Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter, 64737-64748 [2012-25558]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
64737
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS
State effective
date
State citation
Title/subject
*
33–15–15–01.2 ..........
*
*
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of
Air Quality, Scope.
*
*
*
*
10/27/10
EPA approval date and citation 1
Explanations
*
*
[9/27/12, Insert Federal Register page
number where the document begins.]
*
........................
*
*
*
*
1 In
order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–25667 Filed 10–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047; FRL–9739–8]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Nevada;
Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone
and Fine Particulate Matter
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
Rory
Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, (415) 972–3227,
mays.rory@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
EPA is approving in part and
disapproving in part State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the state of Nevada
pursuant to the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 and
2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). The CAA requires that each
State adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA, and requires
EPA to act on such SIPs. Nevada has
met most of the applicable
requirements. Where EPA is
disapproving, in part, Nevada’s SIP
revisions, the majority of the
deficiencies have been already been
addressed by a federal implementation
plan (FIP). For one remaining
deficiency, this final rule sets a two-year
deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP,
unless EPA approves an adequate SIP
revision prior to that time. EPA remains
committed to working with Nevada’s
environmental agencies to develop such
a SIP revision.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on November 23, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action, identified by
SUMMARY:
Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR–
2011–0047. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://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., confidential
business information (CBI)). To inspect
the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed directly
below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA’s Response to Comments
III. Final Action
A. Summary of Approvals
B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and
Other Materials
C. Summary of Disapprovals
D. Consequences of Disapprovals
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
each state to submit to EPA, within
three years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after
the promulgation of a primary or
secondary NAAQS or any revision
thereof, a SIP that provides for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. EPA
refers to these specific submissions as
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are
intended to address basic structural SIP
requirements for new or revised
NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a
revised NAAQS for ozone 1 and a new
NAAQS for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently revised the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September
21, 2006.3 Each of these actions
triggered a requirement for states to
submit an infrastructure SIP to address
the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years of issuance
of the new or revised NAAQS.
On August 3, 2012 (77 FR 46361),
EPA proposed to approve in part and
disapprove in part several SIP revisions
and one proposed SIP revision
submitted by Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP) to
address the infrastructure requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. NDEP’s submittals include SIP
revisions submitted to EPA on February
1, 2008 (‘‘2008 Ozone Submittal’’),
February 26, 2008 (‘‘2008 PM2.5
Submittal’’), September 15, 2009 (‘‘2009
PM2.5 Submittal’’), and December 4,
2009 (‘‘2009 PM2.5 Supplement’’), and a
proposed SIP revision submitted on July
5, 2012. The proposed SIP revision
served as a supplement to the prior four
infrastructure SIP revisions and was
submitted under the parallel processing
mechanism provided by 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix V, Section 2.3. The final
version of the July 5, 2012 proposed SIP
revision was adopted on August 30,
2012 and submitted to EPA on the same
day (‘‘2012 Submittal’’).
We are taking final action on all five
submittals since they collectively
1 The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of
the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856).
2 The annual PM
2.5 standard was set at 15
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the
3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5
concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard
was set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations
at each population-oriented monitor within an area
(62 FR 38652).
3 The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 was published in
the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR
61144).
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
64738
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
address the applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We refer
to them collectively herein as ‘‘Nevada’s
Infrastructure SIP Submittals.’’
The rationale supporting EPA’s
action, including the scope of
infrastructure SIPs in general, is
explained in our August 3, 2012 Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule)
and the three associated technical
support documents (TSDs) 4 and will
not be restated here. The proposed rule
and TSDs are available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number
EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047.
II. EPA’s Response to Comments
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
The public comment period on EPA’s
proposed rule opened on August 3,
2012, the date of its publication in the
Federal Register, and closed on
September 4, 2012. During this period,
EPA received two comment letters: one
from NDEP on September 4, 2012
(herein ‘‘NDEP’s comment(s)’’); and one
from Washoe County Health District Air
Quality Management Division (WCHD–
AQMD) on September 4, 2012 (herein
‘‘Washoe County’s comment(s)’’). Both
letters are available in the docket to
today’s final rule.5
NDEP’s comment letter numbers its
comments 1 through 9. NDEP comment
numbers 1 through 3 support various
aspects of EPA’s proposed rule, while
numbers 4 through 9 request
clarification on several points. Washoe
County’s comment letter generally
supports EPA’s proposed rule with two
exceptions, which it numbers 1 and 2,
and requests that EPA make a
clarification on one additional point.
We appreciate NDEP and Washoe
County’s comments in support for our
proposed rule and respond to their
comments regarding requested
clarifications and corrections below.
Note that we have grouped comments
from NDEP and Washoe County that are
4 The three TSDs are as follows: (1) ‘‘Technical
Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada
Provisions for 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Sections 110(a)(2)(A) thru (C) Sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (D)(ii), Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
and (E)(iii), Sections 110(a)(2)(F) thru (M),’’ July
2012 (‘‘Overarching TSD’’); (2) ‘‘Technical Support
Document for EPA’s Proposed Action on the 2009
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (Transport
Portion) for the State of Nevada,’’ July 2012 (‘‘2006
PM2.5 Transport TSD’’, or ‘‘Transport TSD’’); and (3)
‘‘Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of
Nevada Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/
Section 128 Conflict of Interest Requirements,’’ July
2012 (‘‘Section 128 TSD’’).
5 See document numbers EPA–R09–OAR–2011–
0047–0135 (NDEP’s comment letter) and EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0047–0136 (Washoe County’s comment
letter) at www.regulations.gov under docket ID
number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
similar in content into single comments
and responses.
Comment #1:
NDEP’s comment number 4 and
Washoe County comment number 1
note that EPA proposes to disapprove
the portion of the SIP related to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permit programs for NDEP and
Washoe County because the programs
do not completely satisfy the statutory
and regulatory requirements for PSD
permit programs. NDEP and WCHD–
AQMD also note, however, that EPA
recognizes that the deficiencies related
to the PSD programs are adequately
addressed by the existing federal
implementation plan (FIP), for which
EPA has delegated enforcement
authority to NDEP and Washoe County.
Moreover, NDEP argues that the
provisions of 40 CFR 52.1485(b), which
codify the PSD FIP by incorporating
EPA’s PSD provisions in the Nevada
SIP, make EPA’s PSD FIP a part of the
SIP, with the exception of the portion
applicable to Clark County. As such,
NDEP and WCHD–AQMD believe that
the elements of the Nevada SIP related
to PSD programs under their
jurisdictions should be approved.
Response #1:
The CAA requires each State to adopt
and submit a plan which provides for
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. See CAA
section 110(a)(1). CAA section 110(a)(2)
sets forth the content requirements for
such plans, including the requirement
for a permit program as required in part
C (‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality,’’ or ‘‘PSD’’)
of title I of the CAA. Such plans are
referred to as state implementation
plans or SIPs.
EPA’s authority to promulgate a FIP
derives from EPA’s determination that a
State has failed to submit a complete,
required SIP submission or from EPA’s
disapproval of a State submission of a
SIP or SIP revision. See CAA section
110(c)(1). The SIP, viewed broadly, thus
includes both portions of the plan
submitted by the State and approved by
EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by
EPA to substitute for a State plan
disapproved by EPA or not submitted by
a State. See 40 CFR 52.02(b).
In 1974, EPA disapproved each state’s
SIP with respect to PSD and
promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the
SIP deficiency (‘‘PSD FIP’’). See 39 FR
42510 (December 5, 1974). In 1975, EPA
codified the PSD FIP in each state’s
subpart in 40 CFR part 52. See 40 FR
25004 (June 12, 1975)(adding 40 CFR
52.1485 to Subpart DD—Nevada). In
1978 and 1980, EPA amended the PSD
regulations following the Clean Air Act
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Amendments of 1977 and related court
decisions and amended the codification
of the PSD FIP in each state’s subpart,
including 40 CFR 52.1485, accordingly.
See 43 FR 26380 (June 19, 1978) and 45
FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). Since then,
EPA has approved the PSD SIP for the
sources and geographic area that lie
within the jurisdiction of Clark County
Department of Air Quality, and has
delegated responsibility for conducting
PSD review, as per the PSD FIP, to
NDEP and the Washoe County District
Health Department. Notwithstanding
the delegation, however, the Nevada SIP
remains deficient with respect to PSD
for the geographic areas and stationary
sources that lie within NDEP’s and
Washoe County District Health
Department’s jurisdictions. As such,
EPA’s disapproval of the infrastructure
SIP submittals for those elements that
require states to have a SIP that includes
a PSD permit program, including CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
(J), and (K), is appropriate because EPA
disapproved the State’s submitted plan
as not adequately addressing PSD
program requirements. To conclude
otherwise would be inconsistent with
the long-standing and current
disapproval of the SIP for PSD for the
applicable areas, with the statutory
foundation upon which the PSD FIP is
authorized, and with the obligation
under section 110(a) for each State to
adopt and submit a plan for
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS that
includes a PSD program. EPA’s
delegation of the PSD FIP is not the
same as State adoption and submittal of
state or district rules meeting PSD
requirements and EPA’s approval
thereof.
Comment #2:
NDEP’s comment number 6 and
Washoe County comment number 2
state that NDEP and Washoe County
Health District AQMD ‘‘[do] not believe
that the PSD program as it relates to
greenhouse gases renders this SIP
deficient with respect to ozone and
PM2.5’’ and request that EPA explain
why greenhouse gas (GHG) provisions
are ‘‘essential to enforcing the PM2.5
NAAQS.’’ Both comments refer to pages
10, 42, and 43 of EPA’s Overarching
TSD for EPA’s proposed rule.
Response #2:
The PSD requirements for the
regulation of greenhouse gases are
relevant to our evaluation of SIPs
submitted with respect to the ozone and
PM2.5 (or any) NAAQS because those
PSD requirements apply on a source-bysource basis for all federally regulated
pollutants emitted by that source that
meet the PSD applicability thresholds,
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
rather than applying on a pollutant-bypollutant basis. For example, the CAA
specifies that a new source that triggers
PSD because of its emissions of ozone
precursors or PM2.5 is also subject to
PSD for any other federally regulated
pollutant that it emits above the
applicable significance levels and for
GHGs, if it emits those pollutants above
the thresholds established by the GHG
Tailoring Rule.6 Accordingly, for the
Nevada Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS to be fully approvable, the
Nevada SIP must include the
appropriate PSD requirements for all
other federally regulated pollutants,
including GHGs. Because Nevada’s
Infrastructure SIPs fail to include those
requirements for GHGs with respect to
the NDEP and Washoe County portions
of the SIP, the EPA must partially
disapprove these SIP submittals.
Consistent with our proposal, however,
we reiterate that ‘‘[a]lthough the Nevada
SIP remains deficient with respect to
PSD requirements in both the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of the SIP,
these deficiencies are adequately
addressed in both areas by the Federal
PSD program.’’ See 77 FR 46361 at
46367.
Comment #3:
NDEP’s comment number 5 states that
‘‘EPA proposes to partially disapprove
the NDEP’s submittal [with respect to
the ‘good neighbor’ requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)], stating
that it is not relevant, and to partially
approve the submittal based on EPA’s
independent evaluation of Nevada’s
impact on receptor states.’’ NDEP stated
its belief that ‘‘it would be simpler not
to do a partial disapproval based on
information that EPA deemed
immaterial to its decision-making, but
rather to fully approve the SIP based on
EPA’s own data analysis demonstrating
a lack of impacts on receptor states.’’
Response #3:
We disagree. EPA proposed to
partially disapprove Nevada’s 2009
PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5
Supplement with respect to the ‘‘good
neighbor’’ requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because the State’s
6 The full title of the GHG Tailoring Rule is
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ For
further explanation of the GHG PSD permitting
requirements, see the GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR
31514 (June 3, 2010); ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority
To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy and SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 77698
(December 13, 2010); ‘‘Limitation of Approval of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Sources in
State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
submission ‘‘relies on irrelevant factors
and lacks any technical analysis to
support the State’s conclusion with
respect to interstate transport.’’ See 77
FR 46361 at 46368. We also proposed to
partially approve the submission,
however, based on EPA’s supplemental
evaluation of relevant technical
information, which supports a finding
that emissions from Nevada do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state and that the
existing Nevada SIP is, therefore,
adequate to meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. Our
proposal to partially approve and
partially disapprove the submission was
based not on information that ‘‘EPA
deemed immaterial to its decisionmaking,’’ but rather on information
submitted by the State in the form of a
SIP submission which we found
inadequate to satisfy the applicable
CAA requirements.
