Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter Rules, 10960-10964 [E7-4428]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10960
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This proposed rule
does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use
of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D and Department of
Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we
believe that this proposed rule should
be categorically excluded, under figure
2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. A preliminary
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. Comments on this
section will be considered before we
make the final decision whether this
rule should be categorically excluded
from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for Part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2. Add temporary § 165.T05–015, to
read as follows:
§ 165.T05–015
Island, VA.
Security Zone: Jamestown
(a) Location: The following area is a
security zone: All waters within a 2nautical-mile radius of Church Point at
37–12.45N, 076–46.66W on Jamestown
Island, VA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Mar 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
(b) Definition: As used in this section;
Designated Representative means any
U.S. Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his
behalf.
(c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.33 of
this part, entry into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads,
Virginia, or his designated
representative.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
immediate vicinity of this security zone
shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon
being directed to do so by the Captain
of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or
his designated representative on board a
vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard
Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by the Captain
of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or
his designated representative on board a
vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard
Ensign.
(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton
Roads, Virginia can be contacted at
telephone number (757) 668–5555.
(4) U.S. Coast Guard vessels enforcing
the security zone can be contacted on
VHF–FM marine band radio, channel 13
(156.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8
MHz).
(d) Enforcement period: The security
zone will be enforced from 3 p.m. until
10 p.m. on May 11, 2007; from 9 a.m.
to 11 p.m. on May 12, 2007; and from
9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007.
(e) Effective Date: This regulation is
effective from 3 p.m. on May 11, 2007,
to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007.
Dated: February 27, 2007.
Patrick B. Trapp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. E7–4303 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0635; FRL–8286–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Revisions to the
Nevada State Implementation Plan;
Visible Emissions and Particulate
Matter Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources
portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan. These revisions
concern visible emissions and
particulate matter regulations. EPA is
proposing this action under the Clean
Air Act obligation to take action on
State submittals of revisions to state
implementation plans. The intended
effect is to approve updated visible
emissions and particulate matter rules
in the Nevada State Implementation
Plan because doing so will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards
or any other requirement of the Clean
Air Act. EPA is taking comments on this
proposal and plans to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
April 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0635, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
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
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
E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM
12MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What regulations did the State submit?
B. What is the regulatory history of the
Nevada SIP?
C. What is the purpose of this proposed
rule?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA recommendations to further
improve the regulations
D. Proposed action and public comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What regulations did the State
submit?
The State of Nevada’s Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP) submitted a large revision to the
applicable Nevada State Implementation
Plan (SIP) on January 12, 2006. The
January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal
includes new and amended statutes and
rules as well as requests for rescission
of certain rules in the existing SIP. The
January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal
supersedes the regulatory portion of an
earlier submittal dated February 16,
2005.1 On March 26, 2006, we found
that the Nevada SIP submittal dated
January 12, 2006 satisfied the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
The primary purpose of this SIP
revision is to clarify and harmonize the
provisions approved by EPA into the
applicable SIP with the current
provisions adopted by the State.
Because this revision incorporates so
many changes from the 1970s and 1980s
vintage SIP regulations, EPA has
decided to review and act on the
submittal in a series of separate actions.
The first such action, related to various
definitions, sulfur emission rules, and
restrictions on open burning and use of
incinerators, was proposed in the
Federal Register on September 13, 2005
(70 FR 53975) and finalized on March
27, 2006 (71 FR 15040). The second
10961
such action, related to statutory
authority, was proposed in the Federal
Register on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413)
and finalized on August 31, 2006 (71 FR
51766). A third action, related to most
of the State’s requests for rescission, and
fourth action, related to monitoring and
VOC rules, were proposed on August
28, 2006 (71 FR 50875) and August 31,
2006 (71 FR 51793), respectively, and
finalized on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 11)
and December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71486),
respectively.
In today’s notice, we are taking
another step in the process of acting on
the State’s January 12, 2006 SIP revision
submittal by proposing action on the
State’s request for approval of six
amended rules related to visible
emissions and particulate matter and for
rescission of two related rules. The
remaining portions of the submittal will
be acted on in future Federal Register
actions.
The following two tables list the
provisions of the Nevada Air Quality
Regulations (NAQR) or Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC) addressed
by this proposal. Table 1 list the
amended rules submitted by NDEP for
approval into the SIP and addressed
herein. If approved, the submitted rules
in table 1 would replace existing rules
in the applicable SIP.
TABLE 1.—AMENDED RULES SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL INTO THE SIP
NAC No.
NAC Title
445B.22017 .......
445B.2202 .........
445B.22027 .......
445B.2203 .........
