Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, NO2 and SO2, 67652-67663 [2015-27029]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67652-67663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27029]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812; FRL-9935-82-Region 9]


Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State 
Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, 
NO[ihel2] and SO[ihel2]

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (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 2008 ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS), the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS and 
the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. 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 that EPA act 
on such SIPs. Nevada has met most of the applicable requirements. Where 
EPA is disapproving, in part, Nevada's SIP revisions, the deficiencies 
have already been addressed by a federal implementation plan (FIP).

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by 
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812. The index to the docket for 
this action is available electronically at 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: Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3856, 
kelly.thomasp@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Response to Comments
III. Final Action
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.
    EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone on March 28, 2010, for 
NO2 on February 9, 2010, and for SO2 on June 22, 
2010.1 2 3 These NAAQS revisions triggered requirements for 
states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years. The Nevada 
Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has submitted several 
infrastructure SIP submittals in response to EPA's promulgation of 
these NAAQS, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 16436. This final rule reduced the ozone NAAQS from 
0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.
    \2\ 75 FR 6474. This final rule revised the primary 
NO2 NAAQS from an annual arithmetic average to a one-hour 
NO2 NAAQS of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and left 
unchanged EPA's secondary annual NO2 NAAQS. The form of 
the 1-hour standard is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 
the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 
concentrations.
    \3\ This final rule revoked EPA's annual and 24-hour 
SO2 NAAQS and a 1-hour NAAQS of 75 ppb. The form of the 
1-hour standard is the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the 
yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum SO2 
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ozone

     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of 
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: 
Demonstration of Adequacy April 10, 2013;
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Ozone 
Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(2), 
Clark County, Nevada, February, 2013;
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State 
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration of 
Adequacy, February 28, 2013.

NO2

     NDEP letter to EPA, dated May 9, 2013 and Washoe County 
letter, dated April 26, 2013, containing the Approved Minutes of the 
February 28, 2013 public hearing and the Certificate of Adoption;
     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of 
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 
Primary NAAQS: Demonstration of Adequacy and appendices, January 18, 
2013;
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Nitrogen 
Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sec.  
110(a)(2), and attachments Clark County, Nevada, December, 2012;
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State 
Implementation Plan to Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide Primary NAAQS; Final 
Submittal, March 15, 2013.

SO2

     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of 
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 
Primary NAAQS, and appendices, June 3, 2013;
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Sulfur 
Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sec.  
110(a)(2), and attachments Clark County, Nevada, May, 2013;
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State 
Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 
Requirements of Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(2), and attachments, March 
28, 2013.
    We refer to these submittals collectively as ``Nevada's 
Infrastructure Submittals.''
    On May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28893), EPA proposed to approve in part, and 
disapprove in part, these SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 ozone, the 
2010 NO2, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Except for the 
interstate transport elements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, we are taking final action on all the 
Nevada Infrastructure Submittals since they collectively address the 
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements.
    Nevada's submittals also requested that EPA reclassify the Nevada 
Intrastate Air Quality Control Region from priority IA to priority III 
for SO2 emergency episodes and remove historic, outdated 
language at 40 CFR 52.1475 from the state's approved SIP. Our Notice of

[[Page 67653]]

Proposed Rulemaking included these proposed changes. We also proposed 
to define the term Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region and 
proposed to reclassify the Las Vegas Intrastate Air Quality Control 
Region from priority IA to priority III for SO2 emergency 
episodes.
    The rationale supporting EPA's actions is explained in our May 20, 
2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) and the associated 
technical support documents (TSDs) and will not be restated 
here.4 5 The proposed rule and TSD are available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 28893, May 20, 2015.
    \5\ ``Technical Support Document Evaluation of the Nevada 
Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 
SO2'' May 2015; ``Nevada Pb Infrastructure SIP Technical 
Support Document, September 13, 2012; Technical Support Document: 
EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions for 1997 Ozone, 1997 
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for Section 
110(a)(2)(A) through (C), D((i)(II) and (D)(ii), E(i) and (E(iii), 
(F) through (M), July 2012; and Technical Support Document: EPA 
Evaluation of NV Provisions for Section 110 (a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 
128 Conflict of Interest Requirements, July 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on May 20, 
2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed 
on June 19, 2015. During this period, EPA received comments from an 
unidentified commenter, NDEP, and a single comment letter from the 
Sierra Club and Earthjustice. The comments are summarized below; full 
text of these comments is available in the docket to this final 
rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See document number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0812-0074, 0076 and 
0077 at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-R09-
OAR-2014-0812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Unidentified Commenter

    Comment: The commenter supported the partial disapproval of the 
Nevada SIP and discussed the health benefits of minimizing criteria 
pollutants and maintaining low levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 
dioxide and ozone. The commenter asserted that with stricter standards, 
clean renewable energy may become more popular.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the support for our action. We do wish 
to clarify that EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of 
elements of the Nevada SIP will not result in changes to air quality 
regulation in Nevada, as the specific deficiencies have already been 
addressed by the delegation of EPA's prevention of significant 
deterioration of air quality (PSD) program to NDEP and Washoe County. 
The need for this action, however, did result from EPA's lowering of 
its NAAQS for ozone (in 2008), nitrogen dioxide (in 2010) and sulfur 
dioxide (in 2010).