Specifically, as discussed in the
Transport TSD for this proposal,
Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal and
2009 PM2.5 Supplement (collectively the
‘‘2009 SIP Submittals’’) appear to
conclude that the existing Nevada SIP
satisfies the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, among other
requirements of CAA section 110(a). See
Transport TSD at 1. The only support
provided for this conclusion in the 2009
SIP Submittals is a reference to EPA’s
previous approval of Nevada’s CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate
transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 72 FR 41629
(July 31, 2007). See Transport TSD at 1,
2. The 2009 SIP Submittals contains no
technical analysis of potential interstate
transport or any other support for the
State’s conclusion that the existing
Nevada SIP satisfies the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id.
Moreover, Nevada submitted nothing to
address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Clark County. See
id. at footnote 1.
As explained in the Transport TSD,
EPA does not agree with NDEP’s
suggestion or conclusion in the 2009 SIP
Submittals that EPA’s previous approval
of Nevada’s section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
interstate transport SIP for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 p.m.2.5
NAAQS could support, in any way, the
conclusion that the SIP adequately
addresses the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id. at 2. The
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
64739
cited 2007 rulemaking addressed CAA
requirements for different NAAQS and
thus could not support a conclusion that
the requirements have been met with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See id.
Given the absence of any technical
demonstration in the State’s submission
showing that Nevada emission sources
do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state, we cannot
fully approve the 2009 SIP Submittals as
satisfying the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are, however,
partially approving the 2009 SIP
Submittals based on EPA’s independent
review of relevant technical
information, which supports the State’s
conclusion that Nevada emission
sources do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state and that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
therefore does not require additional
controls in Nevada to prohibit such
impacts.
Comment and Response #4:
NDEP comment number 8
recommends several corrections and
clarifications to the text of our Transport
TSD. We respond to each sub-comment
following separate comment summaries
below.
First, citing pages 7 and 11 of our
Transport TSD, NDEP states that ‘‘EPA
has characterized Idaho as more distant
from Nevada than Utah, Oregon and
California’’ but notes that Nevada and
Idaho share a border.
We agree that our Transport TSD
could have better characterized the
location of Idaho relative to Nevada and
the distance from Nevada to
nonattainment receptors in Idaho
relative to those in ‘‘other western
states’’ (i.e., Washington and Montana,
see pages 7 and 11 of our Transport
TSD). EPA discussed the nonattainment
receptor in Idaho as part of its
discussion of ‘‘other western states with
nonattainment receptors located farther
away’’ because the receptor in Shoshone
County, Idaho (Pinehurst), located in
northern Idaho, is more distant from
Nevada compared to the receptors
located in Utah, Oregon, and California.
But NDEP correctly notes that like Utah,
Oregon, and California, Idaho shares a
border with Nevada.
Second, citing page 16 of the
Transport TSD, NDEP encourages EPA
to expressly state that ‘‘EPA’s analysis
shows no significant contribution by
Nevada to nonattainment in the
Southern California area.’’
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64740
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
In Section IV.B.3. of our Transport
TSD (see pages 15–16), regarding
nonattainment receptors in California,
for four of the five areas discussed we
stated that ‘‘we believe it is reasonable
to conclude that emissions from Nevada
sources do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at these receptor
locations.’’ We inadvertently did not
make such a statement for the Southern
California—Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino area. In response to this
comment, we are clarifying our
conclusion that emissions from Nevada
sources do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at the Southern
California—Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino nonattainment receptor
locations.
Third, citing pages 20–22 of the
Transport TSD, NDEP states that ‘‘EPA
reaches a conclusion that Nevada
emissions do not interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS
in California (Section V.B.1.) or Utah
(Section V.B.3.); however, no
conclusion is stated for Arizona (Section
V.B.2).’’ NDEP believes a similar
conclusion was implied and encourages
EPA to state as much for Arizona.
We agree and are clarifying our
conclusion that emissions from Nevada
sources do not interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS at the Arizona maintenance
receptor locations discussed in Section
V.B.2 (page 21) of the Transport TSD.
Fourth, NDEP asserts that EPA’s
discussion on pages 20–22 of the
Transport TSD ‘‘appears to talk about
nonattainment areas rather than
maintenance areas’’ while ‘‘Table III.A.1
lists Arizona as having two maintenance
areas for PM2.5 and no nonattainment
areas.’’ NDEP perceives a discrepancy
therein.
It appears NDEP has misunderstood a
distinction that EPA is making between
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
and nonattainment or maintenance
areas. Table III.A.1 lists the
nonattainment and maintenance
‘‘receptors’’ located in western counties,
which EPA selected based on the
criteria discussed in Section III.A
(‘‘Discussion of Nonattainment and
Maintenance Receptor Selection
Methodology’’). These criteria for
selection of nonattainment and
maintenance ‘‘receptors’’ are not related
to the criteria for designation of
nonattainment areas under CAA section
107 or for approval of maintenance
plans under CAA section 175A. Thus, it
is possible to have maintenance
‘‘receptors’’ in areas that have been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
designated as nonattainment areas, as in
Arizona and Utah.
Fifth, NDEP states that ‘‘Table III.A.1
lists Utah as having no maintenance
areas, so the NDEP is uncertain why
Utah is discussed in section V of this
Appendix’’ and that ‘‘[t]he discussion of
nonattainment areas in Utah (Section
IV.B.1.) appears to be repeated in
Section V.B.3 for maintenance
receptors.’’ NDEP perceives a
discrepancy therein.
We disagree that Table III.A.1 (‘‘List of
Western Counties with Daily PM2.5
Nonattainment or Maintenance
Receptors’’, page 8) lists Utah as having
no maintenance areas. The last three
rows for Utah in this table include an
asterisk in the Receptor Type column.
The asterisk is defined below the table
as follows: ‘‘This county contains both
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. See Appendix A for more
details.’’ Appendix A (‘‘List of
Nonattainment and Maintenance
Receptors for 2006–2010’’), in turn, lists
all of the individual receptors that were
summarized by county in Table III.A.1.
There is one maintenance receptor in
each of Utah and Weber counties,
Utah—hence our discussion of Utah in
Section V (‘‘Transport Assessment for
Maintenance Receptors’’). The
discussion of nonattainment receptors
in Utah (Section IV.B.1.) is similar to the
discussion in Section V.B.3 for
maintenance receptors in Utah because
the receptors are near to each other and
the potential for transport from Nevada
for each is similar.
Comment #5:
NDEP comment number 7 addresses
EPA’s statements in the Overarching
TSD (pages 11–13) regarding certain
provisions that are part of the Nevada
SIP, but have been repealed or replaced
in the Nevada Administrative Code
(NAC). NDEP highlights that such
regulations ‘‘have not been rescinded
from the Nevada SIP, and EPA considers
them to be federally enforceable’’ and
suggests that a more accurate
characterization would be to say that
such provisions ‘‘have been repealed or
replaced in the NAC, but not in the
SIP.’’
Response #5:
It is true that the regulations cited in
pages 11–13 of our Overarching TSD
having parenthetical notes about
replacement or repeal can be accurately
characterized as having been repealed or
replaced in the NAC (i.e., at the state
level), but remaining in the Nevada SIP
(i.e., the set of federally enforceable
provisions with respect to Nevada air
quality). In part, our intent was to
clarify the status of these provisions so
that the public could more readily
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
understand which provisions are in
effect and to identify certain provisions
that, as repealed or replaced (but not
revised in the SIP), did not provide
support for how Nevada meets the
section 110(a)(2)(C) requirement that
each SIP ‘‘include a program to provide
for the enforcement of the measures
described in [section 110(a)(2)(A)].’’
However, the broader meaning of
such clarifications and identifications
relates to CAA section 110(a)(1), which
requires the state to adopt and submit ‘‘a
plan which provides for
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of the relevant NAAQS
(i.e., the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, in this case). On its
face, if Nevada has repealed or replaced
certain Nevada Administrative Codes,
we would understand this to mean that
NDEP is not in fact implementing such
regulations as part of a plan to
implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS. In other words, infrastructure
SIPs are not merely a measure of what
is federally enforceable under a state’s
SIP; they are a collection of the
provisions and plans that the state
actively employs to implement the
NAAQS.
Our Overarching TSD discussed three
provisions in particular wherein we
noted that ‘‘it is not clear how Nevada
intended that these regulations support
the enforcement of the emission
limitation regulations.’’ See Overarching
TSD at page 13. We reiterate our
statement from that same page,
however, that ‘‘[n]otwithstanding these
three provisions, on the basis of the
statutory and regulatory provisions,
which have been approved into the SIP,
we find that Nevada has an adequate
program for enforcement of its
provisions for emission limits at the
state level.’’
Comment and Response #6:
NDEP comment number 9
recommends several corrections and
clarifications to the text of our
Overarching TSD. We respond to each
sub-comment following separate
comment summaries below.
First, NDEP notes that on page 6,
footnote 9, the second sentence should
read, ‘‘Adele Malone, Supervisor,
Planning and Modeling Branch,
* * * .’’ We thank NDEP for its
clarification regarding the Branch title,
which we had listed as ‘‘Air Planning
Branch’’ in footnote 9 of the
Overarching TSD.
Second, NDEP notes that on page 11
EPA listed Nevada Air Quality
Regulation (NAQR) Article 16.3.3.2 and
16.3.3.3 as having been cited in support
of CAA 110(a)(2)(C), and requests EPA
to remove it from the list of submitted
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
regulations. We agree that Articles
16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 were not cited in
Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals
for section 110(a)(2)(C); our inclusion of
these provisions in the list of
regulations with respect to 110(a)(2)(C)
was an inadvertent addition.
To clarify further, Nevada’s 2008
Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal,
and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal each cited
Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 listed for
section 110(a)(2)(A). See Enclosure 1,
page 1 of each of these submittals. Given
that these regulations pertain to opacity
emission limits for kilns and related
clinker coolers, they are appropriate for
purposes of addressing the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A), as referenced by
these submittals and discussed in our
Overarching TSD.
Third, NDEP notes a contradiction in
the last sentence of the first full
paragraph of page 43 regarding the PSD
portion of the section 110(a)(2)(J)
requirements and Clark County. We
agree that this sentence contradicts our
other stated conclusions regarding Clark
County’s PSD program and the PSD
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J). We hereby clarify that our
intended statement, as noted in the
conclusion paragraph of that same page,
was that ‘‘the Clark County portion of
the Nevada SIP meets the PSD-related
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J),
contingent upon final approval of the
proposed SIP revisions [for permitting
new or modified stationary sources in
Clark County].’’ Furthermore, based on
our final approval of those Clark County
SIP revisions,7 we are finalizing our
approval of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
Clark County portion of the SIP.
Fourth, NDEP believes that EPA had
intended to reference NAQR Article
13.3.1.2(b) on page 45, rather than
Article 13.4.1.2(b), and that the latter is
not in the applicable Nevada SIP. NDEP
also refers to 77 FR 14862. We referred
to Article 13.4.1.2(b) with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K)
because it was included in Enclosure 2
of Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008
p.m.2.5 Submittal, and 2009 p.m.2.5
Submittal and contains requirements for
diffusion models for the permitting
review of new sources. However, NDEP
is correct that Article 13.4.1.2(b) is not
in the Nevada SIP. Rather, Article
13.3.1.2(b), which is part of the Nevada
SIP and contains requirements for
diffusion modeling, relates most closely
to the air quality modeling requirements
7 We have placed a copy of the signed, prepublication version of the final rule approving the
Clark County SIP revisions in the docket for this
rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
of section 110(a)(2)(K). See 77 FR 14682
at 14872.
Fifth, NDEP notes that Footnote 19
states that ‘‘ * * * NDEP repealed NAC
445.694 and did not submit a
replacement for inclusion in the SIP.’’
NDEP states that this footnote was
inaccurate since the authority to repeal
a state regulation lies with the Nevada
State Environmental Commission. We
thank NDEP for its clarification.