445B.22033 .......
445B.22037 .......
Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination. (Effective April 1, 2006.) ..............................
Visible emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources. (Effective April 1, 2006.) ............................
Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates
Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-burning equipment ...............................................................
Emissions of particulate matter: Sources not otherwise limited ......................................................
Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive dust. ................................................................................
Table 2 lists two related rules in the
existing SIP for which NDEP has
Adopted
requested rescission. If we approve the
rescission requests, the two rules listed
10/04/05
10/04/05
01/22/98
09/09/99
01/22/98
10/03/95
Submitted
01/12/06
01/12/06
01/12/06
01/12/06
01/12/06
01/12/06
in table 2 would be deleted from the
applicable SIP.
TABLE 2.—RELATED SIP RULES FOR WHICH THE STATE HAS REQUESTED RESCISSION
Submittal
date
Title
NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 ......................................................
NAC 445.535 ....................................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
SIP provision
Opacity from kilns ............................................................
Kilogram-calorie ...............................................................
1 The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal also
includes documentation of public notice and
hearing for certain new or amended rules for which
EPA is proposing approval. The January 12, 2006
SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the
earlier submittal in that it did not include this
documentation. Our consideration of the rules
submitted on January 12, 2006 and evaluated herein
takes into account the public participation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Mar 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
documentation contained in the earlier submittal.
Public participation documentation for the
rescission of NAC 445.535, also evaluated herein,
was also included in the February 16, 2005 SIP
submittal and is taken into account in this proposed
action. NAC 445.535 (which had been recodified as
NAC 445B.089) was repealed for the purposes of
State law by the Nevada State Environmental
Commission effective March 5, 1998. NDEP has also
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12/29/78
10/26/82
Approval
date
06/18/82
03/27/84
provided documentation of public process for
rescission of NAQR article 16.3.3.1 (re-codified as
NAC 445.828), which was repealed by the
commission for purposes of State law effective
October 15, 1985. CAA section 110(l) requires
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to
adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent
submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under
CAA section 110(k)(3).
E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM
12MRP1
10962
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
B. What is the regulatory history of the
Nevada SIP?
In January 1972, pursuant to the Clean
Air Amendments of 1970, the Governor
of Nevada submitted the original
Nevada SIP to EPA. EPA approved
certain portions of the original SIP and
disapproved other portions under
section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act
or CAA). See 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972). For some of the disapproved
portions of the original SIP, EPA
promulgated substitute provisions
under CAA section 110(c).2 This
original SIP included various rules,
codified as articles within the Nevada
Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and
various statutory provisions codified in
chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised
Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980’s,
Nevada reorganized and re-codified its
air quality rules into sections within
chapter 445 of the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC). Today,
Nevada codifies its air quality
regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC
and codifies air quality statutes in
chapter 445B (‘‘Air Pollution’’) of title
40 (‘‘Public Health and Safety’’) of the
NRS.
Nevada adopted and submitted many
revisions to the original set of
regulations and statutes in the SIP, some
of which EPA approved on February 6,
1975 at 40 FR 5508; on March 26, 1975
at 40 FR 13306; on January 9, 1978 at
43 FR 1341; on January 24, 1978 at 43
FR 3278; on August 21, 1978 at 43 FR
36932; on July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46384;
on April 14, 1981 at 46 FR 21758; on
August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43141; on
March 8, 1982 at 47 FR 9833; on April
13, 1982 at 47 FR 15790; on June 18,
1982 at 47 FR 26386; on June 23, 1982
at 47 FR 27070; on March 27, 1984 at
49 FR 11626. Since 1984, EPA has
approved very few revisions to Nevada’s
applicable SIP despite numerous
changes that have been adopted by the
State Environmental Commission. As a
result, the version of the rules
enforceable by NDEP is often quite
different from the SIP version
enforceable by EPA.
C. What is the purpose of this proposed
rule?
The purpose of this proposal is to
present EPA’s conclusions and rationale
with respect to the State’s January 12,
2006 submittal of amended visible
emissions and particulate matter rules
and requests for rescission of two
related rules from the applicable SIP.
2 Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA
section 110(c) in substitution of disapproved State
provisions are referred to as Federal
Implementation Plans.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:31 Mar 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
The technical support document (TSD)
that we prepared for this proposed
rulemaking provides additional detail
concerning these amended rules and
rescission requests and our evaluation
of them.
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the
regulations?
Under CAA section 110(k)(2), EPA is
obligated to take action on submittals by
States of SIPs and SIP revisions. CAA
section 110(k)(3) authorizes EPA to
approve or disapprove, in whole or in
severable part, such submittals.