B. NDEP Comments

    NDEP Comment 1: NDEP suggested that EPA revise and approve all 
proposed disapprovals in the proposed rulemaking. The commenter 
contended that the proposed disapproval of two elements, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(C) and (D), were based on NDEP and Washoe County having a 
delegated PSD programs. The commenter further claimed that the proposed 
disapprovals stem from EPA's interpretation that a delegated PSD 
program is not considered part of the applicable Nevada SIP. Next, NDEP 
cited Federal Register language from EPA's approval and disapproval of 
a recent Nevada Infrastructure SIP, ``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.'' \7\ Then the 
commenter stated ``the NDEP suggests that this broad interpretation of 
what constitutes Nevada's applicable SIP is the appropriate 
interpretation . . . delegation is an acceptable method for 
implementing a PSD program and no penalties to the state apply if they 
choose that option.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012) Partial Approval and Partial 
Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; 
Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with NDEP's suggestion that Nevada's I-SIP 
Submittals should be approved for PSD-related infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the NDEP and Washoe County jurisdictions. We note that 
NDEP and Washoe County submitted similar comments in 2012 and 2013 with 
respect to EPA's proposed rulemaking on infrastructure SIPs for the 
1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS; and proposed rulemaking on infrastructure SIPs 
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Our response to NDEP's comment largely 
reiterates our response to NDEP and Washoe County's comments on 
delegated PSD FIP programs during our 2012 and 2014 rulemakings on 
Nevada's infrastructure SIPs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012; 79 FR 15697, March 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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'').\10\ In 1975, EPA codified the PSD FIP in each state's subpart 
in 40 CFR part 52.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 39 FR 42510, December 5, 1974.
    \11\ 40 FR 25004, June 12, 1975, adding 40 CFR 52.1485 to 
Subpart DD--Nevada.
    \12\ 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 (DAQ), and has delegated responsibility for 
conducting PSD review, as per the PSD FIP, to NDEP and Washoe County. 
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'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), and 
(J), 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

[[Page 67654]]

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.
    NDEP Comment 2: NDEP requested clarification regarding EPA's 
``proposed partial disapproval,'' at 80 FR 28898, column 3, ``of the 
interstate pollution transport portion'' of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
i.e. prongs 1 and 2. The commenter noted that EPA has proposed approval 
of the transport analysis submitted for nitrogen dioxide, yet proposed 
no action on the transport analysis for ozone and sulfur dioxide.
    Response: In section IV.A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals 
of our proposal notice we accidentally identified prongs 1-2 as being 
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), when in fact prongs 1-2 are sub-
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, a proposed partial 
approval, partial disapproval for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is 
correct as this sub-element relates to prongs 3 and 4 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i). As our analysis makes clear in the TSD on pp. 21-22, 
EPA proposed a partial approval, partial disapproval for prong 3 under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because NDEP and Washoe County do not have 
SIP approved PSD programs. However, we acknowledge NDEP's point that we 
proposed approval for prongs 1-2 for NO2, and proposed no 
action on 2008 ozone or 2010 SO2 under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). We thank NDEP for identifying this typographical 
error, and we have clarified it in the final rulemaking.

C. Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comments

    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 1: Sierra Club/Earthjustice 
asserted that the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, 
and EPA regulations, at 40 CFR 51.112, requires that SIPs contain 
emissions limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not 
designated nonattainment. The legislative history of the CAA, case law, 
EPA regulations such as 40 CFR 51.112(a), and EPA interpretations in 
rulemakings require the inclusion of enforceable emission limits in an 
infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated 
nonattainment. The commenter argued that the Nevada 2008 ozone 
infrastructure SIP submittal did not revise the existing ozone emission 
limits in response to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and failed to comport with 
asserted CAA requirements for SIPs to establish enforceable emission 
limits that are adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not 
designated nonattainment.
    The commenter believed that the main objective of the 
infrastructure SIP process ``is to ensure that all areas of the country 
meet the NAAQS,'' and that nonattainment areas are addressed through 
nonattainment SIPs. The commenter maintained the NAAQS are the 
foundation for specific emission limitations for most large stationary 
sources, such as coal-fired power plants. The commenter stated its 
belief that, pursuant to section 107(a), the states have primary 
responsibility to maintain air quality through the controls and 
programs contained in the state's infrastructure SIPs as required by 
section 110(a)(2). The commenter also argued that, on its face, the CAA 
requires infrastructure SIPs ``to be adequate to prevent exceedances of 
the NAAQS,'' as provided in section 110(a)(1), which requires states to 
adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 
NAAQS, and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires SIPs to 
include enforceable emissions limitations necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CAA and which the commenter claimed also should 
include the maintenance plan requirement. The commenter maintained the 
CAA definition of emission limit, when combined with the provisions 
stated above, requires ``enforceable emission limits on source 
emissions sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.''
    Response: EPA disagrees that section 110 is clear ``on its face'' 
and must be interpreted in the manner suggested by Sierra Club/
Earthjustice. As we have previously explained in response to the 
commenter's similar comments on Virginia's SO2 
infrastructure SIP, section 110 is only one provision that is part of a 
complex structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under 
the CAA, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that 
structure, but in the context of the historical evolution of the 
Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and 
Promulgations: Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 79 FR 17043 
(March 27, 2014); Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for 
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 79 
FR 62022 (October 16, 2014); and Final Approval of Illinois 
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 79 FR 62042 (October 
16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA interprets infrastructure SIPs as more general planning SIPs, 
consistent with the CAA as understood in light of its history and 
structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include 
provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas as attainment or 
nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the 
state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and section 110 set 
forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that 
time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air 
pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in 
section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with a new NAAQS 
within five years. Section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 
110 plan provide for ``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section 
110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include ``emission 
limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such 
limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure 
attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].''
    In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not 
sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, 
Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA 
to identify whether areas of a state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., 
were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) 
and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas 
not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not 
meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet 
another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of 
the NAAQS. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove 
references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including 
removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and 
renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, 
Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to insure attainment 
and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be necessary or 
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' 
Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since 
it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 of the CAA did 
provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and 
specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS, 
under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial 
stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. More 
detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive

[[Page 67655]]

planning process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS.
    Thus, EPA asserts that section 110 of the CAA is only one provision 
that is part of the complicated structure governing implementation of 
the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be 
interpreted in the context of that structure and the historical 
evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 
since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning 
requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in 
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide for 
``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the SIP 
must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining 
and/or maintaining the NAAQS. EPA has interpreted the requirement for 
emission limitations in section 110 to mean that the state may rely on 
measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new 
control measures that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA 
stated in the Infrastructure SIP Guidance which specifically provides 
guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he 
conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure 
that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural 
requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that 
the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by making a 
substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.'' 14 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See pages 1 and 2 of Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 2013.
    \15\ Thus, EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's general assertion 
that the main objective of infrastructure SIPs is to ensure all 
areas of the country meet the NAAQS, as we believe the 
infrastructure SIP process is the opportunity to review the 
structural requirements of a state's air program. EPA, however, does 
agree with Sierra Club that the NAAQS are the foundation upon which 
emission limitations are set, but we believe, as explained in 
responses to other comments, that these emission limitations are 
generally set in the attainment planning process envisioned by part 
D of title I of the CAA, including, but not limited to, CAA sections 
172 and 191-192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA addressed the adequacy of Nevada's infrastructure SIP for 
section 110(a)(2)(A) purposes in the TSD accompanying the May 20, 2014 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and explained that the SIP includes 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures ``necessary 
or appropriate to meet the requirements of this chapter.'' \16\ These 
include permit requirements for major sources in attainment and 
nonattainment areas and general permits for minor stationary 
sources.\17\ As discussed in the TSD for this rulemaking, EPA finds the 
provisions for ozone emission limitations and measures adequately 
address section 110(a)(2)(A) to aid in attaining and/or maintaining the 
NAAQS and finds that the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP has 
demonstrated it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce the 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The TSD for this action (``Technical Support Document 
Evaluation of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2'' May 2015) is available 
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0812-0038.
    \17\ See Table 3 of ``Technical Support Document Evaluation of 
the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 
and 2010 SO2'' May 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 2: The commenter claimed that two 
excerpts from the legislative history of the 1970 CAA support an 
interpretation that SIP revisions under CAA section 110 must include 
emissions limitations sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in 
all areas of Nevada. The commenter also claimed that the legislative 
history of the CAA supports the interpretation that infrastructure SIPs 
under section 110(a)(2) must include enforceable emission limitations, 
citing the Senate Committee Report and the subsequent Senate Conference 
Report accompanying the 1970 CAA.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters claim. As provided in 
the previous response (Section C, response to Sierra Club/Earthjustice 
Comment 1), the CAA, as enacted in 1970, including its legislative 
history, cannot be interpreted in isolation from the later amendments 
that refined that structure and deleted relevant language from section 
110 concerning demonstrating attainment. In any event, the two excerpts 
of legislative history the commenter cites provide that states should 
include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs. As provided in the 
response to Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 6 below, the TSD for the 
proposed rule explains why the Nevada SIP includes enforceable 
emissions limitations for ozone for the relevant area.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 3: The commenter referenced two 
prior EPA rulemaking actions where EPA disapproved or proposed to 
disapprove SIPs and claimed they were actions in which EPA relied on 
section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. 
The commenter directed attention to a 2006 partial approval and partial 
disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing plan addressing the 
SO2 NAAQS. In that action, EPA relied on section 
110(a)(2)(A) for disapproving an emission limit revision on the basis 
that the State failed to demonstrate the SIP revision was sufficient to 
ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS; EPA cited to 40 CFR 
51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules in a SIP are 
adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, the commenter cited a 2013 
disapproval of a revision to the SO2 SIP for Indiana, where 
the revision removed an emission limit that applied to a specific 
emissions source at a facility in the State. See 78 FR 17157, 17158, 
(March 20, 2013) (proposed rule on Indiana SO2 SIP) and 78 
FR 78720, 78721 (December 27, 2013) (final rule on Indiana 
SO2 SIP). The commenter believed that in the proposed 
disapproval, EPA relied on 40 CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the 
revision, stating that the State had not demonstrated that the emission 
limit was ``redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not 
result in or allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions.'' 
The commenter contended that EPA stated in that proposed disapproval 
that the State had not demonstrated that removal of the limit would not 
``affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing 
attainment demonstration'' and asserted that outside of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction requirements, EPA's 2013 I-SIP guidance did 
not discuss postponement of any I-SIP requirements.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions referenced 
by Sierra Club/Earthjustice establish how EPA reviews infrastructure 
SIPs. It is clear from both the final Missouri rule and the proposed 
and final Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing initial 
infrastructure SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA, but rather 
reviewing revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed to 
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent. EPA's partial 
approval and partial disapproval of revisions to restrictions on 
emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71 FR 12623 
addressed a control strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP. The 
Indiana action provides even less support for the commenter's position. 
78 FR 78720. The review in that rule was of a completely different 
requirement than the section 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. Rather, in that case, 
the State had an approved SO2 attainment plan and was 
seeking to remove provisions from the SIP that it relied on as part of 
the modeled attainment demonstration. EPA proposed that the State had 
failed to demonstrate under