Footnote 19 of the Overarching TSD
should have made clear that the State
Environmental Commission is the body
authorized under state law to adopt
regulations to prevent, abate and control
air pollution (NRS 445B.210), the
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources is designated as the air
pollution control agency for the State of
Nevada for the purposes of the CAA
(NRS 445B.205), and the Administrator
of NDEP is the official designee of the
Director of the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources for
the purposes of the CAA, including, but
not limited to, adoption, revision, and
submittal of SIPs to EPA.
Comment #7:
Washoe County notes a ‘‘minor
correction/clarification that should be
made’’ in EPA’s Section 128 TSD on
pages 4 and 7. Washoe County identifies
the District Health Officer of the Washoe
County Health District, or his designee,
as the Control Officer, pursuant to
Washoe County Air Quality Regulation
(AQR) 010.042, rather than the AQMD
Director, as stated in EPA’s Section 128
TSD. The comment further states that
the AQMD Director and Branch Chief
are designees of the Control Officer and
that the applicability of section 128 does
not change and remains as ‘‘not
applicable’’ because it ‘‘applies to
boards and bodies composed of multiple
individuals.’’
Response #7:
EPA agrees that we should have
identified the District Health Officer of
Washoe County Health District as the
Control Officer in Washoe County.
Washoe County Air Quality Regulation
(AQR) 010.042 defines ‘‘Control Officer’’
as the ‘‘District Health Officer of the
Washoe County Health District or the
person designated by said District
Health Officer to enforce these local air
pollution control ordinances and
regulations as approved by said District
Board of Health created pursuant to the
interlocal agreement of the City of Reno,
the City of Sparks, and the County of
Washoe, Nevada.’’ AQR 020.020
(‘‘Control Officer—Powers and Duties’’)
states that the ‘‘Control Officer, or his
designated agent or representative, shall
enforce the provisions of these [air
pollution control] regulations.’’ From
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
64741
the context of Washoe County’s
comments and conversation with
WCHD–AQMD staff, we understand the
AQMD Director and Branch Chief to be
designated agents or representatives of
the Control Officer (i.e., the District
Health Officer of the Washoe County
Health District), pursuant to AQR
020.020.
We cited AQR 020.020 in our Section
128 TSD because it authorizes the
Control Officer and his designated
agents or representatives to issue
corrective action orders (a kind of
enforcement order). Thus, the Control
Officer and his designated agents or
representatives are subject to the
requirements of section 128(a)(2). This
reflects a point of distinction with
respect to Washoe County’s comment
that the requirements of CAA section
128 are ‘‘not applicable’’ to the Control
Officer or his agents or representatives.
While we agree that section 128(a)(1)
regarding board membership
requirements does not apply to
individual decision-makers, such as the
Control Officer, we reaffirm that the
disclosure requirement of section
128(a)(2) applies both to board members
and to heads of executive agencies and
their delegates as is clear on the face of
the statute. See page 2 of our Section
128 TSD.
As a result, we have assessed whether
the Washoe County District Health
Officer is covered by Nevada’s statutes
concerning disclosure of potential
conflicts of interest. As per NRS
281A.160.1, a public officer in Nevada
is defined by two criteria: (a) that the
person is appointed or elected to a
position established by a charter or
ordinance of any county, and (b) that his
or her position ‘‘[i]nvolves the exercise
of a public power, trust, or duty.’’ The
District Health Officer is a public officer
under these criteria because he or she is
a person appointed to a position
established by the Washoe County Code
and because approval of permits or
enforcement orders under state or
county law involves an exercise of a
public power, trust or duty.8
Our determinations regarding
disclosure as it relates to the AQMD
Director and Branch Chief remain
8 For clarity’s sake, we note that NRS 281A.160(2)
contains several exemptions for the definition of
‘‘public officer.’’ In particular, NRS 281A.160(2)(d)
exempts county health officers appointed pursuant
to NRS 439.290. It is important to note that while
a county health officer is appointed by the relevant
board of county commissioners, pursuant to NRS
439.290, a district health officer in a county whose
population is less than 700,000 (e.g., Washoe
County) is appointed by the relevant district board
of health, pursuant to NRS 439.400. Thus, the
exemption under NRS 281A.160 does not apply to
the Washoe County District Health Officer.
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
64742
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
unchanged. The AQMD Director is a
public officer, pursuant to NRS
281A.160, and the AQMD Branch Chief
of the Permitting and Compliance
Branch is a public employee, pursuant
to NRS 281A.150, (see pages 8–9 of our
Section 128 TSD) and they are both
subject to adequate disclosure
requirements under CAA section
128(a)(2), as codified at NRS 281A.410
and NRS 281A.420 (see pages 11–13 of
our Section 128 TSD).
Thus, our overall conclusion remains
that the conflict of interest provisions 9
submitted in Nevada’s 2012 Submittal
meet the requirements of CAA section
128 and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We are
therefore finalizing our proposed
approval of Nevada’s conflict of interest
provisions into the SIP and our
proposed approval of Nevada’s
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Final Action
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and
based on the evaluation and rationale
presented in the proposed rule, the
related TSDs, and this final rule, EPA is
approving in part and disapproving in
part Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP
Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In the
following subsections, we list the
elements for which we are finalizing
approval or disapproval and provide a
summary of the basis for those elements
that are partially approved and partially
disapproved. We also describe the
statutory provisions and other materials
submitted by NDEP that we are
approving herein, and describe the
consequences of our disapprovals.
A. Summary of Approvals
EPA is approving Nevada’s
Infrastructure SIP Submittals with
respect to the following requirements:
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission
limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air
quality monitoring/data system.
• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part):
Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and
modified stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part):
Interstate pollution transport.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part):
Interstate pollution abatement and
international air pollution.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate
resources and authority, conflict of
interest, and oversight of local and
regional government agencies.
9 i.e.,
NRS 232A.020, NRS 281A.150, NRS
281A.160, NRS 281A.400, NRS 281A.410, and NRS
281A.420.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part):
Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency
episodes.
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part):
Consultation with government officials,
public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and
visibility protection.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K) (in part): Air
quality modeling and submission of
modeling data.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting
fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
We are approving Nevada’s
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the
Clark County portions of the SIP with
respect to the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and
110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD based upon
our final approval of certain SIP
revisions for the review of new or
modified stationary sources for the
Clark County portion of the SIP.10
For section 110(a)(2)(C), we are
approving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP
Submittals for all three jurisdictions
(NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe
County) with respect to the requirement
that the SIP include a program to
provide for enforcement of the
emissions limitations described in
section 110(a)(2)(A).
With respect to the requirement of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
(regarding interference with other states’
required measures to protect visibility),
EPA previously approved Nevada’s
interstate transport SIP as satisfying this
requirement for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of EPA’s
action on Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP.
See 77 FR 17334 at 17339 (March 26,
2012). For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, in today’s final rule we are
approving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP
Submittals as meeting the visibility
requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS by virtue of Nevada’s SIPapproved Regional Haze Plan (77 FR
17334, March 26, 2012), which contains
adequate provisions to protect visibility
in other states.
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F),
for the NDEP and Washoe County
portions of the SIP, we are approving
10 EPA’s final rule on the Clark County NSR SIP
revisions is included in the docket of today’s final
rule. While the Clark County NSR final rule is a
limited approval and limited disapproval, the
permitting elements necessary for infrastructure SIP
approval for the Clark County portion of the SIP
were all among those that were approved.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals
for all three subsections of section
110(a)(2)(F). We note that EPA has
approved three Nevada Administrative
Code (NAC) sections cited by NDEP in
its 2012 Submittal, NAC sections
445B.315(3), 445B.3368, and 445B.346,
in a separate rulemaking (see the prepublication version signed August 30,
2012 and included in the docket of
today’s final rule). These provisions
provide additional support for the NDEP
portion of the SIP as meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii)
and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). For the Washoe
County portion of the SIP, our approval
of subsections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and
110(a)(2)(F)(iii) is based on our approval
of four Washoe County rules, AQR
030.218, 030.230, 030.235, and 030.970,
which were included in the 2012
Submittal, in a separate rulemaking (see
the pre-publication version signed
September 14, 2012 and included in the
docket of today’s final rule). With
respect to the Clark County portion of
the SIP, we are approving the SIP for
sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) based
upon our final approval of certain SIP
revisions for the review of new or
modified stationary sources in Clark
County.11
B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and
Other Materials
In connection with our approval, or
partial approval, of Nevada’s
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for these
requirements as listed above, we are
approving into the Nevada SIP certain
statutes and other materials, which were
included in the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement
and the 2012 Submittal.
First, with respect to section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) (i.e., necessary assurances
for adequate personnel, funding, and
authority), EPA is approving an
interlocal agreement among the Washoe
County District Board of Health, Washoe
County and the cities of Reno and
Sparks concerning the Washoe County
District Health Department, and a
comprehensive revision to Section 12
(‘‘Resources’’) of the Nevada SIP. The
interlocal agreement was submitted as
Attachment D of Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5
Supplement and the revision to Section
12 was submitted as Attachment A to
Nevada’s 2012 Submittal. NDEP’s 2012
revision to Section 12 hereby replaces,
in its entirety, the former SIP version of
Section 12, approved on May 31, 1972
(37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP.
11 As noted previously, we have placed a copy of
the signed, pre-publication version of the final rule
approving the Clark County SIP revisions in the
docket for this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Second, in connection with our
approval of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP
Submittals with respect to section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (i.e., State board conflict
of interest requirements under CAA
section 128), EPA is approving Nevada
Revised Statutes (NRS) sections
232A.020, 281A.150, 281A.160,
281A.400, 281A.410, and 281A.420, as
provided in Attachment B of Nevada’s
2012 Submittal, into the Nevada SIP.
Third and last, in connection with our
approval of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP
Submittals with respect to section
110(a)(2)(J) (in part) and (M), EPA is
approving a comprehensive revision to
Section 11 (‘‘Intergovernmental
Consultation’’) of the Nevada SIP, which
is included as Attachment D to Nevada’s
2012 Submittal. NDEP’s 2012 revision to
Section 11 hereby replaces, in its
entirety, the former SIP version of
Section 11, approved on May 31, 1972
(37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP.
Nevada’s 2012 revision to Section 11
(‘‘Intergovernmental Consultation’’)
cites a number of statutes. Two of these,
NRS section 445B.503 and NRS section
439.390, are included as exhibits to
Section 11 and are new to the SIP.12
Another statute, NRS 445B.500, is
included in Attachment B to the 2012
Submittal as an update to the former
version of NRS 445B.500, which EPA
had approved into the Nevada SIP (71
FR 51766, August 31, 2006). We are
approving NRS 445B.503, NRS 439.390,
and the updated version of NRS
445B.500 into the Nevada SIP in
connection with our approval of the
2012 revision to Section 11 of the
Nevada SIP. The updated version of
NRS 445B.500 hereby replaces, in its
entirety, the former SIP version of NRS
445B.500 in the Nevada SIP.
C. Summary of Disapprovals
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
EPA is disapproving Nevada’s
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS with respect to the following
infrastructure SIP requirements:
• Section 110(a)(2)(C)(in part):
Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and
modified stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(in part):
Interstate pollution transport.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)(in part):
Interstate pollution abatement and
international air pollution.
12 In our proposed rule, we requested clarification
as to whether NDEP intends NRS 439.390 to be
included in the Nevada SIP. See 77 FR 46361 at
46367, footnote 26. NDEP’s submittal on August 30,
2012 included NRS 439.390 in Attachment B
(‘‘Statutes for Inclusion in the Nevada [Applicable
SIP]’’). As such we are finalizing approval of NRS
439.390 into the Nevada SIP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part):
Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part):
Consultation with government officials,
public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and
visibility protection.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air
quality modeling and submission of
modeling data.
As explained in our proposed rule
and Overarching TSD, we are
disapproving Nevada’s Infrastructure
SIP Submittals for the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of the SIP with
respect to the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and
110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD because the
Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the
statutory and regulatory requirements
for PSD permit programs under part C
of title I of the Act. Both NDEP and
WCHD–AQMD currently implement the
Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21
for all regulated NSR pollutants,
pursuant to delegation agreements with
EPA. See 40 CFR 52.1485.13
Accordingly, although the Nevada SIP
remains deficient with respect to PSD
requirements in both the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of the SIP,
these deficiencies are adequately
addressed in both areas by the Federal
PSD program.
