPA under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and thereby made a part of the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of Nevada. Excess emissions: Scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions. ‘‘Breakdown or upset, determined by the Director to be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal operations, shall not be considered a violation of these regulations’’. NAQR Article 2.5.4 .................... In January 1972, in response to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Governor of Nevada submitted the original SIP to EPA for approval. EPA approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other portions under section 110(a) of the CAA. See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972) and 40 CFR 52.1470(b). For some of the disapproved portions of the original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions, referred to as Federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions, under section 110(c) of the Act. See, e.g., EPA’s final rule at 38 FR 7270 (February 25, 1974) in which EPA established provisions for review of new or modified indirect sources. This original SIP included various rules, codified as articles within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various statutory provisions codified in title 40, chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980’s, Nevada reorganized and re-codified its air quality rules as sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality statutes in chapter 445B of title 40 of the NRS. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Dec 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 Submittal date The original SIP, approved by EPA in May 1972, included NAQR article 2.5 (‘‘Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset’’), which contained what are referred to as ‘‘excess emissions’’ or ‘‘malfunction’’ provisions. Herein, we use the term ‘‘excess emissions,’’ and in this context, ‘‘excess emissions’’ means emissions of an air pollutant in excess of an emission standard. NAQR article 2.5, as approved by EPA in May 1972, reads: 2.5 Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset: 2.5.1 Scheduled maintenance, testing approved by the control officer, or repairs which may result in emission of air contaminants prohibited by these regulations shall be performed during a time designated by the control officer as being favorable for atmospheric ventilation. 2.5.2 The control officer shall be notified in writing on the time and expected duration at least 24 hours in advance of any scheduled maintenance which may result in emission of air contaminants prohibited by these regulations. 2.5.3 The control officer shall be notified within 24 hours after any breakdown or upset. 2.5.4 Breakdown or upset, determined by the control officer to be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal operations, shall not be considered a violation of these regulations. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 75691 Most recent approval date and FR cite 10/26/82 03/27/84 at 49 FR 11626. 10/31/75 01/09/78 at 43 FR 1341. The State of Nevada amended NAQR article 2.5, and submitted the amended versions to EPA, at various times during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. In January 1978, EPA approved amended versions of subsections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.4 that had been submitted on October 31, 1975 (see 43 FR 1341, January 9, 1978 and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(11)) and, later that year, approved an amended version of subsection 2.5.3 that had been submitted on December 10, 1976 (see 43 FR 36932, August 21, 1978 and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(12)). The amendments to article 2.5 approved in 1978 involved minor changes, such as the replacement of the term ‘‘control officer’’ with the term ‘‘Director’’ and the specification of a phone number for notifying the Director of the occurrence of breakdown or upset conditions. In 1982, the State of Nevada amended, re-codified, and submitted NAQR article 2.5 as NAC 445.667 (‘‘Excess emissions: scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions’’) and NAC 445.668 (‘‘Excess emissions: Determination of fault’’). NAC 445.667 reflected minor revisions to the reporting requirements of former NAQR article 2.5 (i.e., subsections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3) but also included a new paragraph requiring owners and operators to provide within 15 days after any malfunction, breakdown, upset, startup or human E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 75692 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL error ‘‘sufficient information’’ to enable the director to determine the seriousness of the excess emissions and specifying what constituted ‘‘sufficient information’’. In 1984, we approved NAC 445.667 and thereby effectively replaced all of NAQR article 2.5 in the applicable Nevada SIP except for subsection 2.5.4. See 49 FR 11626 (March 27, 1984). In contrast to NAC 445.667, EPA took no action to approve or disapprove NAC 445.668, the recodified version of NAQR article 2.5.4. Thus, the excess emissions provisions in the applicable SIP currently include NAC 445.667, as approved in March 1984, and NAQR 2.5.4, as approved in January 1978. In a SIP revision submittal dated January 12, 2006, the Governor’s designee for SIP matters, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), requested rescission of many rules from the applicable SIP, including NAC 445.667.1 As discussed below, we are proposing to approve this request because of its connection to NAQR article 2.5.4, which we approved in error into the SIP, and for which we are now proposing disapproval. NDEP has not requested rescission of NAQR article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. We propose, however, as discussed below, to initiate action herein to disapprove this previously-approved provision under CAA section 110(k)(6), which expressly provides EPA with authority to correct errors in prior SIP approvals, and