[[Page 67656]]

section 110(l) of the CAA why the SIP revision would not result in 
increased SO2 emissions and thus interfere with attainment 
of the NAAQS. See 78 FR 17157. Nothing in that proposed or final 
rulemaking addresses the necessary content of the initial 
infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply 
applying the clear statutory requirement that a state must demonstrate 
why a revision to an approved attainment plan will not interfere with 
attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter includes a footnote explaining 
that EPA's infrastructure SIP guidance inappropriately postpones start-
up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements, offering no support 
for departing from the plain text of EPA's regulations and past 
practices.
    The guidance states, ``two elements that could not be governed by 
the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) . . . the following 
elements are considered by the EPA to be outside the scope of 
infrastructure SIP actions: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that 
it refers to permit programs (known as ``nonattainment new source 
review'') under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety, 
which addresses SIP revisions for nonattainment areas. Both these 
elements pertain to SIP revisions that collectively are referred to as 
a nonattainment SIP or an attainment plan, which would be due by the 
dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D, 
extending as far as 10 years following area designations for some 
elements. Because the CAA directs states to submit these plan elements 
on a separate schedule, the EPA does not believe it is necessary for 
states to include these elements in the infrastructure SIP submission 
due 3 years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS.''
    As discussed in detail in the TSD and NPR, EPA finds the Nevada SIP 
meets the appropriate and relevant structural requirements of section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the 
NAAQS and that the State demonstrated that it has the necessary tools 
to implement and enforce a NAAQS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA will take a separate action on CAA (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
Nevada ozone infrastructure SIP (i.e. the Good Neighbor SIP 
provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 4: The commenter discussed several 
cases applying the CAA which they claimed support their contention that 
courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable 
emissions limits in infrastructure SIPs to prevent exceedances of the 
NAAQS. The commenter cited to language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 
78 (1975), addressing the requirement for ``emission limitations'' and 
stating that emission limitations ``are specific rules to which 
operators of pollution sources are subject, and which, if enforced, 
should result in ambient air which meet the national standards.'' The 
commenter also cited to Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 
932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the proposition that the CAA 
directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP where it does not ensure 
maintenance of the NAAQS, and to Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 
F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the 
CAA of 1970. The commenter contends that the 1990 Amendments do not 
alter how courts have interpreted the requirements of section 110, 
quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 
(2004), which in turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also 
stated that ``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified'' 
to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter also quotes several 
additional opinions that purportedly stand for similar propositions: 
Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) 
(``The Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans--
SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of [NAAQS] through 
enforceable emissions limitations''); Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 
(9th Cir. 2001) (``Each State must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the 
manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained within each air 
quality control region in the State''); Conn. Fund for Env't, Inc. v. 
EPA, 696 F.2d 169, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (CAA requires SIPs to contain 
``measures necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS''); 
Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) 
(EPA may not approve a SIP revision that does not demonstrate how the 
rules would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS). The commenter also cites Comm. For a Better Arvin v. EPA, 
No.11-73924, at*3-4 (9th Cir. May 20, 2015) as supporting their 
contention that the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 
infrastructure SIPs to include enforceable emissions limits on sources 
sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. None of the cited 
cases hold that section 110(a)(2)(A) unambiguously requires 
infrastructure SIPs to include detailed plans providing for attainment 
and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they 
shed light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted. 
With the exception of Train, none of the cases the commenter cites 
concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 
110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the courts reference section 
110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the 
background sections of decisions in the context of either (1) a 
challenge to an EPA action on revisions to a SIP that were required and 
approved as meeting other provisions of the CAA, or (2) an enforcement 
action.
    In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was addressing a state revision to 
an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 
the sole statutory provision at that time regulating such submissions. 
The issue in that case concerned whether changes to requirements 
occurring before attainment deadlines were variances (which would be 
addressed pursuant to the provision governing SIP revisions) or 
``postponements'' (which would have to meet the prescriptive criteria 
of section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970). The Court concluded that EPA 
reasonably interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict a state's choice 
of the mix of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that 
revisions to SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the 
attainment date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). The 
issue was not whether a section 110 SIP must provide for attainment or 
whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the 
issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to 
revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in 
the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be 
interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion 
was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section 
110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS, 
a reference that was removed in 1990.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also 
decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was 
whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the 
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps. 
The Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of 
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that 
provision. Yet, even if the Court had interpreted that provision, EPA 
notes

[[Page 67657]]