With respect to the requirements
regarding interstate transport in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
previously approved an interstate
transport SIP submitted by Nevada as
satisfying the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(D)(i)(I). See 72 FR 41629
(July 31, 2007). For the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, in today’s final rule we
are partially approving and partially
disapproving Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5
Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement.
We are partially disapproving the
submissions because they rely on
irrelevant factors and lack any technical
analysis to support the State’s
conclusion with respect to interstate
transport. We are also partially
approving the submission, however,
based on EPA’s supplemental
13 EPA fully delegated the implementation of the
federal PSD programs to NDEP on October 19, 2004
(‘‘Agreement for Delegation of the Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Program by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection’’), as updated on
September 15, 2011, and to Washoe County on
March 13, 2008 (‘‘Agreement for Delegation of the
Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Program by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Washoe County
District Health Department’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
64743
evaluation of relevant technical
information, which supports a finding
that emissions from Nevada do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state and that the
existing Nevada SIP is, therefore,
adequate to meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See our
2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD.14
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F),
we are disapproving the Clark County
portion of the SIP for subsection
110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark County
has repealed its regulation, Section 24,
that formerly addressed the correlation
requirement of this subsection, without
submitting a SIP revision to replace it.
D. Consequences of Disapprovals
EPA takes a disapproval of a state
plan very seriously. Rather than
implement a FIP, we believe that it is
preferable, and preferred in the
provisions of the Clean Air Act, for
states to implement the CAA
requirements through state provisions
that are developed and adopted by the
state and approved into the SIP by EPA.
A state plan need not contain exactly
the same provisions that EPA might
require, but EPA must be able to find
that the state plan is consistent with the
requirements of the Act in accordance
with its obligations under section
110(k). Further, EPA’s oversight role
requires that it assure consistent
implementation of Clean Air Act
requirements by states across the
country, even while acknowledging that
individual decisions from source to
source or state to state may not have
identical outcomes. EPA believes these
disapprovals are the only path that is
consistent with the Act at this time.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final
disapproval of a submittal that
addresses a requirement of part D of title
I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or
is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in
14 The recent opinion vacating the Transport
Rule, EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 11–
1302 (DC Cir., August 21, 2012), does not alter our
conclusion that the existing Nevada SIP adequately
addresses this requirement. Nothing in the Homer
City opinion disturbs or calls into question that
conclusion or the validity of the technical
information on which our August 3, 2012 proposal
relied—e.g., ambient PM2.5 levels at monitoring
sites representative of regional background in
nearby states and relevant meteorological and
topographical information. In addition, nothing in
that opinion undermines our proposed conclusion,
based on our review of the available technical
information, that emissions from Nevada do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
64744
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a
sanctions clock. Nevada’s Infrastructure
SIP Submittals were not submitted to
meet either of these requirements.
Therefore, our partial disapproval of
Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals
does not trigger mandatory sanctions
under CAA section 179.
In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1)
provides that EPA must promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
within two years after finding that a
State has failed to make a required
submission or disapproving a State
implementation plan submission in
whole or in part, unless EPA approves
a SIP revision correcting the
deficiencies within that two-year
period.
With respect to our partial approval
and partial disapproval of Nevada’s
submissions related to interstate
transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), we conclude that any
FIP obligation resulting from our final,
partial disapproval is satisfied by our
determination that there is no
deficiency in the SIP to correct. Such
disapproval also does not require any
further action on Nevada’s part given
EPA’s conclusion that the SIP is
adequate to meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to our final disapproval
of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP
Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii)
for the Clark County portion of the SIP,
today’s action establishes a deadline
two years from the effective date of this
action for EPA to promulgate a FIP,
unless EPA approves a SIP revision
correcting the deficiency within that
two-year period.15 We encourage the
state to submit a SIP revision to address
the deficiencies identified in this final
15 In our proposed rule, we did not explicitly state
how EPA’s proposed disapproval of section
110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark County portion of the
SIP would trigger a new FIP obligation for EPA.
However, our proposed rule made clear that ‘‘CAA
section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
within two years after finding that a State has failed
to make a required submission or disapproving a
State implementation plan submission in whole or
in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision
correcting the deficiencies within that two-year
period.’’ (77 FR 46361 at 46370). By contrast, for
our other proposed disapprovals, we made clear
that EPA’s FIP obligation would be satisfied ‘‘by our
determination that there is no deficiency in the SIP
to correct’’ (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS; see 77 FR 46361 at 46370) and that
the ‘‘deficiencies are adequately addressed in both
areas by the Federal PSD program’’ (for the PSDrelated requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and
110(a)(2)(K) for the NDEP and Washoe County
portions of the SIP; see 77 FR 46361 at 46367).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
rule and we stand ready to work with
the state to develop a revised plan.
For all other final disapprovals of
today’s action (i.e., for the PSD-related
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and
110(a)(2)(K) for the NDEP and Washoe
County portions of the SIP), we
conclude that although the Nevada SIP
remains deficient with respect to PSD
requirements in both the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of the SIP,
these deficiencies are adequately
addressed in each jurisdiction by the
Federal PSD program, and therefore no
further FIP obligation is triggered by
today’s action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore
not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this
partial approval and partial disapproval
of SIP revisions under CAA section 110
will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but
simply approves certain State
requirements, and disapproves certain
other State requirements, for inclusion
into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of
today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s rule on small entities,
I certify that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule does
not impose any requirements or create
impacts on small entities. This partial
SIP approval and partial SIP
disapproval under CAA section 110 will
not in-and-of itself create any new
requirements but simply approves
certain State requirements, and
disapproves certain other State
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.
Accordingly, it affords no opportunity
for EPA to fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule.
Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. EPA
has determined that the partial approval
and partial disapproval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million
or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This action approves
certain pre-existing requirements, and
disapproves certain other pre-existing
requirements, under State or local law,
and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves certain State
requirements, and disapproves certain
other State requirements, for inclusion
into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP on which EPA is
proposing action would not apply in
Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory
action based on health or safety risks
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This partial
approval and partial disapproval under
CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself
create any new regulations but simply
approves certain State requirements,
and disapproves certain other State
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this action is
not subject to requirements of Section
12(d) of NTTAA because application of
those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This
rule will be effective on November 23,
2012.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
64745
appropriate circuit by December 24,
2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: September 28, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD—Nevada
2. Section 52.1470 in paragraph (e),
the table is amended by:
■ a. Revising the entries for ‘‘Section
11—Intergovernmental Consultation,’’
‘‘Section 12—Resources,’’ and
‘‘445B.500’’;
■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘Attachment
D—Inter-Local Agreement Supporting
CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements’’
after the entry for ‘‘Section 11—
Intergovernmental Consultation’’;
■ c. Adding entries for ‘‘Enclosure 1—
CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in
the Current Nevada State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour
Ozone,’’ ‘‘Enclosure 1—CAA
110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in the
Current Nevada State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for PM2.5,’’ ‘‘Enclosure 1—
CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in
the Current Nevada State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5,’’
‘‘Attachment A—Current CAA
110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the
Washoe County Portion of the Nevada
PM2.5 SIP,’’ and ‘‘Revisions to Nevada’s
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) Plan
Submittals as of July 2012 (August
2012), excluding attachments A through
D’’ after the entry for ‘‘Adopted Lead
Implementation Plan for the Truckee
Meadows Basin, 4/26/84’’;
■
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
64746
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
d. Adding new table heading titled
‘‘Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 18,
State Executive Department, Chapter
232A, Boards, Commissions and Similar
Bodies’’ after the entry for ‘‘0.039,’’ and
under the new heading, adding an entry
for ‘‘232A.020’’;
■ e. Adding new table heading titled
‘‘Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 23,
Public Officers and Employees, Chapter
■
281A, Ethics in Government’’ after the
new entry for ‘‘232A.020,’’ and under
the new heading, adding entries in
numerical order for ‘‘281A.150,’’
‘‘281A.160,’’ ‘‘282A.400,’’ ‘‘281A.410,’’
and ‘‘281A.420’’;
■ f. Adding new table heading titled
‘‘Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 40,
Public Health and Safety, Chapter 439,
Administration of Public Health’’ after
the entry for ‘‘366.060,’’ and under the
new heading, adding an entry for
‘‘439.390’’; and
■ g. Adding an entry for ‘‘445B.503’’
after the entry for ‘‘445B.500.’’
§ 52.1470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Name of SIP provision
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
State submittal date
EPA approval date
Explanation
Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada
*
Section
11—Intergovernmental
Consultation.
*
*
State-wide .......................................
*
8/30/12
*
*
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
*
Submitted as attachment D to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal.
Attachment D—Inter-Local Agreement
Supporting
CAA
110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements.
Washoe County ...............................
12/4/09
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted as attachment D to
NDEP’s December 4, 2009 SIP
revision submittal.
Section 12—Resources ...................
State-wide .......................................
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted as attachment A to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
State-wide, within NDEP jurisdiction
2/1/08
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for the 1997 8Hour ozone standard. Enclosures
(2) and (3) include copies of the
regulatory and statutory provisions previously approved in the
Nevada SIP.
Enclosure 1—CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M)
Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for PM2.5.
State-wide, within NDEP jurisdiction
2/26/08
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for the 1997
PM2.5 standard. Enclosures (2)
and (3) include copies of the regulatory and statutory provisions
previously approved in the Nevada SIP.
Enclosure 1–CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M)
Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for PM2.5.
State-wide, within NDEP jurisdiction
9/15/09
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 standard. Enclosures (2)
and (3) include copies of the regulatory and statutory provisions
previously approved in the Nevada SIP.
Attachment
A—Current
CAA
110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in
the Washoe County Portion of
the Nevada PM2.5 SIP.
Washoe County ...............................
12/04/09
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Attachment B includes Washoe
County regulations, that are addressed in separate rulemakings.
Attachment C is the PSD delegation agreement between Washoe
County District Health Department and EPA Region IX. Attachment D (‘‘Inter-Local Agreement
Supporting CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M)
Requirements’’) is approved into
the SIP and listed separately in
this table.
Revisions to Nevada’s Clean Air
Act Section 110(a)(2) Plan Submittals as of July 2012 (August
2012), excluding attachments A
through D.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Enclosure 1—CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M)
Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone.
State-wide .......................................
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Attachment A (‘‘Section 12-Resources’’), the individual statutory
provisions in attachment B
(‘‘Statutes for Inclusion in Nevada’s ASIP’’), and attachment D
(‘‘Section 11—Intergovernmental
Consultation’’) are listed separately in this table. Attachment C
was submitted for information
only and not for incorporation into
Nevada’s SIP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
64747
EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES—Continued
Name of SIP provision
*
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
*
State submittal date
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanation
*
*
Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 18, State Executive Department, Boards, Chapter 232A, Commissions and Similar Bodies
232A.020 .........................................
Residency requirement for appointment; terms of members; vacancies; qualification of member appointed as representative of general public; gubernatorial appointee prohibited from serving
on more than one board, commission or similar body.
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted in attachment B to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 14, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 232A.020).
Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 23, Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 281A, Ethics in Government
281A.150 .........................................
‘‘Public employee’’ defined ..............
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted in attachment B to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.150).
281A.160 .........................................
‘‘Public officer’’ defined ...................
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted in attachment B to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 481A.160).
281A.400 .........................................
General requirements; exceptions ..
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted in attachment B to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.400).
281A.410 .........................................
Limitations on representing or counseling private persons before
public agencies; disclosure required by certain public officers.
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted in attachment B to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.410).
281A.420 .........................................
Requirements regarding disclosure
of conflicts of interest and abstention from voting because of
certain types of conflicts; effect of
abstention on quorum and voting
requirements; exceptions.
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted in attachment B to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.420).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 40, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 439, Administration of Public Health
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
439.390 ............................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
District board of health: Composition; qualifications of members.
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
8/30/12
Fmt 4700
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
Submitted in attachment B, and as
an exhibit to attachment D, to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 27, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 439.390).
64748
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES—Continued
Name of SIP provision
*
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
*
State submittal date
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanation
*
*
445B.500 .........................................