thereby delete NAQR article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. In doing so, we find that approval of NAQR article 2.5.4 into the SIP in 1972, and then again in amended form, in 1978, was an error because NAQR article 2.5.4, which exempts certain occurrences of excess emissions from the potential for enforcement at the discretion of NDEP, is not consistent with attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nor with the regulatory framework of the Act, which gives EPA and citizens independent authority to enforce emissions limitations and other requirements approved into the SIP. 1 The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal superseded in part an earlier SIP submittal dated February 16, 2005. The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the earlier submittal in that it did not include the documentation of public notice and hearing for new or amended rules adopted prior to 2005. CAA section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(3). VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Dec 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 III. How Are We Eealuating These Provisions? IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions? Under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and (3), EPA is obligated to approve or disapprove (in whole or in separable part) submittals by States of SIPs and SIP revisions found or deemed to be complete, and under CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA has the authority to correct errors made by the Agency in approving such SIPs and SIP revisions. EPA has reviewed the State’s request for rescission of certain excess emissions provisions and considered the removal of another excess emissions provision for compliance with the CAA requirements for SIPs in general set forth in CAA section 110(a) and 40 CFR part 51 (particularly, subpart K ‘‘Source Surveillance’’) and also for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l) and 193.2 We have also applied the principles set forth in the following EPA policy memoranda (collectively, ‘‘excess emissions policy memoranda’’): • ‘‘Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions’’ from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated September 28, 1982; • ‘‘Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions’’ from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated February 15, 1983; • ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’ from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated September 20, 1999; and • ‘‘Re-Issuance of Clarification—State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’ from Eric Schaeffer, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement and John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated December 5, 2001. A. NAC 445.667 NAC 445.667 establishes reporting requirements under two circumstances involving the potential or the occurrence of excess emissions. First, NAC 445.667 requires advance notice to the Director of any scheduled maintenance or repairs that may result in excess emissions. Second, NAC 445.667 requires the Director to be notified within certain prescribed periods of any excess emissions that occur after any malfunction of process or pollution control equipment or during startup of such equipment. Upon review of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart K (‘‘Source Surveillance’’), we find that the episodic reporting of excess emissions required under NAC 445.667 generally supports enforceability of the SIP and protection of the NAAQS. However, a review of the text of the excess emissions provisions themselves and the regulatory history of the State’s submittals and EPA actions (or inaction as the case may be) on NAQR article 2.5, NAC 445.667, and NAC 445.668 convinces us that NAC 445.667 should not be separated from NAQR article 2.5.4 for the purposes of SIP actions under CAA section 110(k)(3) and related error corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6). Note, for example, that NAC 445.667 and NAC 445.668 were originally codified as subsections within a single rule, NAQR article 2.5, ‘‘Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset.’’ CAA section 110(k)(3) provides for full or partial approvals and disapprovals of SIP submittals. We consider ‘‘separable’’ portions of SIP submittals to be eligible for separate action under CAA section 110(k)(3). By ‘‘separable,’’ EPA means that the action it anticipates taking will not result in the approved rule(s) being more stringent than the State anticipated. See EPA memorandum from John Calcagni, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled ‘‘Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals,’’ dated July 9, 1992. In the context of an error correction under CAA section 110(k)(6), we apply the principle of being separable to avoid a result in which the approved rule(s) in the SIP becomes more stringent than the State anticipated upon our removal of another rule or portion of that rule. In this case, we believe that the State intended the two excess emissions rules, i.e., reporting provisions of NAC 445.667 and the determination of fault provisions of NAQR article 2.5.4, to be considered together as a single 2 CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 193 prohibits modifications in control requirements that were in effect before the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the nonattainment pollutant. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL regulatory scheme whereby owners and operators can avoid enforcement proceedings triggered by excess emissions due to malfunctions if they follow the related reporting requirements and take the necessary remedial steps. In other words, we believe the State did not intend the excess emissions reporting requirements for malfunctions to exist independently in the SIP from the related determination of fault provisions. Given the connection between NAQR article 2.5.4 and NAC 445.667, therefore, and because we erred in approving (and are proposing disapproval of) the former, as discussed below, we propose to approve the State’s request for rescission of the latter. Neither the January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal nor the February 16, 2005 SIP revision submittal (that the latter submittal replaced in part) included public participation documentation for this requested rescission, thus, our proposed approval of the rescission of NAC 445.667 from the SIP is contingent upon receipt of public notice and hearing documentation from the State of Nevada. Such documentation is required under CAA section 110(l) for all SIP revisions. We note that approval of the rescission request for NAC 445.667 would have no effect on excess emissions reporting requirements that apply to stationary sources under other SIP rules, under 40 CFR part 60 (‘‘Standards of performance for new stationary sources’’), or 40 CFR parts 61 (‘‘National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants’’) and 63 (‘‘National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories’’). B. NAQR Article 2.5.4 NAQR article 2.5.4 allows the Director (which, in this context, refers to NDEP) to exempt from enforcement certain excess emissions due to malfunction. NDEP’s discretion in this regard is limited to conditions that NDEP determines to be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal operations but can be used to exempt such excess emissions from any source under NDEP jurisdiction regardless of the source’s potential to cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. NAQR article 2.5.4 does not limit the duration of the exemption nor include any provisions that serve to protect ambient air quality during the exemption period for the purpose of avoiding violations of the NAAQS. EPA’s long-standing position is that provisions such as NAQR article 2.5.4 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Dec 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 are not consistent with the fundamental purpose of a SIP, which as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(1) is to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. See 42 FR 21472 (April 27, 1997), 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977), and EPA’s excess emissions policy memoranda.3 We view all excursions above SIP emission limits as violations because the purpose of SIP limits are to protect the NAAQS, and thus, any emissions above such limits may cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. Moreover, SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations (see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)), and Congress intended such limitations to be continuous in nature. See the definition of ‘‘emission limitation’’ in CAA section 302(k).4 Allowing the Director to exempt from enforcement incidents during which emissions exceed the underlying emissions limitation means that none of the emission limitations in the SIP otherwise subject to enforcement under State law and the Clean Air Act are truly continuous in nature but rather may be discontinued for indefinite periods by the Director. Lastly, by leaving enforcement of the underlying emission limitation in the sole hands of the Director of the State air pollution agency without explicit limits to his/her discretion, NAQR article 2.5.4 conflicts with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act, which is intended to provide for independent enforcement by EPA and citizens of emissions limitations and other requirements approved by EPA into SIPs. See, generally, CAA sections 113 (‘‘Federal enforcement’’) and 304 (‘‘Citizen suits’’). The purpose of SIPs to protect the NAAQS, the continuous nature of emissions limitations, and the independent authorities for EPA and citizen represent core elements of the Clean Air Act from as far back as the Clean Air Amendments of 1970. Thus, our approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), and then again, in amended form, on January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) were clearly in error. 3 EPA’s interpretation of section 110 in the context of State excess emissions provisions has been upheld by the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Michigan Mfrs. Ass’n v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000). 4 Under CAA section 302(k), the terms ‘‘emission limitation’’ and ‘‘emission standard’’ mean a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 75693 Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides, ‘‘Whenever the Administrator determines that the Administrator’s action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification or reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and the public.’’ We interpret this provision to authorize the Agency to make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our satisfaction (or we discover) that (1) We clearly erred in failing to consider or in inappropriately considering information made available to EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to have been clearly inadequate, and (2) other information persuasively supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 (November 30, 1992). In this instance, we have found clear error in our 1972 and 1978 approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as a part of the Nevada SIP because at the time of our 1972 and 1978 actions approving this rule, the Clean Air Act required SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS through continuous emissions limitations and provided for a regulatory scheme whereby EPA and citizens have enforcement authority separate from that of the State; whereas, NAQR article 2.5.4 provides for discontinuance of emission limitations under certain conditions without regard to protection of the NAAQS. Further, by determining that excess emissions are not a violation of the SIP, the Director can at his discretion cut off EPA or citizen enforcement of the underlying emissions limitation thereby confounding the regulatory scheme promulgated by Congress in the Clean Air Act. We also find that continued presence of NAQR article 2.5.4 in the applicable Nevada SIP