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) 

Air Division 

U.S. EPA Region 9 

July 2012 
For information on this technical support document, please contact: 

Rory Mays 

Office of Air Planning 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, California 94105 

(415) 972-3227 

mays.rory@epa.gov

Jefferson Wehling 

Office of Regional Counsel 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, California 94105 

 (415) 972-3901 

wehling.jefferson@epa.gov
1 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................1

Summary ..................................................................................................................................1

Background ..............................................................................................................................3

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission limits and other control measures .................................5

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) – Ambient air quality monitoring/data system ................................9

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) – Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of 

new and modified stationary sources. .................................................................................. 10

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D) – Interstate transport .................................................................... 17

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) – Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and regional agencies .......................................................... 20

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F) – Stationary source monitoring and reporting ............................... 25

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G) – Emergency episodes.................................................................. 32

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) – SIP revisions ............................................................................. 36

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I) – Plan revisions for nonattainment areas ........................................ 37

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation with government officials; public notification; and 

PSD and visibility protection ............................................................................................... 38

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) – Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data ............. 44

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L) – Permitting fees .......................................................................... 48

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) – Consultation/participation by affected local entities .................. 49

Summary 

This technical support document (TSD) summarizes the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) technical review of revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). These revisions pertain to 

the infrastructure SIP requirements, as per CAA section 110(a)(2), for the 1997 ozone, 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), and 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

They are as follows: 

• February 1, 2008 – “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone” to address infrastructure SIP requirements 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (“2008 Ozone Submittal”). 

• February 26, 2008 – “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5” to address infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (“2008 PM2.5 Submittal”). 

• September 15, 2009 – “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current Nevada 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5” to address infrastructure SIP requirements for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (“2009 PM2.5 Submittal”). 

• December 4, 2009 – “Current CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Washoe 

County Portion of the Nevada PM2.5 SIP” to address infrastructure SIP requirements for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Washoe County portion of the State (“2009 PM2.5

Supplement”). 

• July 5, 2012 – “Revisions to Nevada’s Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2) State Implementation 

Plan Submittals; Parallel Processing Request” to address infrastructure SIP requirements 
2 

for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (“2012 Submittal”).1 This 

submittal served as a supplement to the four infrastructure SIP submittals identified 

above and was submitted under the parallel processing mechanism provided by 40 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix V, Section 2.3. 

Herein, we refer to these five submittals collectively as “Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals” 

and the three NAAQS (1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5) collectively as the “relevant 

NAAQS.” 

Based on our evaluation, we propose a partial approval and partial disapproval of the SIP 

provisions discussed in this TSD (i.e., for CAA 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), and sections 110(a)(2)(F) 

thru (M)). Our evaluation for all infrastructure SIP elements is summarized in the table below. 

Element Identification Evaluation (Meets Requirement?) 

Elem. 

SubElem. Description NDEP Clark Co. Washoe Co. 

A 

Emission limits and other 

control measures Yes Yes Yes 

B 

i 

Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system 

(monitor, compile, analyze data) 

Yes Yes Yes 

ii 

Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system (make 

data available to EPA) 

Yes Yes Yes 

C 

Program for enforcement of 

control measures and regulation 

of new stationary sources 

No (PSD FIP) Yes No (PSD FIP) 

D 

i 

Interstate transport (prongs 1-2) Partially 

Interstate transport (prong 

3/PSD) No (PSD FIP) Yes No (PSD FIP) 

Interstate transport (prong 

4/visibility) Yes 

ii 

Interstate pollution abatement 

(§126, including requirement to 

notify states of potential impacts 

from new sources) and 

international air pollution (§115) 

No (PSD FIP) Yes No (PSD FIP) 

 

 

1

 This SIP revision was also submitted to revise Nevada’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 lead (Pb) 

NAAQS, which was submitted on October 12, 2011. EPA will address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS in a separate rulemaking. 
3 

E 

i 

Necessary assurances of 

adequate resources (personnel, 

funding, authority) 

Yes Yes Yes 

ii 

Conflict of interest provisions 

(per § 128) Yes Yes Yes 

iii 

Necessary assurances of 

adequate oversight of local 

governments and regional 

agencies 

Yes n/a n/a 

F 

i 

Stationary source monitoring 

system (installation, 

maintenance, replacement) 