Establishment and administration of
program; contents of program;
designation of air pollution control
agency of county for purposes of
federal act; powers and duties of
local air pollution control board;
notice of public hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative
penalties; cities and smaller
counties; regulation of certain
electric plants prohibited.
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12.
Submitted in attachment B to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 28, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 445B.500).
445B.503 .........................................
Local air pollution control board in
county whose population is
700,000 or more: Cooperation
with regional planning coalition
and regional transportation commission; prerequisites to adoption
or amendment of plan, policy or
program.
8/30/12
[Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]
10/23/12].
Submitted in attachment B, and as
an exhibit to attachment D, to
NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 28, 2011,
as published by the Legislative
Counsel, State of Nevada, section 445B.503).
*
*
*
3. Section 52.1472 is amended by
adding paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to
read as follows:
*
110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark County portion
of the Nevada SIP.
■
§ 52.1472
*
[FR Doc. 2012–25558 Filed 10–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Approval status.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(d) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The
SIPs submitted on February 1, 2008 and
August 30, 2012 are partially
disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K)
for the Nevada Division of
Environmental Quality (NDEP) and
Washoe County portions of the Nevada
SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F)
for the Clark County portion of the
Nevada SIP.
(e) 1997 P2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs
submitted on February 26, 2008 and
August 30, 2012 are partially
disapproved for CAA elements
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for the
NDEP and Washoe County portions of
the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element
110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark County portion
of the Nevada SIP.
(f) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs
submitted on September 15, 2009,
December 4, 2009, and August 30, 2012
are partially disapproved for CAA
elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere
with measures in any other state to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for the NDEP
and Washoe County portions of the
Nevada SIP; for CAA element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the NDEP, Washoe
County, and Clark County portions of
the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Oct 22, 2012
Jkt 229001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9743–1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the
Torch Lake Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 5 is
publishing a Direct Final Notice of
Deletion of the Isle Royale Tailings and
Michigan Smelter Tailing parcels of
Operable Unit 3 (OU3), and the Mason
Sands Tailings parcel of Operable Unit
1 (OU1) of the Torch Lake Superfund
Site (Site), located in Houghton County,
Michigan from the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
an appendix to the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final partial deletion is being published
by EPA, with the concurrence of the
State of Michigan through the Michigan
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ), because EPA has determined
that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA at these identified
parcels have been completed. However,
this partial deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains to the
surface tailings, drums, and slag piles of
Isle Royale Tailings and Michigan
Smelter Tailings parcels of OU3 and the
Mason Sands Tailings parcel of OU1.
The following land parcels will remain
on the NPL and are not being
considered for deletion as part of this
action: Dollar Bay, Point Mills, Calumet
Lake Tailing, Boston Pond Tailing,
North Entry and Quincy Smelter.
DATES: This direct final partial deletion
is effective December 24, 2012 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
November 23, 2012. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final partial deletion in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the deletion will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: Nefertiti DiCosmo, Remedial
Project Manager, at
dicosmo.nefertiti@epa.gov
• Email: Dave Novak, Community
Involvement Coordinator, at
novak.dave@epa.gov
• Fax: Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion
Process Manager, at (312) 886–2077.
E:\FR\FM\23OCR1.SGM
23OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64737-64748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25558]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047; FRL-9739-8]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and
Fine Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of Nevada
pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 1997
and 2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The CAA
requires that each State adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, and
requires EPA to act on such SIPs. Nevada has met most of the applicable
requirements. Where EPA is disapproving, in part, Nevada's SIP
revisions, the majority of the deficiencies have been already been
addressed by a federal implementation plan (FIP). For one remaining
deficiency, this final rule sets a two-year deadline for EPA to
promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves an adequate SIP revision prior to
that time. EPA remains committed to working with Nevada's environmental
agencies to develop such a SIP revision.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 23,
2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at https://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., confidential business information
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3227,
mays.rory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Response to Comments
III. Final Action
A. Summary of Approvals
B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and Other Materials
C. Summary of Disapprovals
D. Consequences of Disapprovals
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA,
within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or
any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these
specific submissions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are
intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or
revised NAAQS.
On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone \1\ and a
new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).\2\ EPA
subsequently revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September
21, 2006.\3\ Each of these actions triggered a requirement for states
to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the new or
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour
averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12
parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856).
\2\ The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on the 3-year average
of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from
single or multiple community-oriented monitors and the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area
(62 FR 38652).
\3\ The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 from 65 [mu]g/m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ was published
in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2012 (77 FR 46361), EPA proposed to approve in part
and disapprove in part several SIP revisions and one proposed SIP
revision submitted by Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP) to address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. NDEP's submittals include SIP revisions
submitted to EPA on February 1, 2008 (``2008 Ozone Submittal''),
February 26, 2008 (``2008 PM2.5 Submittal''), September 15,
2009 (``2009 PM2.5 Submittal''), and December 4, 2009
(``2009 PM2.5 Supplement''), and a proposed SIP revision
submitted on July 5, 2012. The proposed SIP revision served as a
supplement to the prior four infrastructure SIP revisions and was
submitted under the parallel processing mechanism provided by 40 CFR
Part 51, Appendix V, Section 2.3. The final version of the July 5, 2012
proposed SIP revision was adopted on August 30, 2012 and submitted to
EPA on the same day (``2012 Submittal'').
We are taking final action on all five submittals since they
collectively
[[Page 64738]]
address the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We refer
to them collectively herein as ``Nevada's Infrastructure SIP
Submittals.''
The rationale supporting EPA's action, including the scope of
infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in our August 3, 2012
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) and the three associated
technical support documents (TSDs) \4\ and will not be restated here.
The proposed rule and TSDs are available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The three TSDs are as follows: (1) ``Technical Support
Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions for 1997 Ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Sections 110(a)(2)(A) thru (C) Sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (D)(ii), Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and
(E)(iii), Sections 110(a)(2)(F) thru (M),'' July 2012 (``Overarching
TSD''); (2) ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed Action
on the 2009 Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (Transport
Portion) for the State of Nevada,'' July 2012 (``2006
PM2.5 Transport TSD'', or ``Transport TSD''); and (3)
``Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions
for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128 Conflict of Interest
Requirements,'' July 2012 (``Section 128 TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on August
3, 2012, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on September 4, 2012. During this period, EPA received two
comment letters: one from NDEP on September 4, 2012 (herein ``NDEP's
comment(s)''); and one from Washoe County Health District Air Quality
Management Division (WCHD-AQMD) on September 4, 2012 (herein ``Washoe
County's comment(s)''). Both letters are available in the docket to
today's final rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See document numbers EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047-0135 (NDEP's
comment letter) and EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047-0136 (Washoe County's
comment letter) at www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-
R09-OAR-2011-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDEP's comment letter numbers its comments 1 through 9. NDEP
comment numbers 1 through 3 support various aspects of EPA's proposed
rule, while numbers 4 through 9 request clarification on several
points. Washoe County's comment letter generally supports EPA's
proposed rule with two exceptions, which it numbers 1 and 2, and
requests that EPA make a clarification on one additional point. We
appreciate NDEP and Washoe County's comments in support for our
proposed rule and respond to their comments regarding requested
clarifications and corrections below. Note that we have grouped
comments from NDEP and Washoe County that are similar in content into
single comments and responses.
Comment #1:
NDEP's comment number 4 and Washoe County comment number 1 note
that EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of the SIP related to
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit programs for NDEP
and Washoe County because the programs do not completely satisfy the
statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs. NDEP and
WCHD-AQMD also note, however, that EPA recognizes that the deficiencies
related to the PSD programs are adequately addressed by the existing
federal implementation plan (FIP), for which EPA has delegated
enforcement authority to NDEP and Washoe County. Moreover, NDEP argues
that the provisions of 40 CFR 52.1485(b), which codify the PSD FIP by
incorporating EPA's PSD provisions in the Nevada SIP, make EPA's PSD
FIP a part of the SIP, with the exception of the portion applicable to
Clark County. As such, NDEP and WCHD-AQMD believe that the elements of
the Nevada SIP related to PSD programs under their jurisdictions should
be approved.
Response #1:
The CAA requires each State to adopt and submit a plan which
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
See CAA section 110(a)(1). CAA section 110(a)(2) sets forth the content
requirements for such plans, including the requirement for a permit
program as required in part C (``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality,'' or ``PSD'') of title I of the CAA. Such
plans are referred to as state implementation plans or SIPs.
EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP derives from EPA's
determination that a State has failed to submit a complete, required
SIP submission or from EPA's disapproval of a State submission of a SIP
or SIP revision. See CAA section 110(c)(1). The SIP, viewed broadly,
thus includes both portions of the plan submitted by the State and
approved by EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by EPA to substitute for
a State plan disapproved by EPA or not submitted by a State. See 40 CFR
52.02(b).
In 1974, EPA disapproved each state's SIP with respect to PSD and
promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the SIP deficiency (``PSD FIP'').
See 39 FR 42510 (December 5, 1974). In 1975, EPA codified the PSD FIP
in each state's subpart in 40 CFR part 52. See 40 FR 25004 (June 12,
1975)(adding 40 CFR 52.1485 to Subpart DD--Nevada). In 1978 and 1980,
EPA amended the PSD regulations following the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 and related court decisions and amended the codification of the
PSD FIP in each state's subpart, including 40 CFR 52.1485, accordingly.
See 43 FR 26380 (June 19, 1978) and 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). Since
then, EPA has approved the PSD SIP for the sources and geographic area
that lie within the jurisdiction of Clark County Department of Air
Quality, and has delegated responsibility for conducting PSD review, as
per the PSD FIP, to NDEP and the Washoe County District Health
Department. Notwithstanding the delegation, however, the Nevada SIP
remains deficient with respect to PSD for the geographic areas and
stationary sources that lie within NDEP's and Washoe County District
Health Department's jurisdictions. As such, EPA's disapproval of the
infrastructure SIP submittals for those elements that require states to
have a SIP that includes a PSD permit program, including CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), and (K), is appropriate because
EPA disapproved the State's submitted plan as not adequately addressing
PSD program requirements. To conclude otherwise would be inconsistent
with the long-standing and current disapproval of the SIP for PSD for
the applicable areas, with the statutory foundation upon which the PSD
FIP is authorized, and with the obligation under section 110(a) for
each State to adopt and submit a plan for implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of the NAAQS that includes a PSD program. EPA's
delegation of the PSD FIP is not the same as State adoption and
submittal of state or district rules meeting PSD requirements and EPA's
approval thereof.
Comment #2:
NDEP's comment number 6 and Washoe County comment number 2 state
that NDEP and Washoe County Health District AQMD ``[do] not believe
that the PSD program as it relates to greenhouse gases renders this SIP
deficient with respect to ozone and PM2.5'' and request that
EPA explain why greenhouse gas (GHG) provisions are ``essential to
enforcing the PM2.5 NAAQS.'' Both comments refer to pages
10, 42, and 43 of EPA's Overarching TSD for EPA's proposed rule.
Response #2:
The PSD requirements for the regulation of greenhouse gases are
relevant to our evaluation of SIPs submitted with respect to the ozone
and PM2.5 (or any) NAAQS because those PSD requirements
apply on a source-by-source basis for all federally regulated
pollutants emitted by that source that meet the PSD applicability
thresholds,
[[Page 64739]]
rather than applying on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. For example,
the CAA specifies that a new source that triggers PSD because of its
emissions of ozone precursors or PM2.5 is also subject to
PSD for any other federally regulated pollutant that it emits above the
applicable significance levels and for GHGs, if it emits those
pollutants above the thresholds established by the GHG Tailoring
Rule.\6\ Accordingly, for the Nevada Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to be
fully approvable, the Nevada SIP must include the appropriate PSD
requirements for all other federally regulated pollutants, including
GHGs. Because Nevada's Infrastructure SIPs fail to include those
requirements for GHGs with respect to the NDEP and Washoe County
portions of the SIP, the EPA must partially disapprove these SIP
submittals. Consistent with our proposal, however, we reiterate that
``[a]lthough the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD
requirements in both the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP,
these deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by the
Federal PSD program.'' See 77 FR 46361 at 46367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The full title of the GHG Tailoring Rule is ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule;
Final Rule.'' For further explanation of the GHG PSD permitting
requirements, see the GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010); ``Limitation of
Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #3:
NDEP's comment number 5 states that ``EPA proposes to partially
disapprove the NDEP's submittal [with respect to the `good neighbor'
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)], stating that it is not
relevant, and to partially approve the submittal based on EPA's
independent evaluation of Nevada's impact on receptor states.'' NDEP
stated its belief that ``it would be simpler not to do a partial
disapproval based on information that EPA deemed immaterial to its
decision-making, but rather to fully approve the SIP based on EPA's own
data analysis demonstrating a lack of impacts on receptor states.''