undermines enforceability of the SIP and is potentially harmful to the environment. Therefore, under CAA section 110(k)(6), we are proposing to correct our errors in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842) and on January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) by disapproving the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby deleting the rule from the applicable SIP. If finalized as E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 75694 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules proposed, we will codify the error correction by amending 40 CFR 52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly.5 V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing approval of a request by the State of Nevada for rescission of NAC 445.667 (‘‘Excess emissions: Scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions’’) from the applicable SIP because of the connection between NAC 445.667 and NAQR article 2.5.4, which we approved in error and for which we are proposing disapproval. EPA is also proposing, under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, to correct errors made by the Agency in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 in 1972 and again in 1978 as part of the applicable SIP by disapproving the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby deleting NAQR article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. We are proposing this correction because the subject rule provides an exemption from enforcement at the State’s discretion for certain excess emissions and is thereby inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the SIP, which is to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, inconsistent with Congressional intent for continuous emission limits, and inconsistent with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act which provides for independent enforcement authority by EPA and citizens. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final rule that will rescind NAC 445.667, and that will delete NAQR article 2.5.4, from the applicable Nevada SIP, and to codify the latter action by amending 40 CFR 52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly. 5 We note that our proposed action herein of disapproving a previously approved excess emissions rule is consistent with actions we have taken on similar excess emissions provisions in other portions of the Nevada SIP and in other SIPs. For example, in 1981, we disapproved section 12, an excess emissions rule adopted by Clark County (that we had previously approved as part of the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP) on similar grounds as described herein. See 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981) and 69 FR 54006 (September 7, 2004). In 1978, we disapproved similar excess emissions rules adopted by 22 different air pollution control districts in the State of California and, in some instances, reversed previous approvals of prior versions of those rules. See 43 FR 33915 (August 2, 1978). VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Dec 15, 2006 Jkt 211001 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to delete previously approved state rules that, viewed collectively, fail to meet Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to rescind or delete pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to delete previously approved state rules that, viewed collectively, fail to implement a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 8, 2006. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E6–21500 Filed 12–15–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2004–WI–0002; FRL–8258– 1] Federal Implementation Plan Under the Clean Air Act for Certain Trust Lands of the Forest County Potawatomi Community Reservation if Designated as a PSD Class I Area; State of Wisconsin Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: On June 29, 1995, and July 10, 1997, EPA proposed to approve a request by the Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCP Community) to redesignate certain trust lands within its reservation as Class I with respect to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit program. In these proposals, EPA did not explicitly state the mechanism it would use if it granted the redesignation request nor did the Agency include a draft of its codification. In this action, EPA is proposing that it will promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if it approves FCP Community’s request and E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75690-75694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21500]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0926; FRL-8257-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to
the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Excess Emissions Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing two actions related to excess emissions
provisions that were previously approved by EPA into the Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada
State Implementation Plan. These proposed actions include approval of a
State request for rescission of certain provisions related to excess
emissions and correction of an error made by the Agency in approving
another provision also related to excess emissions. We are proposing to
correct the error by disapproving the previously approved provision and
thereby deleting the provision from the plan. The proposed approval of
the rescission request is contingent upon receipt of certain public
notice and hearing documentation from the State of Nevada. EPA is
proposing these actions under the Clean Air Act authority to correct
errors in approving, and obligation to take action on, State submittals
of revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to
correct a past error in approving a particular provision into the plan
and to allow for the rescission of closely-related provisions. EPA is
taking comments on this proposal and plans to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0926, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes

[[Page 75691]]

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI
or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should
not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

Table of Contents

I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal?
II. What Is the Background for This Proposal?
III. How Are We Evaluating These Provisions?
IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions?
A. NAC 445.667
B. NAQR Article 2.5.4
V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal?

This document provides notice of EPA's proposed actions on the
following State rules approved by EPA under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and thereby made a part of the applicable
state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of Nevada.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent approval date and FR
Rule No. Title or text Submittal date cite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAC 445.677..................... Excess emissions: 10/26/82 03/27/84 at 49 FR 11626.
Scheduled maintenance;
testing; malfunctions.
NAQR Article 2.5.4.............. ``Breakdown or upset, 10/31/75 01/09/78 at 43 FR 1341.
determined by the
Director to be
unavoidable and not the
result of careless or
marginal operations,
shall not be considered
a violation of these
regulations''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Is the Background for This Proposal?

In January 1972, in response to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970,
the Governor of Nevada submitted the original SIP to EPA for approval.
EPA approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other
portions under section 110(a) of the CAA. See 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972) and 40 CFR 52.1470(b). For some of the disapproved portions of
the original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions, referred to as
Federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions, under section 110(c) of
the Act. See, e.g., EPA's final rule at 38 FR 7270 (February 25, 1974)
in which EPA established provisions for review of new or modified
indirect sources.
This original SIP included various rules, codified as articles
within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various statutory
provisions codified in title 40, chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised
Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980's, Nevada reorganized and re-codified
its air quality rules as sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality
regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality
statutes in chapter 445B of title 40 of the NRS.
The original SIP, approved by EPA in May 1972, included NAQR
article 2.5 (``Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or
Upset''), which contained what are referred to as ``excess emissions''
or ``malfunction'' provisions. Herein, we use the term ``excess
emissions,'' and in this context, ``excess emissions'' means emissions
of an air pollutant in excess of an emission standard. NAQR article
2.5, as approved by EPA in May 1972, reads:

2.5 Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset:
2.5.1 Scheduled maintenance, testing approved by the control
officer, or repairs which may result in emission of air contaminants
prohibited by these regulations shall be performed during a time
designated by the control officer as being favorable for atmospheric
ventilation.
2.5.2 The control officer shall be notified in writing on the
time and expected duration at least 24 hours in advance of any
scheduled maintenance which may result in emission of air
contaminants prohibited by these regulations.
2.5.3 The control officer shall be notified within 24 hours
after any breakdown or upset.
2.5.4 Breakdown or upset, determined by the control officer to
be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal
operations, shall not be considered a violation of these
regulations.

The State of Nevada amended NAQR article 2.5, and submitted the
amended versions to EPA, at various times during the 1970's and early
1980's. In January 1978, EPA approved amended versions of subsections
2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.4 that had been submitted on October 31, 1975
(see 43 FR 1341, January 9, 1978 and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(11)) and, later
that year, approved an amended version of subsection 2.5.3 that had
been submitted on December 10, 1976 (see 43 FR 36932, August 21, 1978
and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(12)). The amendments to article 2.5 approved in
1978 involved minor changes, such as the replacement of the term
``control officer'' with the term ``Director'' and the specification of
a phone number for notifying the Director of the occurrence of
breakdown or upset conditions.
In 1982, the State of Nevada amended, re-codified, and submitted
NAQR article 2.5 as NAC 445.667 (``Excess emissions: scheduled
maintenance; testing; malfunctions'') and NAC 445.668 (``Excess
emissions: Determination of fault''). NAC 445.667 reflected minor
revisions to the reporting requirements of former NAQR article 2.5
(i.e., subsections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3) but also included a new
paragraph requiring owners and operators to provide within 15 days
after any malfunction, breakdown, upset, startup or human