that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has 
little bearing on the issue here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of 
``emissions limitation,'' not whether section 110 requires the state to 
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the 
NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the 
opinion the commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely 
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). Sierra Club/Earthjustice does not raise 
any concerns about whether the measures relied on by the Commonwealth 
in the infrastructure SIP are ``emissions limitations'' and the 
decision in this case has no bearing here.
    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the Court was 
reviewing a federal implementation plan (FIP) that EPA promulgated 
after a long history of the state failing to submit an adequate SIP in 
response to EPA's finding under section 110(k)(5) that the previously 
approved SIP was substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the 
NAAQS, which triggered the state's duty to submit a new SIP to show how 
it would remedy that deficiency and attain the NAAQS. The Court cited 
generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the 
proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS 
through emission limitations, but this language was not part of the 
Court's holding in the case, which focused instead on whether EPA's 
finding of SIP inadequacy, disapproval of the state's responsive 
attainment demonstration, and adoption of a remedial FIP were lawful. 
The commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 540 
U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments do 
not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is inaccurate. 
Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted 
previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision and the 
court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore, Sierra 
Club/Earthjustice also quotes the Court's statement that ``SIPs must 
include certain measures Congress specified,'' but that statement 
specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which 
requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the 
modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that 
case was the state's ``new source'' permitting program, not its 
infrastructure SIP.
    Two of the cases Sierra Club/Earthjustice cites, Mich. Dept. of 
Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret CAA 
section 110(l), the provision governing ``revisions'' to plans, and not 
the initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a 
new or revised NAAQS, such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in this 
instance. In those cases, the courts cited to section 110(a)(2)(A) 
solely for the purpose of providing a brief background of the CAA.
    In Conn. Fund for Env't, Inc. v. EPA, the Second Circuit was 
reviewing EPA action on a control measure SIP provision that adjusted 
the percent of sulfur permissible in fuel oil. 696 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 
1982). The Second Circuit denied a petition for review concerning 
whether EPA needed to evaluate effects of the SIP revision on one 
pollutant or effects of changes on all possible pollutants. The Second 
Circuit did not address required measures for infrastructure SIPs and 
nothing in the opinion addressed whether infrastructure SIPs needed to 
contain measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 
court did note, however, that, ``the need for flexibility in the 
administration of the [CAA] . . . should not be underestimated,'' and 
highlighted the court's past practice of being ``careful to defer to 
EPA's choice of methods to carry out its `difficult and complex job' as 
long as that choice is reasonable and consistent with the Act.'' Id. at 
173-74 (quoting Conn. Fund for the Env't v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998, 1006 (2d 
Cir. 1982). Here, section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to 
require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their 
planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that 
they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the 
state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement 
plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
    Finally, in Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA, the Petitioner 
challenged California's plans to improve air quality in the San Joaquin 
Valley. At issue was whether EPA erred in approving the state's SIP to 
comply with the NAAQS under section 109 concerning ozone and fine 
particulate matter. The court held that by approving the state's plans, 
even though the plans did not include the state-adopted mobile 
emissions standards on which those plans rely to achieve their 
emissions reductions goals, EPA violated the CAA. However, the court 
found that EPA did not violate the CAA by not requiring inclusion of 
other state mechanisms in its plans, and that other control measures 
approved by EPA are enforceable commitments as the CAA requires. While 
the court cited to section 110(a)(2)(A) for the proposition that SIPs 
generally should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through 
emission limitations, such language was not dispositive as to whether 
or not infrastructure SIPs specifically must include enforceable limits 
on sources sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. To the contrary, the CAA 
provides states and EPA with other tools to address concerns that arise 
with respect to purported violations of the NAAQS in a designated 
attainment area, such as the authority to redesignate areas pursuant to 
section 107(d)(3), the authority to issue a ``SIP Call'' pursuant to 
section 110(k)(5), or the general authority to approve SIP revisions 
that can address violations of the NAAQS through other appropriate 
measures.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 5: The commenter cited to 40 CFR 
51.112(a), providing that ``[e]ach plan must demonstrate that the 
measures, rules and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide 
for the timely attainment and maintenance of the [NAAQS]'' and asserted 
that this regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits 
necessary to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter stated their 
belief that ``[a]lthough these regulations were developed before the 
Clean Air Act separated infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs--a 
process that began with the 1977 amendments and was completed by the 
1990 amendments--the regulations apply to I-SIPs.'' Finally, the 
commenter stated that EPA has not changed the regulation since 1990, 
and that in the preamble to the final rule promulgating 40 CFR 51.112, 
EPA expressly identified that its new regulations were not implementing 
Subpart D. See Air Quality Implementation Plans; Restructuring SIP 
Preparation Regulations, 51 FR 40,656, 40,656 (Nov. 7, 1986) (``It is 
beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part 
D of the Act. . . .''). The commenter thus concludes that 40 CFR 51.112 
was intended to apply to infrastructure SIPs.
    Response: The commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its 
argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits 
``adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances'' and adequate or sufficient 
to ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial 
matter, EPA notes and the commenter recognizes this regulatory 
provision was initially promulgated and ``restructured and 
consolidated'' prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress 
removed all references to ``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A).

[[Page 67658]]

And, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans 
specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these 
provisions to apply when states are developing ``control strategy'' 
SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required 
under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in 
1990, such as sections 175A and 191-192. The commenter suggests that 
these provisions must apply to section 110 SIPs because in the preamble 
to EPA's action ``restructuring and consolidating'' provisions in part 
51, EPA stated that the new attainment demonstration provisions in the 
1977 Amendments to the CAA were ``beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking. 
It is important to note, however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to 
establish new substantive planning requirements, but rather was meant 
merely to consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously 
been promulgated. EPA noted that it had already issued guidance 
addressing the new ``Part D'' attainment planning obligations. Also, as 
to maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making 
any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. 51 FR 40657.
    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements 
interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear 
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended 
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated 
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy: 
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC, 
OX and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration 
of attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data 
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112 
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy 
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 6: Citing section 110(a)(2)(A) of 
the CAA, the commenter contends that EPA failed to meaningfully 
evaluate whether the emissions limitations and other control measures 
are adequate to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in EPA's 
proposed approval of the Clark County Infrastructure SIP. The commenter 
further contends that ``nearly all of the legal authorities . . . 
pertain only to new or additional sources . . . (and) would do nothing 
to reduce existing sources.''
    Response: EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA is 
reasonably interpreted to require states to submit infrastructure SIPs 
that reflect the first step in their planning for attainment and 
maintenance of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP revisions should 
contain a demonstration that the state has the available tools and 
authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the 
NAAQS and show that the SIP has enforceable control measures. In light 
of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding 
infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure 
that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a 
NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and 
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state. As mentioned 
above, EPA has interpreted this to mean, with regard to the requirement 
for emission limitations, that states may rely on measures already in 
place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures 
that the state may choose to submit.
    As stated in response to Sierra Club/Earthjustice's Comment 5, 
section 110 of the CAA is merely one provision within the complex, 
post-1990 regulatory structure governing implementation of the NAAQS, 
and must be interpreted in the context of that regulatory structure as 
well as the Act's historical evolution. In light of the revisions to 
section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific 
planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the 
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide 
for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the 
SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining 
and/or maintaining the NAAQS, and that the state demonstrate that it 
has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS (e.g., 
adequate state personnel and an enforcement program). As discussed 
above, EPA has interpreted the requirement for emission limitations in 
section 110 to mean that the state may rely on measures already in 
place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures 
that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA stated in the 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance which specifically provides guidance to 
states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he conceptual 
purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air 
agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new 
or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains 
the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to 
update the SIP, or both.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), 
September 2013 at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the proper inquiry is whether Nevada, including 
Clark County, has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate 
at the point in time EPA is acting upon the infrastructure submittal. 
Emissions limitations and other control measures needed to attain the 
NAAQS in areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS are due on a 
different schedule from the section 110 infrastructure elements. A 
state, like Nevada, may reference pre-existing SIP emission limits or 
other rules contained in part D plans for previous NAAQS in an 
infrastructure SIP submission. For example, NDEP and Clark County 
submitted a list of existing emission reduction measures in the SIP 
that control emissions of ozone, which are included in the discussion 
of Element A of the TSD supporting the NPRM. These provisions have the 
ability to reduce ozone overall. We mention both NDEP and Clark County 
because they both regulate facilities within Clark County. As mentioned 
in the TSD supporting the NPRM, NDEP has the sole authority to regulate 
facilities that generate energy from steam boilers burning fossil 
fuels. Fuel combustion is the second largest source of NOX 
emissions (16%) after (primarily EPA regulated) mobile sources (82%). 
Some of the largest stationary source emitters of NOX in 
Clark County, such as the Reid Gardner Generating Station, are 
regulated by NDEP.
    While NOX emissions are regulated at the federal, state 
and local level, the commenter specifically raised concerns with Clark 
County's legal authorities. EPA disagrees that Clark County legal 
authorities only pertain to new or additional sources. The County's 
permitting programs and regulatory controls also apply to existing 
facilities. We acknowledge that the Clark County portion of the ozone 
SIP submittal does not propose new regulations for the Nevada SIP that 
would reduce emissions from existing sources, such as those commonly 
included in an attainment SIP, but that does not mean that existing 
sources are not regulated at the state and local level.
    EPA believes it is not appropriate to bypass the attainment 
planning process by imposing separate attainment planning process 
requirements outside the attainment planning process and into the 
infrastructure SIP process. Such