Response #3:
We disagree. EPA proposed to partially disapprove Nevada's 2009
PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement with
respect to the ``good neighbor'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because the State's submission ``relies on
irrelevant factors and lacks any technical analysis to support the
State's conclusion with respect to interstate transport.'' See 77 FR
46361 at 46368. We also proposed to partially approve the submission,
however, based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical
information, which supports a finding that emissions from Nevada do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that
the existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. Our proposal to partially approve and
partially disapprove the submission was based not on information that
``EPA deemed immaterial to its decision-making,'' but rather on
information submitted by the State in the form of a SIP submission
which we found inadequate to satisfy the applicable CAA requirements.
Specifically, as discussed in the Transport TSD for this proposal,
Nevada's 2009 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5
Supplement (collectively the ``2009 SIP Submittals'') appear to
conclude that the existing Nevada SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
among other requirements of CAA section 110(a). See Transport TSD at 1.
The only support provided for this conclusion in the 2009 SIP
Submittals is a reference to EPA's previous approval of Nevada's CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007).
See Transport TSD at 1, 2. The 2009 SIP Submittals contains no
technical analysis of potential interstate transport or any other
support for the State's conclusion that the existing Nevada SIP
satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id. Moreover, Nevada submitted
nothing to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Clark County. See id. at
footnote 1.
As explained in the Transport TSD, EPA does not agree with NDEP's
suggestion or conclusion in the 2009 SIP Submittals that EPA's previous
approval of Nevada's section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport SIP
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS
could support, in any way, the conclusion that the SIP adequately
addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id. at 2. The cited 2007
rulemaking addressed CAA requirements for different NAAQS and thus
could not support a conclusion that the requirements have been met with
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id.
Given the absence of any technical demonstration in the State's
submission showing that Nevada emission sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state, we cannot fully
approve the 2009 SIP Submittals as satisfying the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
We are, however, partially approving the 2009 SIP Submittals based on
EPA's independent review of relevant technical information, which
supports the State's conclusion that Nevada emission sources do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA therefore does not require
additional controls in Nevada to prohibit such impacts.
Comment and Response #4:
NDEP comment number 8 recommends several corrections and
clarifications to the text of our Transport TSD. We respond to each
sub-comment following separate comment summaries below.
First, citing pages 7 and 11 of our Transport TSD, NDEP states that
``EPA has characterized Idaho as more distant from Nevada than Utah,
Oregon and California'' but notes that Nevada and Idaho share a border.
We agree that our Transport TSD could have better characterized the
location of Idaho relative to Nevada and the distance from Nevada to
nonattainment receptors in Idaho relative to those in ``other western
states'' (i.e., Washington and Montana, see pages 7 and 11 of our
Transport TSD). EPA discussed the nonattainment receptor in Idaho as
part of its discussion of ``other western states with nonattainment
receptors located farther away'' because the receptor in Shoshone
County, Idaho (Pinehurst), located in northern Idaho, is more distant
from Nevada compared to the receptors located in Utah, Oregon, and
California. But NDEP correctly notes that like Utah, Oregon, and
California, Idaho shares a border with Nevada.
Second, citing page 16 of the Transport TSD, NDEP encourages EPA to
expressly state that ``EPA's analysis shows no significant contribution
by Nevada to nonattainment in the Southern California area.''
[[Page 64740]]
In Section IV.B.3. of our Transport TSD (see pages 15-16),
regarding nonattainment receptors in California, for four of the five
areas discussed we stated that ``we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that emissions from Nevada sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard at these receptor locations.'' We inadvertently did not make
such a statement for the Southern California--Los Angeles, Riverside,
San Bernardino area. In response to this comment, we are clarifying our
conclusion that emissions from Nevada sources do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard at the Southern California--Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino nonattainment receptor locations.
Third, citing pages 20-22 of the Transport TSD, NDEP states that
``EPA reaches a conclusion that Nevada emissions do not interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS in California (Section
V.B.1.) or Utah (Section V.B.3.); however, no conclusion is stated for
Arizona (Section V.B.2).'' NDEP believes a similar conclusion was
implied and encourages EPA to state as much for Arizona.
We agree and are clarifying our conclusion that emissions from
Nevada sources do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at the Arizona maintenance receptor locations
discussed in Section V.B.2 (page 21) of the Transport TSD.
Fourth, NDEP asserts that EPA's discussion on pages 20-22 of the
Transport TSD ``appears to talk about nonattainment areas rather than
maintenance areas'' while ``Table III.A.1 lists Arizona as having two
maintenance areas for PM2.5 and no nonattainment areas.''
NDEP perceives a discrepancy therein.
It appears NDEP has misunderstood a distinction that EPA is making
between nonattainment or maintenance receptors and nonattainment or
maintenance areas. Table III.A.1 lists the nonattainment and
maintenance ``receptors'' located in western counties, which EPA
selected based on the criteria discussed in Section III.A (``Discussion
of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptor Selection Methodology'').
These criteria for selection of nonattainment and maintenance
``receptors'' are not related to the criteria for designation of
nonattainment areas under CAA section 107 or for approval of
maintenance plans under CAA section 175A. Thus, it is possible to have
maintenance ``receptors'' in areas that have been designated as
nonattainment areas, as in Arizona and Utah.
Fifth, NDEP states that ``Table III.A.1 lists Utah as having no
maintenance areas, so the NDEP is uncertain why Utah is discussed in
section V of this Appendix'' and that ``[t]he discussion of
nonattainment areas in Utah (Section IV.B.1.) appears to be repeated in
Section V.B.3 for maintenance receptors.'' NDEP perceives a discrepancy
therein.
We disagree that Table III.A.1 (``List of Western Counties with
Daily PM2.5 Nonattainment or Maintenance Receptors'', page
8) lists Utah as having no maintenance areas. The last three rows for
Utah in this table include an asterisk in the Receptor Type column. The
asterisk is defined below the table as follows: ``This county contains
both nonattainment and maintenance receptors. See Appendix A for more
details.'' Appendix A (``List of Nonattainment and Maintenance
Receptors for 2006-2010''), in turn, lists all of the individual
receptors that were summarized by county in Table III.A.1. There is one
maintenance receptor in each of Utah and Weber counties, Utah--hence
our discussion of Utah in Section V (``Transport Assessment for
Maintenance Receptors''). The discussion of nonattainment receptors in
Utah (Section IV.B.1.) is similar to the discussion in Section V.B.3
for maintenance receptors in Utah because the receptors are near to
each other and the potential for transport from Nevada for each is
similar.
Comment #5:
NDEP comment number 7 addresses EPA's statements in the Overarching
TSD (pages 11-13) regarding certain provisions that are part of the
Nevada SIP, but have been repealed or replaced in the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC). NDEP highlights that such regulations ``have
not been rescinded from the Nevada SIP, and EPA considers them to be
federally enforceable'' and suggests that a more accurate
characterization would be to say that such provisions ``have been
repealed or replaced in the NAC, but not in the SIP.''
Response #5:
It is true that the regulations cited in pages 11-13 of our
Overarching TSD having parenthetical notes about replacement or repeal
can be accurately characterized as having been repealed or replaced in
the NAC (i.e., at the state level), but remaining in the Nevada SIP
(i.e., the set of federally enforceable provisions with respect to
Nevada air quality). In part, our intent was to clarify the status of
these provisions so that the public could more readily understand which
provisions are in effect and to identify certain provisions that, as
repealed or replaced (but not revised in the SIP), did not provide
support for how Nevada meets the section 110(a)(2)(C) requirement that
each SIP ``include a program to provide for the enforcement of the
measures described in [section 110(a)(2)(A)].''
However, the broader meaning of such clarifications and
identifications relates to CAA section 110(a)(1), which requires the
state to adopt and submit ``a plan which provides for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of the relevant NAAQS (i.e., the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, in this
case). On its face, if Nevada has repealed or replaced certain Nevada
Administrative Codes, we would understand this to mean that NDEP is not
in fact implementing such regulations as part of a plan to implement,
maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. In other words, infrastructure SIPs
are not merely a measure of what is federally enforceable under a
state's SIP; they are a collection of the provisions and plans that the
state actively employs to implement the NAAQS.
Our Overarching TSD discussed three provisions in particular
wherein we noted that ``it is not clear how Nevada intended that these
regulations support the enforcement of the emission limitation
regulations.'' See Overarching TSD at page 13. We reiterate our
statement from that same page, however, that ``[n]otwithstanding these
three provisions, on the basis of the statutory and regulatory
provisions, which have been approved into the SIP, we find that Nevada
has an adequate program for enforcement of its provisions for emission
limits at the state level.''
Comment and Response #6:
NDEP comment number 9 recommends several corrections and
clarifications to the text of our Overarching TSD. We respond to each
sub-comment following separate comment summaries below.
First, NDEP notes that on page 6, footnote 9, the second sentence
should read, ``Adele Malone, Supervisor, Planning and Modeling Branch,
* * * .'' We thank NDEP for its clarification regarding the Branch
title, which we had listed as ``Air Planning Branch'' in footnote 9 of
the Overarching TSD.
Second, NDEP notes that on page 11 EPA listed Nevada Air Quality
Regulation (NAQR) Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 as having been cited in
support of CAA 110(a)(2)(C), and requests EPA to remove it from the
list of submitted
[[Page 64741]]
regulations. We agree that Articles 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 were not
cited in Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section
110(a)(2)(C); our inclusion of these provisions in the list of
regulations with respect to 110(a)(2)(C) was an inadvertent addition.
To clarify further, Nevada's 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008
PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal each
cited Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 listed for section 110(a)(2)(A).
See Enclosure 1, page 1 of each of these submittals. Given that these
regulations pertain to opacity emission limits for kilns and related
clinker coolers, they are appropriate for purposes of addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), as referenced by these submittals
and discussed in our Overarching TSD.
Third, NDEP notes a contradiction in the last sentence of the first
full paragraph of page 43 regarding the PSD portion of the section
110(a)(2)(J) requirements and Clark County. We agree that this sentence
contradicts our other stated conclusions regarding Clark County's PSD
program and the PSD requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We hereby
clarify that our intended statement, as noted in the conclusion
paragraph of that same page, was that ``the Clark County portion of the
Nevada SIP meets the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J),
contingent upon final approval of the proposed SIP revisions [for
permitting new or modified stationary sources in Clark County].''
Furthermore, based on our final approval of those Clark County SIP
revisions,\7\ we are finalizing our approval of section 110(a)(2)(J)
for the Clark County portion of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We have placed a copy of the signed, pre-publication version
of the final rule approving the Clark County SIP revisions in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, NDEP believes that EPA had intended to reference NAQR
Article 13.3.1.2(b) on page 45, rather than Article 13.4.1.2(b), and
that the latter is not in the applicable Nevada SIP. NDEP also refers
to 77 FR 14862. We referred to Article 13.4.1.2(b) with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) because it was included in
Enclosure 2 of Nevada's 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 p.m.2.5
Submittal, and 2009 p.m.2.5 Submittal and contains
requirements for diffusion models for the permitting review of new
sources. However, NDEP is correct that Article 13.4.1.2(b) is not in
the Nevada SIP. Rather, Article 13.3.1.2(b), which is part of the
Nevada SIP and contains requirements for diffusion modeling, relates
most closely to the air quality modeling requirements of section
110(a)(2)(K). See 77 FR 14682 at 14872.