EPA has reviewed the visible
emissions and particulate matter rules
and related rescission requests
submitted on January 12, 2006 by NDEP
for compliance with the CAA
requirements for SIPs in general set
forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40
CFR part 51 and also for compliance
with CAA requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and
193.3 Relevant EPA guidance and policy
documents that we used to help
evaluate enforceability include ‘‘Review
of State Implementation Plans and
Revisions for Enforceability and Legal
Sufficiency,’’ dated September 23, 1987,
from J. Craig Potter, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, et
al. As described below, EPA is
proposing approval of the submitted
visible emissions and particulate matter
rules and related rescission requests.
B. Do the regulations meet the
evaluation criteria?
We believe that all six of the
submitted rules evaluated herein (see
table 1, above) are consistent with the
relevant statutory and regulatory
provisions, as well as policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and
SIP relaxations and that proposed
approval of the six submitted rules
provides the basis to approve the
rescission requests for the two related
rules in the applicable SIP (see table 2,
above). A short discussion of our
rationale is provided in the following
paragraphs.
1. NAC 445B.22017 (Visible
emissions: Maximum opacity;
determination), NAC 445B.2202 (Visible
3 CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from
approving any SIP revision that would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA
section 193 prohibits modifications in control
requirements that were in effect before the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment
area unless the modification insures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of the nonattainment
pollutant.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions: Exceptions for stationary
sources), NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of
particulate matter: Maximum allowable
throughput for calculating emissions
rates), and NAC 445B.22037 (Emissions
of particulate matter: Fugitive dust).
Generally, these submitted rules retain
or enhance the requirements set forth in
the corresponding rules in the current
applicable SIP. Compared to the current
applicable SIP rules, the amended rules
include a different, but acceptable,
formulation defining the basic 20%
opacity standard and a lower (i.e., more
stringent) project-size exemption
threshold (from 20 acres to 5 acres) for
the requirement to implement a dust
control program and obtain a surface
area disturbance permit from NDEP.
The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal
contained multiple versions of the two
visible emissions rules, NAC
445B.22017 and 445B.2202, reflecting
the contingent effective dates adopted
by the State Environmental Commission
for amendments to these rules. The
amendments adopted by the
commission (but made effective at an
indefinite future date) removed an
exemption to the application of the
opacity limit that we otherwise would
have found unapprovable. In adopting
the amendments to the rules (and
associated contingent effective dates),
the State Environmental Commission
committed to publishing a notice when
the amendments (removing the
unapprovable exemption) become
effective. On April 1, 2006, the State
Environmental Commission issued such
a notice and thus the unobjectionable
(and approvable) versions of the two
visible emissions rules are now in effect
and form the basis for our proposed
action on these rules herein.
2. NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 (Opacity
from kilns). Based on our findings above
concerning the two visible emissions
rules, i.e., NAC 445B.22017 and NAC
445B.2202, we find retention of NAQR
Article 16.3.3.1 (Opacity from kilns) in
the SIP to be unnecessary and thus we
propose to approve NDEP’s request for
rescission of that rule.
3. NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of
particulate matter: Fuel-burning
equipment) and NAC 445B.22033
(Emissions of particulate matter:
Sources not otherwise limited). These
submitted rules contain the same basic
emissions limits and exemptions as the
corresponding current applicable SIP
rules, but the limits in the submitted
rules apply to ‘‘PM10’’ as opposed to
‘‘particulate matter.’’ ‘‘PM10’’ refers to
particles with diameters equal to or less
than a nominal 10 microns and is the
basis for a NAAQS, while ‘‘particulate
matter’’ (PM) refers more inclusively to
E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM
12MRP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
any material (except uncombined water)
that exists in a finely divided form as a
liquid or solid at reference conditions.
Thus, except for sources whose ‘‘PM’’
consists only of particles of a size that
are ‘‘PM10’’, simple replacement of
‘‘PM’’ with ‘‘PM10’’ without any
downward adjustment in the formula
that establishes the allowable emission
limit represents a relaxation in the limit
with respect to PM10 emissions.
Given the hypothetical nature of this
relaxation, we reviewed in detail the
permit conditions for four major sources
to determine whether the change from
PM to PM10 in the allowable limit
would in effect result in an increase in
PM10 emissions. Based on this review
and for a variety or reasons, we have
determined that no such increase would
occur. For certain emission units at
these sources, the PM emissions subject
to NAC 445.731 and/or 445.732 are
comprised entirely of particles that are
also PM10. For certain other emissions
units, the potentials to emit are less than
the allowable limits under either the
existing SIP rules NAC 445.731 and
445.732 or the submitted rules NAC
445B.2203 or 445B.22033. Lastly, other
emissions sources are subject to other
federally enforceable emission limits
(e.g., limits established under PSD
requirements or NSPS) that would be
unaffected by our action proposed
herein and that are more stringent, in
some cases by an order of magnitude,
than the allowable limits under either
the existing SIP rules or submitted rules.