[[Page 75692]]

error ``sufficient information'' to enable the director to determine
the seriousness of the excess emissions and specifying what constituted
``sufficient information''. In 1984, we approved NAC 445.667 and
thereby effectively replaced all of NAQR article 2.5 in the applicable
Nevada SIP except for subsection 2.5.4. See 49 FR 11626 (March 27,
1984). In contrast to NAC 445.667, EPA took no action to approve or
disapprove NAC 445.668, the re-codified version of NAQR article 2.5.4.
Thus, the excess emissions provisions in the applicable SIP currently
include NAC 445.667, as approved in March 1984, and NAQR 2.5.4, as
approved in January 1978.
In a SIP revision submittal dated January 12, 2006, the Governor's
designee for SIP matters, the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection (NDEP), requested rescission of many rules from the
applicable SIP, including NAC 445.667.\1\ As discussed below, we are
proposing to approve this request because of its connection to NAQR
article 2.5.4, which we approved in error into the SIP, and for which
we are now proposing disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal superseded in part an
earlier SIP submittal dated February 16, 2005. The January 12, 2006
SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the earlier
submittal in that it did not include the documentation of public
notice and hearing for new or amended rules adopted prior to 2005.
CAA section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing
prior to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent
submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section
110(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NDEP has not requested rescission of NAQR article 2.5.4 from the
applicable SIP. We propose, however, as discussed below, to initiate
action herein to disapprove this previously-approved provision under
CAA section 110(k)(6), which expressly provides EPA with authority to
correct errors in prior SIP approvals, and thereby delete NAQR article
2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. In doing so, we find that approval of
NAQR article 2.5.4 into the SIP in 1972, and then again in amended
form, in 1978, was an error because NAQR article 2.5.4, which exempts
certain occurrences of excess emissions from the potential for
enforcement at the discretion of NDEP, is not consistent with
attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) nor with the regulatory framework of the Act, which
gives EPA and citizens independent authority to enforce emissions
limitations and other requirements approved into the SIP.

III. How Are We Eealuating These Provisions?

Under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and (3), EPA is obligated to approve
or disapprove (in whole or in separable part) submittals by States of
SIPs and SIP revisions found or deemed to be complete, and under CAA
section 110(k)(6), EPA has the authority to correct errors made by the
Agency in approving such SIPs and SIP revisions. EPA has reviewed the
State's request for rescission of certain excess emissions provisions
and considered the removal of another excess emissions provision for
compliance with the CAA requirements for SIPs in general set forth in
CAA section 110(a) and 40 CFR part 51 (particularly, subpart K ``Source
Surveillance'') and also for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA section 110(l) and 193.\2\ We have also applied the
principles set forth in the following EPA policy memoranda
(collectively, ``excess emissions policy memoranda''):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 193 prohibits
modifications in control requirements that were in effect before the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area unless
the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions
of the nonattainment pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated September 28, 1982;
``Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated February 15, 1983;
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' from
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated September 20, 1999; and
``Re-Issuance of Clarification--State Implementation Plans
(SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup,
and Shutdown'' from Eric Schaeffer, Director, Office of Regulatory
Enforcement and John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, dated December 5, 2001.

IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions?

A. NAC 445.667

NAC 445.667 establishes reporting requirements under two
circumstances involving the potential or the occurrence of excess
emissions. First, NAC 445.667 requires advance notice to the Director
of any scheduled maintenance or repairs that may result in excess
emissions. Second, NAC 445.667 requires the Director to be notified
within certain prescribed periods of any excess emissions that occur
after any malfunction of process or pollution control equipment or
during startup of such equipment.
Upon review of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart K
(``Source Surveillance''), we find that the episodic reporting of
excess emissions required under NAC 445.667 generally supports
enforceability of the SIP and protection of the NAAQS. However, a
review of the text of the excess emissions provisions themselves and
the regulatory history of the State's submittals and EPA actions (or
inaction as the case may be) on NAQR article 2.5, NAC 445.667, and NAC
445.668 convinces us that NAC 445.667 should not be separated from NAQR
article 2.5.4 for the purposes of SIP actions under CAA section
110(k)(3) and related error corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6).
Note, for example, that NAC 445.667 and NAC 445.668 were originally
codified as subsections within a single rule, NAQR article 2.5,
``Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset.''
CAA section 110(k)(3) provides for full or partial approvals and
disapprovals of SIP submittals. We consider ``separable'' portions of
SIP submittals to be eligible for separate action under CAA section
110(k)(3). By ``separable,'' EPA means that the action it anticipates
taking will not result in the approved rule(s) being more stringent
than the State anticipated. See EPA memorandum from John Calcagni,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled ``Processing of
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals,'' dated July 9, 1992. In
the context of an error correction under CAA section 110(k)(6), we
apply the principle of being separable to avoid a result in which the
approved rule(s) in the SIP becomes more stringent than the State
anticipated upon our removal of another rule or portion of that rule.
In this case, we believe that the State intended the two excess
emissions rules, i.e., reporting provisions of NAC 445.667 and the
determination of fault provisions of NAQR article 2.5.4, to be
considered together as a single