Fifth, NDEP notes that Footnote 19 states that `` * * * NDEP
repealed NAC 445.694 and did not submit a replacement for inclusion in
the SIP.'' NDEP states that this footnote was inaccurate since the
authority to repeal a state regulation lies with the Nevada State
Environmental Commission. We thank NDEP for its clarification. Footnote
19 of the Overarching TSD should have made clear that the State
Environmental Commission is the body authorized under state law to
adopt regulations to prevent, abate and control air pollution (NRS
445B.210), the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is
designated as the air pollution control agency for the State of Nevada
for the purposes of the CAA (NRS 445B.205), and the Administrator of
NDEP is the official designee of the Director of the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources for the purposes of the CAA,
including, but not limited to, adoption, revision, and submittal of
SIPs to EPA.
Comment #7:
Washoe County notes a ``minor correction/clarification that should
be made'' in EPA's Section 128 TSD on pages 4 and 7. Washoe County
identifies the District Health Officer of the Washoe County Health
District, or his designee, as the Control Officer, pursuant to Washoe
County Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 010.042, rather than the AQMD
Director, as stated in EPA's Section 128 TSD. The comment further
states that the AQMD Director and Branch Chief are designees of the
Control Officer and that the applicability of section 128 does not
change and remains as ``not applicable'' because it ``applies to boards
and bodies composed of multiple individuals.''
Response #7:
EPA agrees that we should have identified the District Health
Officer of Washoe County Health District as the Control Officer in
Washoe County. Washoe County Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 010.042
defines ``Control Officer'' as the ``District Health Officer of the
Washoe County Health District or the person designated by said District
Health Officer to enforce these local air pollution control ordinances
and regulations as approved by said District Board of Health created
pursuant to the interlocal agreement of the City of Reno, the City of
Sparks, and the County of Washoe, Nevada.'' AQR 020.020 (``Control
Officer--Powers and Duties'') states that the ``Control Officer, or his
designated agent or representative, shall enforce the provisions of
these [air pollution control] regulations.'' From the context of Washoe
County's comments and conversation with WCHD-AQMD staff, we understand
the AQMD Director and Branch Chief to be designated agents or
representatives of the Control Officer (i.e., the District Health
Officer of the Washoe County Health District), pursuant to AQR 020.020.
We cited AQR 020.020 in our Section 128 TSD because it authorizes
the Control Officer and his designated agents or representatives to
issue corrective action orders (a kind of enforcement order). Thus, the
Control Officer and his designated agents or representatives are
subject to the requirements of section 128(a)(2). This reflects a point
of distinction with respect to Washoe County's comment that the
requirements of CAA section 128 are ``not applicable'' to the Control
Officer or his agents or representatives. While we agree that section
128(a)(1) regarding board membership requirements does not apply to
individual decision-makers, such as the Control Officer, we reaffirm
that the disclosure requirement of section 128(a)(2) applies both to
board members and to heads of executive agencies and their delegates as
is clear on the face of the statute. See page 2 of our Section 128 TSD.
As a result, we have assessed whether the Washoe County District
Health Officer is covered by Nevada's statutes concerning disclosure of
potential conflicts of interest. As per NRS 281A.160.1, a public
officer in Nevada is defined by two criteria: (a) that the person is
appointed or elected to a position established by a charter or
ordinance of any county, and (b) that his or her position ``[i]nvolves
the exercise of a public power, trust, or duty.'' The District Health
Officer is a public officer under these criteria because he or she is a
person appointed to a position established by the Washoe County Code
and because approval of permits or enforcement orders under state or
county law involves an exercise of a public power, trust or duty.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For clarity's sake, we note that NRS 281A.160(2) contains
several exemptions for the definition of ``public officer.'' In
particular, NRS 281A.160(2)(d) exempts county health officers
appointed pursuant to NRS 439.290. It is important to note that
while a county health officer is appointed by the relevant board of
county commissioners, pursuant to NRS 439.290, a district health
officer in a county whose population is less than 700,000 (e.g.,
Washoe County) is appointed by the relevant district board of
health, pursuant to NRS 439.400. Thus, the exemption under NRS
281A.160 does not apply to the Washoe County District Health
Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our determinations regarding disclosure as it relates to the AQMD
Director and Branch Chief remain
[[Page 64742]]
unchanged. The AQMD Director is a public officer, pursuant to NRS
281A.160, and the AQMD Branch Chief of the Permitting and Compliance
Branch is a public employee, pursuant to NRS 281A.150, (see pages 8-9
of our Section 128 TSD) and they are both subject to adequate
disclosure requirements under CAA section 128(a)(2), as codified at NRS
281A.410 and NRS 281A.420 (see pages 11-13 of our Section 128 TSD).
Thus, our overall conclusion remains that the conflict of interest
provisions \9\ submitted in Nevada's 2012 Submittal meet the
requirements of CAA section 128 and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We are
therefore finalizing our proposed approval of Nevada's conflict of
interest provisions into the SIP and our proposed approval of Nevada's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ i.e., NRS 232A.020, NRS 281A.150, NRS 281A.160, NRS
281A.400, NRS 281A.410, and NRS 281A.420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and
rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSDs, and this
final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part Nevada's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In the following
subsections, we list the elements for which we are finalizing approval
or disapproval and provide a summary of the basis for those elements
that are partially approved and partially disapproved. We also describe
the statutory provisions and other materials submitted by NDEP that we
are approving herein, and describe the consequences of our
disapprovals.
A. Summary of Approvals
EPA is approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with
respect to the following requirements:
Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution
transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
Section 110(a)(2)(K) (in part): Air quality modeling and
submission of modeling data.
Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
We are approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the
Clark County portions of the SIP with respect to the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD based upon our final
approval of certain SIP revisions for the review of new or modified
stationary sources for the Clark County portion of the SIP.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA's final rule on the Clark County NSR SIP revisions is
included in the docket of today's final rule. While the Clark County
NSR final rule is a limited approval and limited disapproval, the
permitting elements necessary for infrastructure SIP approval for
the Clark County portion of the SIP were all among those that were
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For section 110(a)(2)(C), we are approving Nevada's Infrastructure
SIP Submittals for all three jurisdictions (NDEP, Clark County, and
Washoe County) with respect to the requirement that the SIP include a
program to provide for enforcement of the emissions limitations
described in section 110(a)(2)(A).
With respect to the requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
(regarding interference with other states' required measures to protect
visibility), EPA previously approved Nevada's interstate transport SIP
as satisfying this requirement for the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as part of EPA's action on Nevada's Regional
Haze SIP. See 77 FR 17334 at 17339 (March 26, 2012). For purposes of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, in today's final rule we are approving
Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals as meeting the visibility
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by virtue of Nevada's SIP-approved Regional Haze
Plan (77 FR 17334, March 26, 2012), which contains adequate provisions
to protect visibility in other states.
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), for the NDEP and Washoe
County portions of the SIP, we are approving Nevada's Infrastructure
SIP Submittals for all three subsections of section 110(a)(2)(F). We
note that EPA has approved three Nevada Administrative Code (NAC)
sections cited by NDEP in its 2012 Submittal, NAC sections 445B.315(3),
445B.3368, and 445B.346, in a separate rulemaking (see the pre-
publication version signed August 30, 2012 and included in the docket
of today's final rule). These provisions provide additional support for
the NDEP portion of the SIP as meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). For the Washoe County portion
of the SIP, our approval of subsections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and
110(a)(2)(F)(iii) is based on our approval of four Washoe County rules,
AQR 030.218, 030.230, 030.235, and 030.970, which were included in the
2012 Submittal, in a separate rulemaking (see the pre-publication
version signed September 14, 2012 and included in the docket of today's
final rule). With respect to the Clark County portion of the SIP, we
are approving the SIP for sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) based upon
our final approval of certain SIP revisions for the review of new or
modified stationary sources in Clark County.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As noted previously, we have placed a copy of the signed,
pre-publication version of the final rule approving the Clark County
SIP revisions in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and Other Materials
In connection with our approval, or partial approval, of Nevada's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for these requirements as listed above,
we are approving into the Nevada SIP certain statutes and other
materials, which were included in the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement
and the 2012 Submittal.
First, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (i.e., necessary
assurances for adequate personnel, funding, and authority), EPA is
approving an interlocal agreement among the Washoe County District
Board of Health, Washoe County and the cities of Reno and Sparks
concerning the Washoe County District Health Department, and a
comprehensive revision to Section 12 (``Resources'') of the Nevada SIP.
The interlocal agreement was submitted as Attachment D of Nevada's 2009
PM2.5 Supplement and the revision to Section 12 was
submitted as Attachment A to Nevada's 2012 Submittal. NDEP's 2012
revision to Section 12 hereby replaces, in its entirety, the former SIP
version of Section 12, approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the
Nevada SIP.
[[Page 64743]]
Second, in connection with our approval of Nevada's Infrastructure
SIP Submittals with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (i.e., State
board conflict of interest requirements under CAA section 128), EPA is
approving Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) sections 232A.020, 281A.150,
281A.160, 281A.400, 281A.410, and 281A.420, as provided in Attachment B
of Nevada's 2012 Submittal, into the Nevada SIP.
Third and last, in connection with our approval of Nevada's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) (in
part) and (M), EPA is approving a comprehensive revision to Section 11
(``Intergovernmental Consultation'') of the Nevada SIP, which is
included as Attachment D to Nevada's 2012 Submittal. NDEP's 2012
revision to Section 11 hereby replaces, in its entirety, the former SIP
version of Section 11, approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the
Nevada SIP.
Nevada's 2012 revision to Section 11 (``Intergovernmental
Consultation'') cites a number of statutes. Two of these, NRS section
445B.503 and NRS section 439.390, are included as exhibits to Section
11 and are new to the SIP.\12\ Another statute, NRS 445B.500, is
included in Attachment B to the 2012 Submittal as an update to the
former version of NRS 445B.500, which EPA had approved into the Nevada
SIP (71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006). We are approving NRS 445B.503, NRS
439.390, and the updated version of NRS 445B.500 into the Nevada SIP in
connection with our approval of the 2012 revision to Section 11 of the
Nevada SIP. The updated version of NRS 445B.500 hereby replaces, in its
entirety, the former SIP version of NRS 445B.500 in the Nevada SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In our proposed rule, we requested clarification as to
whether NDEP intends NRS 439.390 to be included in the Nevada SIP.
See 77 FR 46361 at 46367, footnote 26. NDEP's submittal on August
30, 2012 included NRS 439.390 in Attachment B (``Statutes for
Inclusion in the Nevada [Applicable SIP]''). As such we are
finalizing approval of NRS 439.390 into the Nevada SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Disapprovals
EPA is disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the
1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:
Section 110(a)(2)(C)(in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(in part): Interstate pollution
transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)(in part): Interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air quality modeling and
submission of modeling data.
As explained in our proposed rule and Overarching TSD, we are
disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of the SIP with respect to the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD because the Nevada SIP
does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for
PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act. Both NDEP and
WCHD-AQMD currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21
for all regulated NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements
with EPA. See 40 CFR 52.1485.\13\ Accordingly, although the Nevada SIP
remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and
Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately
addressed in both areas by the Federal PSD program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPA fully delegated the implementation of the federal PSD
programs to NDEP on October 19, 2004 (``Agreement for Delegation of
the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 to the
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection''), as updated on
September 15, 2011, and to Washoe County on March 13, 2008
(``Agreement for Delegation of the Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Washoe County District Health
Department'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the requirements regarding interstate transport in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA previously approved an interstate transport
SIP submitted by Nevada as satisfying the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(D)(i)(I). See 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). For the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, in today's final rule we are partially
approving and partially disapproving Nevada's 2009 PM2.5
Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement. We are partially
disapproving the submissions because they rely on irrelevant factors
and lack any technical analysis to support the State's conclusion with
respect to interstate transport. We are also partially approving the
submission, however, based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant
technical information, which supports a finding that emissions from
Nevada do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state and that the existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, adequate to
meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See our 2006 PM2.5 Transport
TSD.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The recent opinion vacating the Transport Rule, EME Homer
City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (DC Cir., August 21, 2012), does
not alter our conclusion that the existing Nevada SIP adequately
addresses this requirement. Nothing in the Homer City opinion
disturbs or calls into question that conclusion or the validity of
the technical information on which our August 3, 2012 proposal
relied--e.g., ambient PM2.5 levels at monitoring sites
representative of regional background in nearby states and relevant
meteorological and topographical information. In addition, nothing
in that opinion undermines our proposed conclusion, based on our
review of the available technical information, that emissions from
Nevada do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), we are disapproving the Clark
County portion of the SIP for subsection 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because
Clark County has repealed its regulation, Section 24, that formerly
addressed the correlation requirement of this subsection, without
submitting a SIP revision to replace it.