Therefore, we have determined that
replacement of the existing SIP rules
NAC 445.731 and NAC 445.732 with
submitted rules NAC 445B.2203 and
NAC 445B.22033 would not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS for the purposes of CAA section
110(l).
Because submitted rules NAC
445B.2203 and 445B.22033 would apply
to a major stationary source (Sunrise
power plant) in the Las Vegas PM10
nonattainment area, we reviewed these
two submitted rules for compliance
with applicable nonattainment area
requirements in part D of title I of the
Act. Based on review of the EPAapproved PM10 attainment plan for Las
Vegas Valley, we have concluded that
neither NAC 445B.2203 nor 445B.22033
need be made more stringent at this
time to meet nonattainment planning
requirements although the rules may
need to be revised if we determined that
Las Vegas Valley has failed to meet the
2006 attainment date for the PM10
NAAQS. We also have concluded that
approval of NAC 445B.2203 and
445B.22033 would be consistent with
CAA section 193 because the Sunrise
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Mar 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
power plant normally runs on natural
gas and all of the PM generated using
natural gas is also PM10. The same is
true for the cooling tower at the Sunrise
power plant. Thus, approval of NAC
445B.2203 and 445B.22033 would not
result in an increase in PM10 emissions
which otherwise would have been
required to be offset by equivalent
emissions reductions to satisfy CAA
section 193.
4. NAC 445.535, Kilogram-calorie.
This rule is one of the current
applicable SIP rules for which NDEP
requested rescission in its January 12,
2006 SIP revision submittal. NAC
445.535 defines a measurement unit
used in current applicable SIP rule NAC
445.731, which would be superseded in
the applicable SIP if we finalize our
proposed approval of submitted rule
NAC 445B.2203. As such, we find that
retention of NAC 445.535 in the
applicable SIP is unnecessary, and as
such, we propose to approve NDEP’s
request for rescission of NAC 445.535
from the applicable SIP.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Regulations
In connection with NAC 445B.22017,
an amended rule for which we are
proposing approval herein, we note that
the term ‘‘6-minute period’’ is used [see
NAC 445B.22017(3)] and that the term
‘‘six-minute period’’ is specifically
defined in NAC 445B.172, a provision
that has not been submitted to EPA for
approval. Assuming that ‘‘6-minute
period’’ is intended to be the same as
‘‘six-minute period’’ as defined in NAC
445B.172, NDEP should submit NAC
445B.172 to EPA for approval into the
applicable SIP to assure correct and
consistent interpretation of NAC
445B.22017(3).
D. Proposed Action and Public
Comment
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the
Act and for the reasons set forth above,
EPA is proposing approval of the
following provisions submitted to EPA
on January 12, 2006:
• NAC 445B.22017 (Visible
emissions: Maximum opacity;
determination) (effective April 1, 2006),
• NAC 445B.2202 (Visible emissions:
Exceptions for stationary sources)
(effective April 1, 2006),
• NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of
particulate matter: Maximum allowable
throughput for calculating emissions
rates),
• NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of
particulate matter: Fuel-burning
equipment),
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10963
• NAC 445B.22033 (Emissions of
particulate matter: Sources not
otherwise limited), and
• NAC 445B.22037 (Emissions of
particulate matter: Fugitive dust).
Based on our proposed approval of
these submitted rules, we are also
proposing to approve the State’s request
to rescind NAQR Article 16.3.3.1
(Opacity from kilns) and NAC 445.535
(Kilogram-calorie). If finalized as
proposed, this action would incorporate
the six submitted rules into the
federally-enforceable SIP 4 and rescind
NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 and NAC
445.535 therefrom.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposed approval for the
next 30 days.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely proposes
to approve state rules as meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Because this rule proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
4 Final approval of these rules would supersede
the following rules in the applicable SIP
(superseding rule shown in parentheses) when
sources come into compliance with the new rule:
NAC 445.721 (NAC 445B.22017); NAQR Article 4.3,
4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 (NAC 445B.2202); NAC
445.731 (NAC 445B.2203), NAC 445.732 (NAC
445B.22033), and NAC 445.734 (NAC 445B.22037).