Yes Yes Yes 

ii 

Stationary source monitoring 

system (periodic reports) Yes Yes Yes 

iii 

Stationary source monitoring 

system (correlation of reports 

with emissions limitations or 

standards) 

Yes 

No 

(Local rule 

repealed) 

Yes 

G Emergency episodes Yes Yes Yes 

H 

i 

SIP revisions (plan revisions for 

NAAQS or improved methods 

of attaining) 

Yes Yes Yes 

ii 

SIP revisions (remedy 

inadequacies identified by EPA) Yes Yes Yes 

I 

Plan revisions for nonattainment 

areas n/a n/a n/a 

J 

§ 121 

Consultation with government 

officials Yes Yes Yes 

§ 127 Public notification of 

exceedances Yes Yes Yes 

PSD/ 

visibility 

PSD and visibility protection

No (PSD FIP) Yes No (PSD FIP) 

K 

i Air quality modeling No (PSD FIP) Yes No (PSD FIP) 

ii Submission of modeling data No (PSD FIP) Yes No (PSD FIP) 

L 

i 

Permitting fees (reviewing and 

acting on application) Yes Yes Yes 

ii 

Permitting fees (implementing 

and enforcing permit) Yes Yes Yes 

M 

Consultation with/ participation 

by affected local political 

subdivisions 

Yes Yes Yes 

Background 

CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit a plan that provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS no later than three years after the promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which 

generally relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances, procedural 
4 

requirements, and control measures that constitute the "infrastructure" of a state's air quality 

management program. A SIP submittal addressing these requirements is referred to as 

“infrastructure SIP." 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone2 and a new NAAQS for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5).3 EPA subsequently revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 

21, 2006.4 Each of these actions triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure SIP 

to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the new or 

revised NAAQS. 

On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with EarthJustice that obligated EPA to 

make official findings in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of the CAA as to whether states had 

made required complete SIP submissions, pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and (2). This Consent 

Decree set deadlines for EPA’s finding of December 15, 2007 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 

October 5, 2008 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.5 EPA made such findings for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, as published on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205), and for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, as 

published on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62902). 

For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA found that Nevada had failed to make a complete submittal to 

address the requirements of section 110(a)(2).6 For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA found that 

Nevada had made a complete submittal to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2). 

On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with Sierra Club and WildEarth 

Guardians (“2011 PM2.5 Consent Decree”) that obligates EPA to take final action on Nevada’s 

2009 PM2.5 Submittal by September 30, 2012. On November 30, 2011, EPA entered into a 

Settlement Agreement also with Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians that obligates EPA to take 

final action on Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal by January 31, 2012. This Settlement Agreement 

was amended to allow EPA until September 30, 2012 to take final action on Nevada’s 2008 

Ozone Submittal. 

We have evaluated the infrastructure SIP submittals identified in the “Summary” section of this 

TSD in relation to the infrastructure SIP requirements (or “elements”) of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

for the relevant NAAQS).7 In the following pages, we describe the requirements, summarize the 

State’s submittal, and present our evaluation for each infrastructure SIP element. 

 

2

 The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was 

changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

3

 The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), 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 μg/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). 

4

 The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 was published in the Federal 

Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144). 

5

 The March 10, 2005 consent decree was later amended to specify a submittal deadline of January 7, 2008. 

6

 Notwithstanding EPA’s finding of failure to submit, footnote 2 of the findings notice noted that Nevada had 

submitted its i-SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on February 1, 2008. (See 73 FR 16205 at 16207). 

7

 Two section 110(a)(2) requirements are considered by EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions 

because they pertain to plan requirements for nonattainment areas: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to
5 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission limits and other control measures 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, 

and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.” 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal stated that the Nevada SIP includes enforceable emission limits 

and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance and other related 

matters and, in support, referred to the following sections of Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 

or Nevada Air Quality Regulation (NAQR) that are approved into the SIP: NAC 445B.22017, 

NAC 445B.2202, NAQR Article 16.3.3.2 and Article 16.3.3.3, NAC 445.729, NAQR Article 

7.2.5.1, NAC 445.808 and 445.816, NAC 445.730, NAC 445B.22027, NAC 445B.2203, NAC 

445B.22033, NAC 445B.22037, NAC 445B.22043, NAC 445B.22047, NAC 445B.2205, NAC 

445B.22067, NAC 445B.2207, NAC 445B.2209, NAC 445B.22093, NAC 445B.22097, and 

NAQR Article 13 “General Provisions for the Review of New Sources. 