[[Page 67659]]

actions would be disruptive and premature absent exceptional 
circumstances and would interfere with a state's planning process. See 
In the Matter of EME Homer City Generation LP and First Energy 
Generation Corp., Order on Petitions Numbers III-2012-06, III-2012-07, 
and III2013-01 (July 30, 2014) (hereafter, Homer City/Mansfield Order) 
at 10-19 (finding that the Pennsylvania SIP did not require imposition 
of SO2 emission limits on sources independent of the part D 
attainment planning process contemplated by the CAA). EPA believes that 
the history of the CAA, and intent of Congress for the CAA as described 
above, demonstrate clearly that it is within the section 172 and 
general part D attainment planning process that Nevada must include 
additional limits on ozone precursor emissions in order to demonstrate 
future attainment, where needed, for any areas in Nevada or other 
states that may be designated nonattainment in the future, in order to 
reach attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA does not agree with the commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 
to support its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission 
limits adequate to provide for timely attainment and maintenance of the 
standard. As explained previously in response to Sierra Club/
Earthjustice Comment 5, EPA notes this regulatory provision clearly on 
its face applies to plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS and 
not to infrastructure SIPs which show the states have in place 
structural requirements necessary to implement the NAAQS. Therefore, 
EPA finds 40 CFR 51.112 inapplicable to its analysis of the Nevada 
ozone infrastructure SIP.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 7: The commenter expressed concern 
that the design values for the Clark County air quality monitors 
exceeded the ozone NAAQS, yet the area remained designated attainment/
unclassifiable. The commenter also referenced a Sierra Club petition, 
denied by EPA, to redesignate Clark County and other areas to 
nonattainment \20\ and asserted that ``design values for monitors in 
Clark County have exceeded the 2008 0.075 ppm standard for every three-
year period since 2001-2003 with the lone exception of 2009-2011.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Petition to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency to Redesignate as Nonattainment 57 Areas with 2012 
Design Values Violating the 2008 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for Ozone (Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0563, and included in 
the docket for this rulemaking)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA's decision not to redesignate the areas identified in 
the Sierra Club's petition involved many factors, which we discuss in 
the next paragraph, including: the role of the declining national 
NOX and VOC emissions, particularly from mobile sources, 
which are primarily regulated by EPA; the limited planning requirements 
associated with marginal nonattainment areas; the development of 
collaborative strategies to bring newly violating areas back into 
compliance as soon as possible; and the fluctuation of ozone levels 
with varying weather conditions.\21\ We will discuss the factors 
mentioned in EPA's response to the Sierra Club's redesignation petition 
(for 57 areas in the U.S.), specifically for Clark County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In addition to the factors discussed above, EPA's response 
to the petition, a letter from Gina McCarthy to Seth Johnson, Sierra 
Club, dated August 14, 2014 (included in the docket for this 
rulemaking), also states that 22 of the 57 areas were again 
attaining the ozone NAAQS based on their 2013 design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our response to Sierra Club's petition explained, ``emissions of 
NOX in the U.S. are expected to decline by 29% from 2011 
through 2018, even when accounting for increases in some sectors, such 
as the oil and gas industry.'' NOX emissions from on-road 
mobile sources, locomotives, and non-road engines are expected to 
comprise more than 90% of the reductions. The air quality of Clark 
County stands to benefit even more than the rest of the country on a 
relative basis, because mobile sources represent 82% of NOX 
sources within Clark County, but only 58% nationally.\22\ Our letter 
also noted 10% declining VOC emissions from 2011 to 2018, nearly all of 
which resulted from on-road and off-road engine rules.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Nevada NOX emissions by category (e.g. mobile 
sources, point sources) can be found at https://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.state_1.sas&pol=NOX&stfips=32.
    \23\ EPA's August 14, 2014 letter to the Sierra Club also 
discussed increases in NOX and VOC emissions from the oil 
and gas sector but did not discuss the impact of biogenic VOC 
emissions, which are likely to remain constant. (EPA's letter is 
available in the docket for EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0563 at https://www.regulations.gov/.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Clark County's remaining sources of NOX emissions, 
nearly 18% of the total NOX emissions for the 2011 Emissions 
Inventory, more than 33% (3,066 tons) were generated by a single 
facility, the Reid Gardner Generating Station,\24\ though Clark County 
states this figure had dropped to 1,848 tons by 2013.\25\ As we 
explained in the TSD for our proposed rulemaking, Reid Gardner retired 
three of four coal-fired boilers at the end of 2014. The fourth unit 
will be closed in 2017. Senate Bill 123, the Nevada law that required 
the early retirement of 557 megawatts (MW) of electrical generating 
capacity at Reid Gardner, allows for the replacement of these units 
with substantially cleaner burning natural gas-fired boilers (500-550 
MW) and renewable generating capacity (150 MW). The cleaner burning 
facility at Reid Gardner should provide substantial air quality 
benefits for Clark County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Based on an emissions query of EPA's Air Markets Division 
Database (for the year 2011) at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/, accessed 
on July 15, 2015.
    \25\ Clark County Ozone Advance Submission, submitted to Ms. 
Laura Bunte, from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County 
Department of Air Quality, at pp. 2-4, June 23, 2014, available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clark County has joined EPA's voluntary Ozone Advance Program, a 
collaborative effort between EPA, states, tribes, and local 
governments. It encourages proactive efforts to improve air quality 
that could better position areas to stay in attainment. The docket for 
this rulemaking includes Clark County's 2014 and 2015 submittals for 
the program.\26\ These documents acknowledge, as the comments note, 
increasing design values of the network monitoring system. The 
documents also discuss the use of grants from the (federal) Department 
of Transportation's Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality Incentive 
Program, non-regulatory measures to improve air quality, and the 
previously mentioned reductions at the Reid Gardner Generating Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ (1) Clark County Department of Air Quality, Ozone Advance 
Program, Path Forward, June 2014 and (2) Clark County Department of 
Air Quality, Ozone Advance Program, Progress Report, June 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter is correct in stating that Clark County's design 
value appears to have increased in the years following the county's 
designation as an attainment area (which had been based on 2009-2011 
data forming the 2011 design value). However, as we have noted, 
NO2 and VOC estimated emissions are declining within Clark 
County. Additionally, ozone is not dependent solely on the emission of 
precursors.\27\ Variations in weather