NAC 445.729 would not be superseded by the
corresponding submitted rule NAC 445B.22027
because the former is relied upon by certain SIP
rules (e.g., NAC 445.730) that are being retained in
the SIP.
E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM
12MRP1
10964
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve state rules
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7–4428 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Mar 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 5, 10, 12, 25
[FAR Case 2006–016; Docket 2007–0001;
Sequence 4]
RIN: 9000–AK70
Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR
Case 2006–016, Numbered Notes for
Synopses
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency
Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council
(Councils) are proposing to amend the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
update and clarify policy for synopses
of proposed contract actions and to
delete all references to Numbered Notes.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the FAR
Secretariat on or before May 11, 2007 to
be considered in the formulation of a
final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by FAR case 2006–016 by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for any
document by first selecting the proper
document types and selecting ‘‘Federal
Acquisition Regulation’’ as the agency
of choice. At the ‘‘Keyword’’ prompt,
type in the FAR case number (for
example, FAR Case 2006–001) and click
on the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Please include
any personal and/or business
information inside the document.You
may also search for any document by
clicking on the ‘‘Advanced search/
document search’’ tab at the top of the
screen, selecting from the agency field
‘‘Federal Acquisition Regulation’’, and
typing the FAR case number in the
keyword field. Select the ‘‘Submit’’
button.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035,
ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington,
DC 20405.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FAR case 2006–016 in all
correspondence related to this case. All
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst,
at (202) 501–3775 for clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755.
Please cite FAR case 2006–016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The use of Numbered Notes originally
provided a method to expedite
publicizing synopses in the Commerce
Business Daily (CBD). The data
transmission for this defunct
publication was cumbersome and timeconsuming. The use of Numbered Notes
simplified the inclusion of repetitive
information. In addition, use of these
Notes reduces the size of the publication
(and, therefore, the cost to publish and
distribute this hardcopy periodical.)
During the transition period from the
CBD periodical for publishing synopses
to the electronic postings of synopses on
the Federal Business Opportunities
(FedBizOpps) Web site, the Numbered
Notes were moved from the CBD to
FedBizOpps. At the same time, the
prescriptions for the Numbered Notes
were generally deleted from the FAR.
Electronic posting of synopses allows
contracting officers to easily insert text,
as needed. Electronic posting also
places the full text of synopses in easyto-read, stand-alone documents that
may be individually printed hardcopy
or saved as data files by interested
parties. This differs sharply from the
earlier CBD periodical which printed a
hardcopy of all synopses for a particular
day.
Since the prescriptions for the
Numbered Notes were deleted from the
FAR, the Numbered Notes have not
been maintained and many of the
Numbered Notes do not accurately
reflect current FAR requirements or
have been made obsolete by the
functionality of FedBizOpps. Also,
without prescriptions in the FAR,
contracting officers are not required to
use the Numbered Notes. The content of
each Numbered Note and a discussion
of the Note follows:
1. The proposed contract is 100
percent set-aside for small business
concerns.
Contracting officers identify set-asides
via a drop-down box in FedBizOpps.
Therefore, the Note is redundant.
2. A portion of the acquisition is setaside for small business concerns.
E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM
12MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10960-10964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4428]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0635; FRL-8286-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to
the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Visible Emissions and Particulate
Matter Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Nevada Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan. These revisions concern visible emissions and
particulate matter regulations. EPA is proposing this action under the
Clean Air Act obligation to take action on State submittals of
revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to
approve updated visible emissions and particulate matter rules in the
Nevada State Implementation Plan because doing so will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards or any other requirement of the Clean Air Act. EPA is taking
comments on this proposal and plans to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0635, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 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
[[Page 10961]]
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What regulations did the State submit?
B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?
C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA recommendations to further improve the regulations
D. Proposed action and public comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What regulations did the State submit?