Nevada’s 2008 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal made the same statement as the 2008 

Ozone Submittal, except they did not cite NAC 445B.22093 (“Organic solvents and other 

volatile compounds”) and they included the following addition: 

Under EPA's transition policy, PM10 may properly be used as a surrogate for PM2.5 in 

meeting NSR requirements.

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following:8

[Washoe County District Board of Health (WCDBOH)] Regulation 020.020 (Control 

Officer – Powers and Duties) authorizes the Control Officer to enforce all SIP measures 

including Sections 030.000 through 030.995 (Source Permitting and Operation). 

EPA evaluation 

State level

The SIP rules cited by NDEP in support of their conclusion that the existing SIP meets the 

requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) are as follows: 

• NAC 445B.22017 – Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination and monitoring 

of opacity 

• NAC 445B.2202 – Visible emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources (e.g., open 

burning, incinerators, and stationary diesel-powered engines)

• NAQR Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 – Opacity limitations for emissions from clinker 

coolers and from kiln facility equipment other than the kiln and clinker coolers. 

• NAC 445.729 – Process weight rate for calculating emissions

 

permit programs under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety. Therefore, this TSD does not address these 

requirements. 

8

 Washoe County District Board of Health (DBOH) Regulation 020.020 has not been approved into the 

Nevada SIP, while portions of Regulations 030.000 through 030.0995 have been approved into the SIP. 
6 

• NAQR Article 7.2.5.1 – Maximum allowable particulate emission from first barite 

grinding mill of Milchem Incorporated near Battle Mountain, Nevada 

• NAC 445.808 and 445.816 – PM emissions limits for processing barite ore and precious 

metals/ore, respectively9

• NAC 445.730 – Colemanite flotation processing plants 

• NAC 445B.22027 – Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum allowable throughput for 

calculating emissions rates 

• NAC 445B.22033 – Emissions of particulate matter: Sources not otherwise limited 

• NAC 445B.22037 – Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive dust 

• NAC 445B.22043 – Sulfur emissions: Calculation of total feed sulfur 

• NAC 445B.22047 - Sulfur emissions: Fuel-burning equipment 

• NAC 445B.2205– Sulfur emissions: Other processes which emit sulfur 

• NAC 445B.22067 – Open burning 

• NAC 445B.2207 – Incinerator burning 

• NAC 445B.2209 – Reduction of animal matter 

• NAC 445B.22093 – Organic solvents and other volatile compounds 

• NAC 445B.22097 – Standards of quality for ambient air 

• NAQR Article 13 – General provisions for the review of new sources 

Most of the SIP rules cited in Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals relate to particulate matter, 

except for NAC 445B.22093, which specifically addresses “Organic compounds and other 

volatile compounds,” which are precursors to ozone. These emission limits demonstrate the 

state’s authority to adopt such limits for regulated pollutants and, to the extent that some of these 

regulations control emissions from burning (e.g., NAC 445B.22067 (“Prohibition of open 

burning...”)) for PM purposes, they may also reduce ozone precursor emissions, such as the 

emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) resulting from such burning. 

Some of the SIP rules cited above, while they remain in the SIP and are therefore federally 

enforceable, have been repealed by the State and thus, the emissions limitations established in 

the rules are no longer included in the current NAC. However, we believe that there are 

sufficient emissions limitations in rules that are both approved into the SIP and part of the 

current NAC that we can conclude that the Nevada SIP provides sufficient enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques to meet the basic requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the relevant NAAQS for the sources under NDEP jurisdiction. 