[[Page 67660]]

conditions play an important role in determining ozone levels and thus 
design values can fluctuate from year to year, which EPA also noted in 
our response to the Sierra Club's petition for redesignation. Recent 
EPA modeling, which included Clark County, estimated a 2017 Clark 
County ozone maximum design value of 72.8 parts per billion (or 0.0728 
parts per million (ppm)), below the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA notes that two monitors identified by the commenter 
(Spring Mountain Youth Camp monitor (AQS ID 32-003-7771) and Las 
Vegas Paiute Tribal monitor (AQS ID 32-003-8000)) are considered 
non-regulatory and not comparable to the NAAQS. The Spring Mountain 
monitor is not operated per FEM specifications and cannot be 
considered a State/Local Air Monitoring Station and therefore, the 
collected data, while usable for research purposes, is not 
comparable to the NAAQS. Similarly, The Las Vegas Paiute Tribal 
monitor is designated as non-regulatory monitor operated for 
informational purposes only.
    \28\ 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) also at https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ozonetransportNAAQS.html, Design Values listed in Ozone 
Design Values_Transport NODA.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Submittal for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 
2010 SO2 NAAQS. We are also taking final action on other 
regulatory changes discussed in our proposed rule. In the following 
subsections, we list the elements for which we are finalizing 
Infrastructure SIP approval or disapproval and provide a summary of the 
basis for those elements that are partially disapproved. We also 
describe the consequences of our disapprovals and discuss finalizing 
the other regulatory changes in our proposed rule.

A. Summary of Infrastructure SIP Approvals and Partial Approvals

    EPA is approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Ozone, 
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS with respect to the 
following requirements:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control 
measures and regulation of new stationary sources (full approval for 
Clark County).
     110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution 
Transport.
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (in part)--significant contribution to 
nonattainment, or prongs 1 and 2 (full approval of NDEP, Clark County 
and Washoe County for the NO2 NAAQS).
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)--interstate transport--
prevention of significant deterioration, or prong 3 (full approval for 
Clark County).
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (full approval)--visibility transport, 
or prong 4.
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution abatement 
and international air pollution (full approval for Clark County).
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict 
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government 
officials, public notification, and prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection (full approval for Clark 
County).
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of 
modeling data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.
EPA is taking no action on Interstate Transport--significant 
contribution to nonattainment for NDEP, Clark County and Washoe County 
on the Ozone and SO2 NAAQS [Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)].