The State of Nevada's Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a
large revision to the applicable Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP)
on January 12, 2006. The January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal
includes new and amended statutes and rules as well as requests for
rescission of certain rules in the existing SIP. The January 12, 2006
SIP revision submittal supersedes the regulatory portion of an earlier
submittal dated February 16, 2005.\1\ On March 26, 2006, we found that
the Nevada SIP submittal dated January 12, 2006 satisfied the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal also includes
documentation of public notice and hearing for certain new or
amended rules for which EPA is proposing approval. The January 12,
2006 SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the earlier
submittal in that it did not include this documentation. Our
consideration of the rules submitted on January 12, 2006 and
evaluated herein takes into account the public participation
documentation contained in the earlier submittal. Public
participation documentation for the rescission of NAC 445.535, also
evaluated herein, was also included in the February 16, 2005 SIP
submittal and is taken into account in this proposed action. NAC
445.535 (which had been recodified as NAC 445B.089) was repealed for
the purposes of State law by the Nevada State Environmental
Commission effective March 5, 1998. NDEP has also provided
documentation of public process for rescission of NAQR article
16.3.3.1 (re-codified as NAC 445.828), which was repealed by the
commission for purposes of State law effective October 15, 1985. CAA
section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing prior
to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent submittal to
EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary purpose of this SIP revision is to clarify and
harmonize the provisions approved by EPA into the applicable SIP with
the current provisions adopted by the State. Because this revision
incorporates so many changes from the 1970s and 1980s vintage SIP
regulations, EPA has decided to review and act on the submittal in a
series of separate actions. The first such action, related to various
definitions, sulfur emission rules, and restrictions on open burning
and use of incinerators, was proposed in the Federal Register on
September 13, 2005 (70 FR 53975) and finalized on March 27, 2006 (71 FR
15040). The second such action, related to statutory authority, was
proposed in the Federal Register on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413) and
finalized on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51766). A third action, related to
most of the State's requests for rescission, and fourth action, related
to monitoring and VOC rules, were proposed on August 28, 2006 (71 FR
50875) and August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51793), respectively, and finalized
on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 11) and December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71486),
respectively.
In today's notice, we are taking another step in the process of
acting on the State's January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal by
proposing action on the State's request for approval of six amended
rules related to visible emissions and particulate matter and for
rescission of two related rules. The remaining portions of the
submittal will be acted on in future Federal Register actions.
The following two tables list the provisions of the Nevada Air
Quality Regulations (NAQR) or Nevada Administrative Code (NAC)
addressed by this proposal. Table 1 list the amended rules submitted by
NDEP for approval into the SIP and addressed herein. If approved, the
submitted rules in table 1 would replace existing rules in the
applicable SIP.
Table 1.--Amended Rules Submitted for Approval Into the SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAC No. NAC Title Adopted Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
445B.22017............ Visible emissions: 10/04/05 01/12/06
Maximum opacity;
determination.
(Effective April 1,
2006.).
445B.2202............. Visible emissions: 10/04/05 01/12/06
Exceptions for
stationary sources.
(Effective April 1,
2006.).
445B.22027............ Emissions of 01/22/98 01/12/06
particulate matter:
Maximum allowable
throughput for
calculating emissions
rates.
445B.2203............. Emissions of 09/09/99 01/12/06
particulate matter:
Fuel-burning
equipment.
445B.22033............ Emissions of 01/22/98 01/12/06
particulate matter:
Sources not otherwise
limited.
445B.22037............ Emissions of 10/03/95 01/12/06
particulate matter:
Fugitive dust..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 lists two related rules in the existing SIP for which NDEP
has requested rescission. If we approve the rescission requests, the
two rules listed in table 2 would be deleted from the applicable SIP.
Table 2.--Related SIP Rules for Which the State Has Requested Rescission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submittal Approval
SIP provision Title date date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAQR Article 16.3.3.1........ Opacity from 12/29/78 06/18/82
kilns.
NAC 445.535.................. Kilogram- 10/26/82 03/27/84
calorie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10962]]
B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?
In January 1972, pursuant to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the
Governor of Nevada submitted the original Nevada SIP to EPA. EPA
approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other
portions under section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). See 37
FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). For some of the disapproved portions of the
original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions under CAA section
110(c).\2\ This original SIP included various rules, codified as
articles within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various
statutory provisions codified in chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised
Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980's, Nevada reorganized and re-codified
its air quality rules into sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality
regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality
statutes in chapter 445B (``Air Pollution'') of title 40 (``Public
Health and Safety'') of the NRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA section 110(c) in
substitution of disapproved State provisions are referred to as
Federal Implementation Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada adopted and submitted many revisions to the original set of
regulations and statutes in the SIP, some of which EPA approved on
February 6, 1975 at 40 FR 5508; on March 26, 1975 at 40 FR 13306; on
January 9, 1978 at 43 FR 1341; on January 24, 1978 at 43 FR 3278; on
August 21, 1978 at 43 FR 36932; on July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46384; on
April 14, 1981 at 46 FR 21758; on August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43141; on
March 8, 1982 at 47 FR 9833; on April 13, 1982 at 47 FR 15790; on June
18, 1982 at 47 FR 26386; on June 23, 1982 at 47 FR 27070; on March 27,
1984 at 49 FR 11626. Since 1984, EPA has approved very few revisions to
Nevada's applicable SIP despite numerous changes that have been adopted
by the State Environmental Commission. As a result, the version of the
rules enforceable by NDEP is often quite different from the SIP version
enforceable by EPA.