D. Consequences of Disapprovals
EPA takes a disapproval of a state plan very seriously. Rather than
implement a FIP, we believe that it is preferable, and preferred in the
provisions of the Clean Air Act, for states to implement the CAA
requirements through state provisions that are developed and adopted by
the state and approved into the SIP by EPA. A state plan need not
contain exactly the same provisions that EPA might require, but EPA
must be able to find that the state plan is consistent with the
requirements of the Act in accordance with its obligations under
section 110(k). Further, EPA's oversight role requires that it assure
consistent implementation of Clean Air Act requirements by states
across the country, even while acknowledging that individual decisions
from source to source or state to state may not have identical
outcomes. EPA believes these disapprovals are the only path that is
consistent with the Act at this time.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in
[[Page 64744]]
CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. Nevada's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals were not submitted to meet either of
these requirements. Therefore, our partial disapproval of Nevada's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals does not trigger mandatory sanctions
under CAA section 179.
In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after
finding that a State has failed to make a required submission or
disapproving a State implementation plan submission in whole or in
part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies
within that two-year period.
With respect to our partial approval and partial disapproval of
Nevada's submissions related to interstate transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), we conclude that any FIP obligation resulting from
our final, partial disapproval is satisfied by our determination that
there is no deficiency in the SIP to correct. Such disapproval also
does not require any further action on Nevada's part given EPA's
conclusion that the SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to our final disapproval of Nevada's Infrastructure
SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark County
portion of the SIP, today's action establishes a deadline two years
from the effective date of this action for EPA to promulgate a FIP,
unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiency within
that two-year period.\15\ We encourage the state to submit a SIP
revision to address the deficiencies identified in this final rule and
we stand ready to work with the state to develop a revised plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In our proposed rule, we did not explicitly state how EPA's
proposed disapproval of section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark
County portion of the SIP would trigger a new FIP obligation for
EPA. However, our proposed rule made clear that ``CAA section
110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) within two years after finding that a State has failed to
make a required submission or disapproving a State implementation
plan submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP
revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period.''
(77 FR 46361 at 46370). By contrast, for our other proposed
disapprovals, we made clear that EPA's FIP obligation would be
satisfied ``by our determination that there is no deficiency in the
SIP to correct'' (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS; see 77 FR 46361 at 46370) and that the
``deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by the Federal
PSD program'' (for the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J),
and 110(a)(2)(K) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP;
see 77 FR 46361 at 46367).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all other final disapprovals of today's action (i.e., for the
PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K)
for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP), we conclude that
although the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD
requirements in both the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP,
these deficiencies are adequately addressed in each jurisdiction by the
Federal PSD program, and therefore no further FIP obligation is
triggered by today's action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP revisions
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply approves certain State
requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for
inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose
any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP
approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-
and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain
State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements,
for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for
EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of
the rule. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the partial approval and partial
disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
action approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves
certain other pre-existing requirements, under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national
[[Page 64745]]
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves certain State
requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for
inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
on which EPA is proposing action would not apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This partial approval and partial disapproval
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and
disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective on November 23, 2012.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: September 28, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD--Nevada
0
2. Section 52.1470 in paragraph (e), the table is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries for ``Section 11--Intergovernmental
Consultation,'' ``Section 12--Resources,'' and ``445B.500'';
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Attachment D--Inter-Local Agreement Supporting
CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements'' after the entry for ``Section 11--
Intergovernmental Consultation'';
0
c. Adding entries for ``Enclosure 1--CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements
in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour
Ozone,'' ``Enclosure 1--CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the
Current Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5,''
``Enclosure 1--CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current Nevada
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5,'' ``Attachment
A--Current CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Washoe County
Portion of the Nevada PM2.5 SIP,'' and ``Revisions to
Nevada's Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) Plan Submittals as of July
2012 (August 2012), excluding attachments A through D'' after the entry
for ``Adopted Lead Implementation Plan for the Truckee Meadows Basin,
4/26/84'';
[[Page 64746]]
0
d. Adding new table heading titled ``Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 18,
State Executive Department, Chapter 232A, Boards, Commissions and
Similar Bodies'' after the entry for ``0.039,'' and under the new
heading, adding an entry for ``232A.020'';
0
e. Adding new table heading titled ``Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 23,
Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 281A, Ethics in Government''
after the new entry for ``232A.020,'' and under the new heading, adding
entries in numerical order for ``281A.150,'' ``281A.160,''
``282A.400,'' ``281A.410,'' and ``281A.420'';
0
f. Adding new table heading titled ``Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 40,
Public Health and Safety, Chapter 439, Administration of Public
Health'' after the entry for ``366.060,'' and under the new heading,
adding an entry for ``439.390''; and
0
g. Adding an entry for ``445B.503'' after the entry for ``445B.500.''
Sec. 52.1470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State
Name of SIP provision geographic or submittal EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 11--Intergovernmental State-wide.......... 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted as
Consultation. Register page attachment D to
number where the NDEP's August 30,
document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
23/12. submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment D--Inter-Local Washoe County....... 12/4/09 [Insert Federal Submitted as
Agreement Supporting CAA Register page attachment D to
110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements. number where the NDEP's December 4,
document begins] 10/ 2009 SIP revision
23/12. submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 12--Resources............ State-wide.......... 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted as
Register page attachment A to
number where the NDEP's August 30,
document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
23/12. submittal.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure 1--CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) State-wide, within 2/1/08 [Insert Federal ``Infrastructure''
Requirements in the Current NDEP jurisdiction. Register page SIP for the 1997 8-
Nevada State Implementation Plan number where the Hour ozone
(SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone. document begins] 10/ standard.
23/12. Enclosures (2) and
(3) include copies
of the regulatory
and statutory
provisions
previously approved
in the Nevada SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure 1--CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) State-wide, within 2/26/08 [Insert Federal ``Infrastructure''
Requirements in the Current NDEP jurisdiction. Register page SIP for the 1997
Nevada State Implementation Plan number where the PM2.5 standard.
(SIP) for PM2.5. document begins] 10/ Enclosures (2) and
23/12. (3) include copies
of the regulatory
and statutory
provisions
previously approved
in the Nevada SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure 1-CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) State-wide, within 9/15/09 [Insert Federal ``Infrastructure''
Requirements in the Current NDEP jurisdiction. Register page SIP for the 2006
Nevada State Implementation Plan number where the PM2.5 standard.
(SIP) for PM2.5. document begins] 10/ Enclosures (2) and
23/12. (3) include copies
of the regulatory
and statutory
provisions
previously approved
in the Nevada SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment A--Current CAA Washoe County....... 12/04/09 [Insert Federal Attachment B
110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in Register page includes Washoe
the Washoe County Portion of the number where the County regulations,
Nevada PM2.5 SIP. document begins] 10/ that are addressed
23/12. in separate
rulemakings.
Attachment C is the
PSD delegation
agreement between
Washoe County
District Health
Department and EPA
Region IX.
Attachment D
(``Inter-Local
Agreement
Supporting CAA
110(a)(2)(A)-(M)
Requirements'') is
approved into the
SIP and listed
separately in this
table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to Nevada's Clean Air State-wide.......... 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Attachment A
Act Section 110(a)(2) Plan Register page (``Section 12-
Submittals as of July 2012 number where the Resources''), the
(August 2012), excluding document begins] 10/ individual
attachments A through D. 23/12. statutory
provisions in
attachment B
(``Statutes for
Inclusion in
Nevada's ASIP''),
and attachment D
(``Section 11--
Intergovernmental
Consultation'') are
listed separately
in this table.
Attachment C was
submitted for
information only
and not for
incorporation into
Nevada's SIP.
[[Page 64747]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 18, State Executive Department, Boards, Chapter 232A, Commissions and Similar
Bodies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
232A.020......................... Residency 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
requirement for Register page attachment B to
appointment; terms number where the NDEP's August 30,
of members; document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
vacancies; 23/12. submittal. (Nevada
qualification of Revised Statutes,
member appointed as Volume 14, 2011, as
representative of published by the
general public; Legislative
gubernatorial Counsel, State of
appointee Nevada, section
prohibited from 232A.020).
serving on more
than one board,
commission or
similar body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 23, Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 281A, Ethics in Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
281A.150......................... ``Public employee'' 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
defined. Register page attachment B to
number where the NDEP's August 30,
document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
23/12. submittal. (Nevada
Revised Statutes,
Volume 18, 2011, as
published by the
Legislative
Counsel, State of
Nevada, section
281A.150).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
281A.160......................... ``Public officer'' 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
defined. Register page attachment B to
number where the NDEP's August 30,
document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
23/12. submittal. (Nevada
Revised Statutes,
Volume 18, 2011, as
published by the
Legislative
Counsel, State of
Nevada, section
481A.160).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
281A.400......................... General 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
requirements; Register page attachment B to
exceptions. number where the NDEP's August 30,
document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
23/12. submittal. (Nevada
Revised Statutes,
Volume 18, 2011, as
published by the
Legislative
Counsel, State of
Nevada, section
281A.400).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
281A.410......................... Limitations on 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
representing or Register page attachment B to
counseling private number where the NDEP's August 30,
persons before document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
public agencies; 23/12. submittal. (Nevada
disclosure required Revised Statutes,
by certain public Volume 18, 2011, as
officers. published by the
Legislative
Counsel, State of
Nevada, section
281A.410).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
281A.420......................... Requirements 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
regarding Register page attachment B to
disclosure of number where the NDEP's August 30,
conflicts of document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
interest and 23/12. submittal. (Nevada
abstention from Revised Statutes,
voting because of Volume 18, 2011, as
certain types of published by the
conflicts; effect Legislative
of abstention on Counsel, State of
quorum and voting Nevada, section
requirements; 281A.420).
exceptions.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 40, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 439, Administration of Public Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
439.390.......................... District board of 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
health: Register page attachment B, and
Composition; number where the as an exhibit to
qualifications of document begins] 10/ attachment D, to
members. 23/12. NDEP's August 30,
2012 SIP revision
submittal. (Nevada
Revised Statutes,
Volume 27, 2011, as
published by the
Legislative
Counsel, State of
Nevada, section
439.390).
[[Page 64748]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
445B.500......................... Establishment and 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
administration of Register page attachment B to
program; contents number where the NDEP's August 30,
of program; document begins] 10/ 2012 SIP revision
designation of air 23/12. submittal. (Nevada
pollution control Revised Statutes,
agency of county Volume 28, 2011, as
for purposes of published by the
federal act; powers Legislative
and duties of local Counsel, State of
air pollution Nevada, section
control board; 445B.500).
notice of public
hearings;
delegation of
authority to
determine
violations and levy
administrative
penalties; cities
and smaller
counties;
regulation of
certain electric
plants prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
445B.503......................... Local air pollution 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Submitted in
control board in Register page attachment B, and
county whose number where the as an exhibit to
population is document begins] 10/ attachment D, to
700,000 or more: 23/12]. NDEP's August 30,
Cooperation with 2012 SIP revision
regional planning submittal. (Nevada
coalition and Revised Statutes,
regional Volume 28, 2011, as
transportation published by the
commission; Legislative
prerequisites to Counsel, State of
adoption or Nevada, section
amendment of plan, 445B.503).
policy or program.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 52.1472 is amended by adding paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.1472 Approval status.
* * * * *
(d) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on February 1, 2008
and August 30, 2012 are partially disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for the Nevada Division of
Environmental Quality (NDEP) and Washoe County portions of the Nevada
SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark County portion of
the Nevada SIP.
(e) 1997 P2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on February 26, 2008 and
August 30, 2012 are partially disapproved for CAA elements
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for the NDEP and Washoe County
portions of the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for the
Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.
(f) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on September 15, 2009,
December 4, 2009, and August 30, 2012 are partially disapproved for CAA
elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other
state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality), (D)(ii),
(J) and (K) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada SIP;
for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the NDEP, Washoe County, and
Clark County portions of the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element
110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.
[FR Doc. 2012-25558 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