[[Page 75693]]

regulatory scheme whereby owners and operators can avoid enforcement
proceedings triggered by excess emissions due to malfunctions if they
follow the related reporting requirements and take the necessary
remedial steps. In other words, we believe the State did not intend the
excess emissions reporting requirements for malfunctions to exist
independently in the SIP from the related determination of fault
provisions.
Given the connection between NAQR article 2.5.4 and NAC 445.667,
therefore, and because we erred in approving (and are proposing
disapproval of) the former, as discussed below, we propose to approve
the State's request for rescission of the latter. Neither the January
12, 2006 SIP revision submittal nor the February 16, 2005 SIP revision
submittal (that the latter submittal replaced in part) included public
participation documentation for this requested rescission, thus, our
proposed approval of the rescission of NAC 445.667 from the SIP is
contingent upon receipt of public notice and hearing documentation from
the State of Nevada. Such documentation is required under CAA section
110(l) for all SIP revisions.
We note that approval of the rescission request for NAC 445.667
would have no effect on excess emissions reporting requirements that
apply to stationary sources under other SIP rules, under 40 CFR part 60
(``Standards of performance for new stationary sources''), or 40 CFR
parts 61 (``National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants'')
and 63 (``National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for
source categories'').

B. NAQR Article 2.5.4

NAQR article 2.5.4 allows the Director (which, in this context,
refers to NDEP) to exempt from enforcement certain excess emissions due
to malfunction. NDEP's discretion in this regard is limited to
conditions that NDEP determines to be unavoidable and not the result of
careless or marginal operations but can be used to exempt such excess
emissions from any source under NDEP jurisdiction regardless of the
source's potential to cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS.
NAQR article 2.5.4 does not limit the duration of the exemption nor
include any provisions that serve to protect ambient air quality during
the exemption period for the purpose of avoiding violations of the
NAAQS.
EPA's long-standing position is that provisions such as NAQR
article 2.5.4 are not consistent with the fundamental purpose of a SIP,
which as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(1) is to provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. See 42 FR
21472 (April 27, 1997), 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977), and EPA's
excess emissions policy memoranda.\3\ We view all excursions above SIP
emission limits as violations because the purpose of SIP limits are to
protect the NAAQS, and thus, any emissions above such limits may cause
or contribute to violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ EPA's interpretation of section 110 in the context of State
excess emissions provisions has been upheld by the United State
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Michigan Mfrs. Ass'n v.
Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations (see
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)), and Congress intended such limitations to be
continuous in nature. See the definition of ``emission limitation'' in
CAA section 302(k).\4\ Allowing the Director to exempt from enforcement
incidents during which emissions exceed the underlying emissions
limitation means that none of the emission limitations in the SIP
otherwise subject to enforcement under State law and the Clean Air Act
are truly continuous in nature but rather may be discontinued for
indefinite periods by the Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Under CAA section 302(k), the terms ``emission limitation''
and ``emission standard'' mean a requirement established by the
State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis,
including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance
of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design,
equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under
this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly, by leaving enforcement of the underlying emission
limitation in the sole hands of the Director of the State air pollution
agency without explicit limits to his/her discretion, NAQR article
2.5.4 conflicts with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act,
which is intended to provide for independent enforcement by EPA and
citizens of emissions limitations and other requirements approved by
EPA into SIPs. See, generally, CAA sections 113 (``Federal
enforcement'') and 304 (``Citizen suits''). The purpose of SIPs to
protect the NAAQS, the continuous nature of emissions limitations, and
the independent authorities for EPA and citizen represent core elements
of the Clean Air Act from as far back as the Clean Air Amendments of
1970. Thus, our approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada
SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), and then again, in amended form, on
January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) were clearly in error.
Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990,
provides, ``Whenever the Administrator determines that the
Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any
plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation,
redesignation, classification or reclassification was in error, the
Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or
promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any
further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis
thereof shall be provided to the State and the public.''
We interpret this provision to authorize the Agency to make
corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our
satisfaction (or we discover) that (1) We clearly erred in failing to
consider or in inappropriately considering information made available
to EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made
available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to
have been clearly inadequate, and (2) other information persuasively
supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763
(November 30, 1992).
In this instance, we have found clear error in our 1972 and 1978
approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as a part of the Nevada SIP because at
the time of our 1972 and 1978 actions approving this rule, the Clean
Air Act required SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS
through continuous emissions limitations and provided for a regulatory
scheme whereby EPA and citizens have enforcement authority separate
from that of the State; whereas, NAQR article 2.5.4 provides for
discontinuance of emission limitations under certain conditions without
regard to protection of the NAAQS. Further, by determining that excess
emissions are not a violation of the SIP, the Director can at his
discretion cut off EPA or citizen enforcement of the underlying
emissions limitation thereby confounding the regulatory scheme
promulgated by Congress in the Clean Air Act. We also find that
continued presence of NAQR article 2.5.4 in the applicable Nevada SIP
undermines enforceability of the SIP and is potentially harmful to the
environment.
Therefore, under CAA section 110(k)(6), we are proposing to correct
our errors in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada SIP on
May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842) and on January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) by
disapproving the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby
deleting the rule from the applicable SIP. If finalized as

[[Page 75694]]

proposed, we will codify the error correction by amending 40 CFR
52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ We note that our proposed action herein of disapproving a
previously approved excess emissions rule is consistent with actions
we have taken on similar excess emissions provisions in other
portions of the Nevada SIP and in other SIPs. For example, in 1981,
we disapproved section 12, an excess emissions rule adopted by Clark
County (that we had previously approved as part of the Clark County
portion of the Nevada SIP) on similar grounds as described herein.
See 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981) and 69 FR 54006 (September 7,
2004). In 1978, we disapproved similar excess emissions rules
adopted by 22 different air pollution control districts in the State
of California and, in some instances, reversed previous approvals of
prior versions of those rules. See 43 FR 33915 (August 2, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing approval of a
request by the State of Nevada for rescission of NAC 445.667 (``Excess
emissions: Scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions'') from the
applicable SIP because of the connection between NAC 445.667 and NAQR
article 2.5.4, which we approved in error and for which we are
proposing disapproval.
EPA is also proposing, under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, to
correct errors made by the Agency in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 in
1972 and again in 1978 as part of the applicable SIP by disapproving
the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby deleting NAQR
article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. We are proposing this correction
because the subject rule provides an exemption from enforcement at the
State's discretion for certain excess emissions and is thereby
inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the SIP, which is to
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS,
inconsistent with Congressional intent for continuous emission limits,
and inconsistent with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act
which provides for independent enforcement authority by EPA and
citizens.
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the
next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the
comment period, we intend to publish a final rule that will rescind NAC
445.667, and that will delete NAQR article 2.5.4, from the applicable
Nevada SIP, and to codify the latter action by amending 40 CFR
52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely proposes to delete previously approved state rules that,
viewed collectively, fail to meet Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to rescind or
delete pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to delete previously approved state rules that,
viewed collectively, fail to implement a Federal standard, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Dated: December 8, 2006.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6-21500 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.