 

More specifically, with respect to the ozone NAAQS, we note that NAC 445B.22093 ("Organic 

solvents and other volatile compounds") contains emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques for control of ozone precursors. With respect to PM2.5, the 

applicable SIP rules do not include emissions limitations that limit PM2.5 emissions per se, but do 

so indirectly by limiting the opacity, particulate matter emissions (which includes particles 

constituting PM10 and PM2.5 as well as coarser particulate) and PM10 emissions (which includes 

particles constituting PM2.5 as well as particles with diameters larger than 2.5 microns but less 

 

9

 These NACs were listed in the SIPs as 445B.808 and 445B.816. Adele Malone, Supervisor, Air Planning Branch, 

Bureau of Air Quality Planning, NDEP clarified to Rory Mays, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9 that the letter 

“B” was inadvertently added to these listings in the SIP revision (i.e., it should have read 445.808 and 445.816). 
7 

than 10 microns) from stationary sources. For PM2.5, the applicable SIP rules that include such 

enforceable emissions limitations include, among others, NAC 445B.22017 ("Visible emissions: 

Maximum opacity; determination and monitoring of opacity"), NAC 445B.22027 ("Emissions of 

particulate matter: Maximum allowable throughput for calculating emissions rates"), NAC 

445B.22037 ("Emissions of particulate matter: Fugitive dust"), NAC 445B.22067 ("Open 

burning"), and NAC 445B.2207 ("Incinerator burning"). 

The reason that we find the cited rules sufficient for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 

for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS is that, first, section 110(a)(2)(A) does not establish the 

required stringency of emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques but 

only requires that the SIP contain such limitations as “may be necessary or appropriate to meet 

the applicable requirements of [the Act].” In this instance, the relevant "applicable requirements" 

of the Act include the requirements to implement, maintain, and enforce the ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS [see CAA section 110(a)(1)], and, with the exception of the nonattainment designation 

of a portion of Clark County for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, no area of Nevada has been designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As such, we believe that 

the approved volatile organic compound (VOC) and PM-related SIP rules are sufficient to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the relevant NAAQS with respect to the NDEP portion of the 

Nevada SIP. 

Lastly, for section 110(a)(2)(C), Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 

2009 PM2.5 Submittal reference two regulations related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM), NAC 445.667 and NAQR Article 2.5.4, which EPA generally addresses under evaluation 

of section 110(a)(2)(A). On December 12, 2006, EPA proposed to remove both of these 

provisions from the Nevada SIP via a proposed approval of Nevada’s request to rescind NAC 

445.667 and a proposed error correction to remove NAQR Article 2.5.4 (see 71 FR 75690). 

While EPA has not yet finalized that proposed rulemaking, we reiterate here, as discussed in 

section 1.C Scope of Infrastructure SIP Evaluation of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related 

to this TSD, that EPA considers these SSM matters to be separate from this action on the 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals. 

Clark County

In Clark County, local regulations address PM emissions from process equipment and burning, 

while regulations on the proper storage and handling of petroleum products limit VOC 

emissions. With respect to ozone, the emissions limitations in the following SIP-approved rules 

in the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP reduce ozone by limiting ozone precursors, 

including chlorine and VOC: 

• Section 33 – Chlorine in Chemical Processes 

• Section 50 – Storage of Petroleum Products 

• Section 51 – Petroleum Product Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers 

With respect to particulate matter, the emissions limitations in the following SIP-approved rules 

in the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP limit PM2.5 emissions indirectly by limiting PM 

and PM10 emissions from various sources: 

• Section 26 – Emission of Visible Air Contaminants 
8 

• Section 27 – Particulate Matter from Process Equipment 

• Section 28 – Fuel Burning Equipment 

• Section 30 – Incinerators 

• Section 41 – Fugitive Dust 

• Section 42 – Open Burning 

• Section 90 – Fugitive Dust from Open Areas and Vacant Lots 

• Section 91 – Fugitive Dust form Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys and Unpaved 

Easement Roads 

• Section 92 – Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling & Storage 

Yards, & Vehicle & Equipment Storage Yards 

• Section 93 – Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads & Street Sweeping Equipment 

• Section 94 – Permitting & Dust Control for Construction Activities 

• Residential Wood Combustion Ordinances adopted by Clark County, the City of Las 

Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, and the City of Henderson 

We believe that the above emissions limitations in the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP 

are sufficient for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) because the area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (76 FR 17343, March 29, 2011) and has been designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Washoe County

Similarly, in Washoe County, local regulations address PM emissions from process equipment 

and burning, open burning, street sanding and sweeping, and residential wood combustion, and 

VOC emissions from the storage and handling of petroleum products and the use of organic 

solvents and asphalt. With respect to ozone, the emissions limitations in the following SIPapproved rules in the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP reduce ozone by limiting ozone 

precursors, including VOC: 

• 040.070 – Storage of Petroleum Products 

• 040.075 – Gasoline loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers 

• 040.080 – Gasoline loading from Tank Trucks into Storage Tanks 

• 040.085 – Organic solvents 

• 040.090 – Cut-back asphalt 

With respect to particulate matter, the emissions limitations in the following SIP-approved rules 

in the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP limit PM2.5 emissions indirectly by limiting PM 

and PM10 emissions from various sources: 

• 040.010 – Particulate Matter 

• 040.030 – Dust Control 

• 040.031 – Street Sanding Operations 

• 040.032 – Street Sweeping Operations 

• 040.035 – Open Fires 

• 040.040 – Burning Permit Conditions 

• 040.045 – Refuse Disposal 

• 040.050 – Incinerators 
9 

• 040.051 – Wood Stove/Fireplace Insert Emissions 

We believe that the above emissions limitations in the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP 

are sufficient for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) because the area has been designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Conclusion

Based upon our evaluation, as described above, we propose to find that the Nevada SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the relevant NAAQS for the entire state. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) – Ambient air quality monitoring/data system 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishment and operation of appropriate 

devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to—(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data 

on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.” 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal stated the following: 

NDEP operates an air quality monitoring network that collects ambient air

quality data that are compiled, analyzed and reported to EPA. The network 

comprises federally-approved monitors that measure ozone, carbon monoxide 

and PM10. NDEP commits to an ambient air quality monitoring program in its 

CAA section 105 grant work plan. 

Nevada’s 2008 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal made the same statement as the 2008 

Ozone Submittal, except they included the following addition: 

Under EPA's transition policy, PM10 may properly be used as a surrogate for PM2.5 in 

meeting [New Source Review (NSR)] requirements. 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 

The [Washoe County Air Quality Management District (WCAQMD)] operates a PM2.5

ambient air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR 58. The network is reviewed 

annually to ensure it meets ambient air monitoring objectives. Ambient monitoring data 

are collected, quality assured, and submitted to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 58 and 

are available for public review in AQS. A Trends report, which summarizes monitored 

ambient air quality in Washoe County, is prepared annually and posted on the 

WCAQMD website. 

EPA evaluation 

There are three agencies in Nevada relevant for review of infrastructure SIP requirements: 

NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County. While Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals did 

not discuss Clark County, we have included all three agencies since they each operate distinct 

sets of ambient air quality monitors. Furthermore, while the 2008 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 

PM2.5 Submittal referenced only the PM10 surrogacy policy with respect to PM2.5, the three 

agencies have been monitoring PM2.5 in recent years. State-wide, the three agencies operate 22 
10 

ozone monitors and nine PM2.5 monitors. On November 1, 2011, EPA approved the most recent 

annual ambient air monitoring network plans for each agency, including the following: NDEP 

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 2011, Clark County Annual Network Plan Report June 

2011, and Washoe County AQMD 2011 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. 

Conclusion

By virtue of establishing and operating these monitors and providing the requisite data to EPA, 

Nevada’s air monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the Relevant NAAQS for the entire state. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) – Program for enforcement of control measures 

and regulation of new and modified stationary sources. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that each SIP include a program to provide for the enforcement of 

the measures described in section 110(a)(2)(A), and regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of title I 

of the Act. 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of control measures, EPA is evaluating the State’s general enforcement authorities 

to determine whether they provide an adequate infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewide. 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for 

regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources, EPA is evaluating only 

certain “structural” elements of the State’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs under part C of title I of the Act to determine whether these programs are adequate for 

infrastructure SIP purposes. Specifically, EPA is evaluating the Nevada SIP to determine 

whether it contains the following required elements of a PSD program: 