B. Summary of Infrastructure SIP Partial Disapprovals

    EPA is disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure Submittal with respect 
to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control 
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources 
(disapproved for all NAAQS addressed by this rule and covered by the 
NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting programs).
     110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution 
Transport.
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part): interstate transport--
prevention of significant deterioration, or prong 3 (disapproval for 
all NAAQS addressed by this rule and covered by the NDEP and Washoe 
County PSD permitting programs).
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution abatement 
and international air pollution (disapproved for all NAAQS addressed by 
this rule and covered by the NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting 
programs).
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government 
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection 
(disapproval for all NAAQS addressed by this rule and covered by the 
NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting programs).
    As explained in our proposed rule, TSD, and section II of this 
final rule, we are disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure Submittal for 
the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP with respect to the PSD-
related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) because the Nevada SIP does not 
fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit 
programs under part C, title I of the Act. Both NDEP and Washoe County 
implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated new 
source review (NSR) pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with 
EPA.\29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 40 CFR 52.1485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consequences of Partial Disapprovals

    EPA takes disapproval of a state plan seriously. We believe that it 
is preferable, and preferred in the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 
that these requirements be implemented through state plans. 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 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 Submittals does not 
trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 
promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a state has failed 
to make a required submission or disapproving a SIP submission in whole 
or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the 
deficiencies within that two-year period. As discussed in section III.B 
of this final rule and in our TSD, we are finalizing several partial 
disapprovals. These disapprovals do not result in new FIP obligations, 
because EPA has already promulgated FIPs to address the identified 
deficiencies.

[[Page 67661]]

D. Summary of Other Regulatory Actions

    EPA is finalizing the other regulatory actions discussed in the 
proposed rule: Defining the term Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control 
Region; reclassifying the Nevada Intrastate and Las Vegas Intrastate 
Air Quality Control Regions from priority IA to priority III for 
emergency episodes; removing historic language from the Nevada SIP, 
which refers to a facility no longer in existence.

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 this rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this 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 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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes. In addition, the SIP is not approved to 
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or 
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In 
those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal 
implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

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.

[[Page 67662]]

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.
    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. 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. The 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. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on December 3, 2015.

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 January 4, 2016. 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur 
dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, air pollution control, incorporation by 
reference, Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
    Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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. In Sec.  52.1470, paragraph (e), the table is amended by adding four 
entries after the entry for ``Small Business Stationary Source 
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Applicable
                               geographic or        State
    Name of SIP provision      nonattainment   submittal date          EPA Approval date           Explanation
                                    area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.   State-wide.....      12/20/2012  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
  110(a)(1) and (2) State                                       citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
 Implementation Plan for the                                                                      NDEP, Clark
 2008 ozone NAAQS, excluding                                                                      County and
 appendices A-F for NDEP;                                                                         Washoe County
 excluding the cover letter                                                                       for the 2008 8-
 to NDEP and attachments A                                                                        hour ozone
 and B for Clark County; and                                                                      standard.
 excluding the cover letter
 to NDEP and Attachments A
 and B for Washoe County.

[[Page 67663]]

 
Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.   NDEP                  1/18/2013  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
  110(a)(1) and (2) State      jurisdiction                     citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
 Implementation Plan for the   and Clark                                                          NDEP and Clark
 2010 nitrogen dioxide         County.                                                            County for the
 NAAQS, excluding appendices                                                                      2010 1-hour
 A-G for NDEP; excluding the                                                                      nitrogen
 cover letter to NDEP and                                                                         dioxide
 attachments A-C for Clark                                                                        standard.
 County; and excluding the
 cover letter to NDEP,
 Washoe County portion of
 Nevada's State
 Implementation Plan for the
 2010 nitrogen dioxide
 NAAQS, and attachments A
 and B for Washoe County.
Washoe County Portion of      Washoe County..       3/15/2013  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
 Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.                                    citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
   110(a)(1) and (2) State                                                                        Washoe County
 Implementation Plan for the                                                                      for the 2010 1-
 2010 nitrogen dioxide                                                                            hour nitrogen
 NAAQS, excluding cover                                                                           dioxide
 letter to NDEP and                                                                               standard.
 attachments A-B.
Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.   State-wide.....        6/3/2013  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
  110(a)(1) and (2) State                                       citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
 Implementation Plan for the                                                                      NDEP, Clark
 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS,                                                                       County and
 excluding the cover letter                                                                       Washoe County
 and appendices A-E for                                                                           for the 2010 1-
 NDEP; excluding the cover                                                                        hour sulfur
 letter to NDEP and                                                                               dioxide
 attachments A-C for Clark                                                                        standard.
 County; and excluding the
 cover letter to NDEP,
 attachments A-C, and public
 notice information for
 Washoe County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Section 52.1471 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1471  Classification of regions.

    The Nevada plan is evaluated on the basis of the following 
classifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Pollutant
     Air quality control region     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Particulate matter         Sulfur oxides         Nitrogen dioxide       Carbon monoxide             Ozone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Intrastate...............  I.....................  III...................  III..................  I....................  I
Northwest Nevada Intrastate........  I.....................  III...................  III..................  III..................  III
Nevada Intrastate..................  IA....................  III...................  III..................  III..................  III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
4. Section 52.1472 is amended by adding paragraphs (h),(i) and (j) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.1472  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (h) 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on December 20, 
2012 are partially disapproved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of 
the Nevada SIP; no action is taken for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    (i) 2008 1-hour nitrogen dioxide NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on 
January 18, 2013 are partially disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 
elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the Nevada 
Division of Environmental Quality (NDEP) and Washoe County portions of 
the Nevada SIP.
    (j) 2008 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on 
June 3, 2013 are disapproved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), 
(D)(ii), and (J) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada 
SIP; no action is taken for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) .


Sec.  52.1475  [Removed and Reserved]

0
5. Section 52.1475 is removed and reserved.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
6. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Designation of Air Quality Control Regions

0
7. Section 81.276 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  81.276  Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

    The Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region consists of the 
territorial area encompassed by the boundaries of the following 
jurisdictions or described area (including the territorial area of all 
municipalities (as defined in section 302(f) of the Clean Air Act, 42 
U.S.C. 1857h(f)) geographically located within the outermost boundaries 
of the area so delimited):
    In the State of Nevada: Churchill County, Elko County, Esmeralda 
County, Eureka County, Humboldt County, Lander County, Lincoln County, 
Mineral County, Nye County, Pershing County, and White Pine County.

[FR Doc. 2015-27029 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P