C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
The purpose of this proposal is to present EPA's conclusions and
rationale with respect to the State's January 12, 2006 submittal of
amended visible emissions and particulate matter rules and requests for
rescission of two related rules from the applicable SIP. The technical
support document (TSD) that we prepared for this proposed rulemaking
provides additional detail concerning these amended rules and
rescission requests and our evaluation of them.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
Under CAA section 110(k)(2), EPA is obligated to take action on
submittals by States of SIPs and SIP revisions. CAA section 110(k)(3)
authorizes EPA to approve or disapprove, in whole or in severable part,
such submittals.
EPA has reviewed the visible emissions and particulate matter rules
and related rescission requests submitted on January 12, 2006 by NDEP
for compliance with the CAA requirements for SIPs in general set forth
in CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51 and also for compliance
with CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and
193.\3\ Relevant EPA guidance and policy documents that we used to help
evaluate enforceability include ``Review of State Implementation Plans
and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' dated
September 23, 1987, from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, et al. As described below, EPA is proposing approval
of the submitted visible emissions and particulate matter rules and
related rescission requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 193 prohibits
modifications in control requirements that were in effect before the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area unless
the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions
of the nonattainment pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe that all six of the submitted rules evaluated herein
(see table 1, above) are consistent with the relevant statutory and
regulatory provisions, as well as policy and guidance regarding
enforceability and SIP relaxations and that proposed approval of the
six submitted rules provides the basis to approve the rescission
requests for the two related rules in the applicable SIP (see table 2,
above). A short discussion of our rationale is provided in the
following paragraphs.
1. NAC 445B.22017 (Visible emissions: Maximum opacity;
determination), NAC 445B.2202 (Visible emissions: Exceptions for
stationary sources), NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of particulate matter:
Maximum allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates), and NAC
445B.22037 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive dust). Generally,
these submitted rules retain or enhance the requirements set forth in
the corresponding rules in the current applicable SIP. Compared to the
current applicable SIP rules, the amended rules include a different,
but acceptable, formulation defining the basic 20% opacity standard and
a lower (i.e., more stringent) project-size exemption threshold (from
20 acres to 5 acres) for the requirement to implement a dust control
program and obtain a surface area disturbance permit from NDEP.
The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal contained multiple versions of
the two visible emissions rules, NAC 445B.22017 and 445B.2202,
reflecting the contingent effective dates adopted by the State
Environmental Commission for amendments to these rules. The amendments
adopted by the commission (but made effective at an indefinite future
date) removed an exemption to the application of the opacity limit that
we otherwise would have found unapprovable. In adopting the amendments
to the rules (and associated contingent effective dates), the State
Environmental Commission committed to publishing a notice when the
amendments (removing the unapprovable exemption) become effective. On
April 1, 2006, the State Environmental Commission issued such a notice
and thus the unobjectionable (and approvable) versions of the two
visible emissions rules are now in effect and form the basis for our
proposed action on these rules herein.
2. NAQR Article 16.3.3.1 (Opacity from kilns). Based on our
findings above concerning the two visible emissions rules, i.e., NAC
445B.22017 and NAC 445B.2202, we find retention of NAQR Article
16.3.3.1 (Opacity from kilns) in the SIP to be unnecessary and thus we
propose to approve NDEP's request for rescission of that rule.
3. NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-burning
equipment) and NAC 445B.22033 (Emissions of particulate matter: Sources
not otherwise limited). These submitted rules contain the same basic
emissions limits and exemptions as the corresponding current applicable
SIP rules, but the limits in the submitted rules apply to
``PM10'' as opposed to ``particulate matter.''
``PM10'' refers to particles with diameters equal to or less
than a nominal 10 microns and is the basis for a NAAQS, while
``particulate matter'' (PM) refers more inclusively to
[[Page 10963]]
any material (except uncombined water) that exists in a finely divided
form as a liquid or solid at reference conditions. Thus, except for
sources whose ``PM'' consists only of particles of a size that are
``PM10'', simple replacement of ``PM'' with
``PM10'' without any downward adjustment in the formula that
establishes the allowable emission limit represents a relaxation in the
limit with respect to PM10 emissions.