(1) Provisions identifying NOx as an ozone precursor consistent with the requirements of 

EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 70 FR 71612 

(November 29, 2005) (codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), 

(b)(49)(i)); 

(2) Provisions to regulate PM2.5, including condensable PM, and its precursor emissions 

(sulfur dioxide (SO2) in all areas, and NOx and/or VOC as appropriate), consistent with 

the requirements of EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i), 

(b)(49)(vi)); and 

(3) Provisions to regulate Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) consistent with EPA’s regulations to 

implement the PSD program for GHGs, including “Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010) 

and “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans,” 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010), as applicable. 
11 

Generally, section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that an infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS contain SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment New 

Source Review (NSR), and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement these 

standards. As explained above, however, EPA is not evaluating part D nonattainment area 

requirements (such as the nonattainment NSR program) in this proposed action because these 

SIPs are due on a separate schedule under CAA section 172(b). Additionally, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with regard to the NSR Reform requirements. 

EPA intends to act on SIP submittals that are made for purposes of adopting NSR Reform 

through a separate rulemaking process. 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal and 2008 PM2.5 Submittal stated the following: 

Compliance and enforcement measures are contained in NAC 445.663, 445.664, 

445.665, 445.667, 445.682, 445.694, 445.696, 445.697, Article 2.5.4, Article 2.16.1, 

Article 2.16.1-4 and Article 2.16.2.5. NDEP was given full delegation of the federal PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21 on October 19, 2004 (see also § 110(a)(2)(J) – PSD/Visibility, 

below). Nonattainment NSR provisions are found in Article 13 “General Provisions for 

the Review of New Sources” in the current SIP. (Emphasis added) 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal made a similar statement, except the differences made bold in 

this TSD: 

Compliance and enforcement measures are contained in NAC 445B.225, 445B.227, 

445B.229, 445.667, Article 2.5.4, 445B.250, 445B.252, 445.694, 445B.275 and 

445B.277. NDEP was given full delegation of the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21 

on October 19, 2004 (see § 110(a)(2)(J); PSD/Visibility, below). Nonattainment NSR 

provisions are found in Article 13 “General Provisions for the Review of New Sources” 

in the current SIP. (Emphasis added) 

These air quality regulations are part of the Nevada SIP (except as noted below) and they address 

programs for enforcement and the review of new sources of emissions. The full text of each 

regulation is included in Enclosure 2 of each of the above SIP submittals and the subject of each 

is summarized as follows: 

• NAQR Article 2.5.4 – Breakdown or upsets (excess emissions) 

• NAQR Article 2.16.1 and 2.16.1.1-4 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.250, see below.) 

• NAQR Article 2.16.2.5 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.250, see below.) 

• NAQR Article 13 – General provisions for the review of new sources, which includes an 

emissions threshold of 50 lbs/hr (equivalent to 219 tons/yr) 

• NAQR Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 – Opacity limitations for emissions from clinker 

coolers and from kiln facility equipment other than the kiln and clinker coolers 

• NAC 445.663 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.225, see below.) 

• NAC 445.664 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.227, see below.) 

• NAC 445.665 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.229, see below.) 

• NAC 445.667 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.232 regarding excess emissions: 

Scheduled maintenance, testing or repairs; notification of Director; malfunction, upset, 

start-up, shutdown or human error. The replacement has not been approved into the SIP.) 

• NAC 445.682 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.252, see below.) 
12 

• NAC 445.694 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.269, regarding emission discharge 

information/record storage, which was repealed in 1995. NAC 445B.269 has not been 

approved into the SIP.) 

• NAC 445.696 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.275, see below.) 

• NAC 445.697 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.277, see below.) 

• NAC 445B.225 – Prohibition of concealment of emissions 

• NAC 445B.227 – Prohibition of operating a source without required pollution control 

equipment; prohibition of removal of that equipment 

• NAC 445B.229 – Director's authority to order reduction or discontinuation of emission 

causing danger to human health/safety 

• NAC 445B.250 – Notification of Director: Construction, initial start-up, and physical or 

operational change; demonstration of continuous monitoring system performance 

• NAC 445B.252 – Testing and sampling 

• NAC 445B.275 – Director's authority to issue written notice of violation due to lack of 

permit, lack of following permit, yearly reporting, recordkeeping, fee payment, etc 

• NAC 445B.277 – Director's authority to issue a stop order for construction, installation, 

alteration, use of design material, etc 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following:10

WCDBOH Regulation 020.020 (Control Officer – Powers and Duties) authorizes the 

Control Officer to enforce all SIP measures, specifically Sections 030.002 (Construction 

or Modification of Permitted Operations), 030.500-030.508 (Federal New Source

Review), and 030.600 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration). 

Lastly, Nevada’s 2012 Submittal revised the prior submittals for CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) by adding the following: 

The NDEP has full delegation of the federal prevention of significant deterioration of air 

quality (PSD) program (40 CFR §52.21). The NDEP maintains that 40 CFR §52.1485 (b) 

“Regulation for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. The provisions of § 

52.21 except paragraph (a)(1) are incorporated and made a part of the applicable State 

plan for the State of Nevada except for that portion applicable to the Clark County 

Health District.” 

incorporates the federal PSD provisions into the applicable Nevada SIP, thereby 

satisfying USEPA’s reading of the CAA to require that Nevada’s PSD program be in 

Nevada’s state plan. 

EPA’s evaluation 

1. Program for enforcement of control measures 

EPA has evaluated the general enforcement authorities at the state level and those for Clark and 

Washoe counties to determine whether they provide an adequate infrastructure for SIP 

enforcement statewide. While Nevada’s submittals identified a number of enforcement 

regulations, the underlying authority provided by state statute is an important basis for the state 

 

10 Washoe County District Board of Health (DBOH) Regulation 020.020, 030.002, 030.500-030.508, and 

030.600 have not been approved into the Nevada SIP. 
13 

and county enforcement programs; we discuss it first below. Also, to the extent that older NAQR 

or NAC regulations have been replaced in the SIP with newer NAC regulations, we have 

reviewed the newer, SIP-approved regulations with respect to the requirement to have a program 

for enforcement. 

At the state level, the following statutes provide enforcement authority: 

• 445B.210 (“Powers of Commission”)(71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006) 

• 445B.230 (“Powers and duties of Department”) (72 FR 11, January 3, 2007) 

• 445B.450 (“Notice and order by Director; hearing; alternative procedures”)(72 FR 11, 

January 3, 2007) 

• 445B.460 (“Injunctive relief”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 2007) 

• 455B.640 (“Levy and disposition of administrative fines; additional remedies available; 

penalty”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 2007) 

Nevada has used the authority provided by NRS 445B.210 to adopt specific enforcement 

regulations, such as those cited in Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal, which provide enforcement 

authority for all air pollutants regulated by the state, and not just PM2.5. Such regulations include, 

as summarized above, NAC 445B.225, NAC 445B.227, NAC 445B.229, NAC 445B.250, NAC 

445B.252, NAC 445B.275, and NAC 445B.277. 

There are three provisions, however, that do not provide support for Nevada’s program for 

enforcement with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). First, NAC 445.667, regarding excess 

emissions (i.e., pertaining to SSM), was replaced by NAC 445B.232, which has not yet been 

approved into the Nevada SIP. EPA proposed to rescind NAC 445.667 (per Nevada’s request), 

and to remove NAQR Article 2.5.4 (via an error correction), from the Nevada SIP via a proposed 

approval of Nevada’s request to rescind this regulation. For discussion of these regulations, see 

our evaluation for CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) above with respect to SSM. Secondly, NAC 

445.694, regarding emission discharge information and record storage, was replaced by NAC 

445B.269, which was subsequently repealed in 1995. Since neither provision is currently in 

place, it is not clear how Nevada intended that these regulations support the enforcement of the 

emission limitation regulations cited in Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, 

and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal for section 110(a)(2)(A) for sources under NDEP’s jurisdiction. 

Notwithstanding 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. 