Given the hypothetical nature of this relaxation, we reviewed in
detail the permit conditions for four major sources to determine
whether the change from PM to PM10 in the allowable limit
would in effect result in an increase in PM10 emissions. Based on this
review and for a variety or reasons, we have determined that no such
increase would occur. For certain emission units at these sources, the
PM emissions subject to NAC 445.731 and/or 445.732 are comprised
entirely of particles that are also PM10. For certain other
emissions units, the potentials to emit are less than the allowable
limits under either the existing SIP rules NAC 445.731 and 445.732 or
the submitted rules NAC 445B.2203 or 445B.22033. Lastly, other
emissions sources are subject to other federally enforceable emission
limits (e.g., limits established under PSD requirements or NSPS) that
would be unaffected by our action proposed herein and that are more
stringent, in some cases by an order of magnitude, than the allowable
limits under either the existing SIP rules or submitted rules.
Therefore, we have determined that replacement of the existing SIP
rules NAC 445.731 and NAC 445.732 with submitted rules NAC 445B.2203
and NAC 445B.22033 would not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS for the purposes of CAA section 110(l).
Because submitted rules NAC 445B.2203 and 445B.22033 would apply to
a major stationary source (Sunrise power plant) in the Las Vegas
PM10 nonattainment area, we reviewed these two submitted
rules for compliance with applicable nonattainment area requirements in
part D of title I of the Act. Based on review of the EPA-approved
PM10 attainment plan for Las Vegas Valley, we have concluded
that neither NAC 445B.2203 nor 445B.22033 need be made more stringent
at this time to meet nonattainment planning requirements although the
rules may need to be revised if we determined that Las Vegas Valley has
failed to meet the 2006 attainment date for the PM10 NAAQS.
We also have concluded that approval of NAC 445B.2203 and 445B.22033
would be consistent with CAA section 193 because the Sunrise power
plant normally runs on natural gas and all of the PM generated using
natural gas is also PM10. The same is true for the cooling
tower at the Sunrise power plant. Thus, approval of NAC 445B.2203 and
445B.22033 would not result in an increase in PM10 emissions
which otherwise would have been required to be offset by equivalent
emissions reductions to satisfy CAA section 193.
4. NAC 445.535, Kilogram-calorie. This rule is one of the current
applicable SIP rules for which NDEP requested rescission in its January
12, 2006 SIP revision submittal. NAC 445.535 defines a measurement unit
used in current applicable SIP rule NAC 445.731, which would be
superseded in the applicable SIP if we finalize our proposed approval
of submitted rule NAC 445B.2203. As such, we find that retention of NAC
445.535 in the applicable SIP is unnecessary, and as such, we propose
to approve NDEP's request for rescission of NAC 445.535 from the
applicable SIP.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Regulations
In connection with NAC 445B.22017, an amended rule for which we are
proposing approval herein, we note that the term ``6-minute period'' is
used [see NAC 445B.22017(3)] and that the term ``six-minute period'' is
specifically defined in NAC 445B.172, a provision that has not been
submitted to EPA for approval. Assuming that ``6-minute period'' is
intended to be the same as ``six-minute period'' as defined in NAC
445B.172, NDEP should submit NAC 445B.172 to EPA for approval into the
applicable SIP to assure correct and consistent interpretation of NAC
445B.22017(3).
D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing approval of the following provisions
submitted to EPA on January 12, 2006:
NAC 445B.22017 (Visible emissions: Maximum opacity;
determination) (effective April 1, 2006),
NAC 445B.2202 (Visible emissions: Exceptions for
stationary sources) (effective April 1, 2006),
NAC 445B.22027 (Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum
allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates),
NAC 445B.2203 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-
burning equipment),
NAC 445B.22033 (Emissions of particulate matter: Sources
not otherwise limited), and
NAC 445B.22037 (Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive
dust).
Based on our proposed approval of these submitted rules, we are
also proposing to approve the State's request to rescind NAQR Article
16.3.3.1 (Opacity from kilns) and NAC 445.535 (Kilogram-calorie). If
finalized as proposed, this action would incorporate the six submitted
rules into the federally-enforceable SIP \4\ and rescind NAQR Article
16.3.3.1 and NAC 445.535 therefrom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Final approval of these rules would supersede the following
rules in the applicable SIP (superseding rule shown in parentheses)
when sources come into compliance with the new rule: NAC 445.721
(NAC 445B.22017); NAQR Article 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.5
(NAC 445B.2202); NAC 445.731 (NAC 445B.2203), NAC 445.732 (NAC
445B.22033), and NAC 445.734 (NAC 445B.22037). NAC 445.729 would not
be superseded by the corresponding submitted rule NAC 445B.22027
because the former is relied upon by certain SIP rules (e.g., NAC
445.730) that are being retained in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will accept comments from the public on this proposed approval
for the next 30 days.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely proposes to approve state rules as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
[[Page 10964]]
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely proposes to approve state rules implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-4428 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