For Clark and Washoe counties, NRS 445B.500 requires local programs to include emission 

control standards that are equivalent or stricter than those at the state level, and to provide 

adequate enforcement of such emission control standards. See NRS 445B.500(1)(b). This statute 

also states that all of the powers and responsibilities provided for in NRS sections 445B.210, 

445B.240 to 445B.470, inclusive, 445B.560, 445B.570, 445B.580, and 445B.640 are binding 

upon and inure to the benefit of local air pollution control authorities within their jurisdiction 

(i.e., Clark County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) acting through Clark County 

Department of Air Quality, and Washoe County DBOH acting through the Washoe County Air 

Quality Management District). Thus, the same types of enforcement authorities granted under 
14 

NRS 445B.210, 445B.450, 445B.460, and 455B.640, as identified above, are extended to the 

authorized local air pollution control agencies in the state of Nevada. (For further discussion of 

legal authority, see our discussion below regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)). 

In Clark County, SIP rule Section 4 describes the Control Officer’s duties with respect to 

corrective action orders. In addition, NRS 445B.500(3)11 allows the Clark County BCC (as the 

local air pollution control board for a county whose population is greater than 700,000) to 

“delegate to an independent hearing officer or hearing board its authority to determine violations 

and levy administrative penalties for violations.” The Clark County BCC has delegated certain 

enforcement authorities to Hearing Officers. 

Specific local rules that provide for a program for enforcement of emissions limitations in the 

Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP include Section 5 ("Interference with Control Officer"), 

Section 6 ("Injunctive Relief"), and Section 8 ("Persons Liable for Penalties - Punishment; 

Defense"). These rules suffice for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the Clark 

County portion of the Nevada SIP. 

In Washoe County, the Control Officer (i.e., the Director of Washoe County AQMD) has been 

delegated certain permitting and enforcement responsibilities. See, e.g. Washoe County Air 

Quality Regulation (AQR) 020.020 (“Control Officer – Powers and Duties”), as cited in 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement, and AQR 020.030 (“Notice of Violation”), which describe the 

Control Officer’s authorities and duties to issue corrective action orders and to request that the 

DBOH levy administrative fines. The existing SIP rules covering the same authorities as 020.020 

and 020.030 are 020.025 and 020.040, respectively. The Control Officer’s designated agent for 

these permitting and enforcement responsibilities, as provided by AQR 020.020, is the Branch 

Chief of the Permits and Compliance Branch within Washoe County AQMD. 

Specific local rules that provide for a program for enforcement of emissions limitations in the 

Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP include 020.035 ("Violations of Regulations"), 

020.040 ("Notice of Violation"), 020.045 ("Citation"), 020.050 ("Administrative Fines"), and 

020.055 ("Injunctive Relief"). These rules suffice for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) 

for the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP. 

2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program 

Area designations by EPA define which areas of the State are subject to PSD requirements under 

part C of title I of the CAA (i.e., unclassifiable/attainment areas), or subject to the nonattainment 

NSR requirements under part D of title I the CAA (i.e., nonattainment areas), with respect to the 

relevant NAAQS. NDEP is responsible for NSR (including nonattainment NSR, PSD, and minor 

NSR) for Nevada, excluding the Clark County and Washoe County portions of the State. Clark 

County DAQ and Washoe County AQMD are responsible for NSR in their respective counties, 

 

11 See 71 FR 51766 (August 31, 2006). Note: NDEP submitted a revised version of NRS 445B.500 in its 2012 

Submittal, which revised the population threshold under NRS 445B.500(3) from 400,000 to 700,000 for the BCC’s 

authority to delegate certain enforcement authorities to a hearing officer or hearing board. We intend to approve this 

revised statute into the SIP, but it is inconsequential for Clark County since the County has a population greater than 

700,000. 
15 

with the exception of fossil fuel-fired steam-generating power plants, for which NDEP is 

responsible.12 

Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated Clark County as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and designated the rest of Nevada as unclassifiable/attainment (see 69 FR 

23858, April 30, 2004). However, the State submitted additional information to EPA that 

resulted in the deferral of the final designation of Clark County (see 69 FR 34076, June 18, 

2004) and the reconsideration of the boundary of the ozone nonattainment area. Subsequently, 

effective September 13, 2004, the Federal Register published EPA’s final designations for Clark 

County wherein the Las Vegas portion of Clark County13 was designated nonattainment and the 

rest of Clark County was designated unclassifiable/attainment (see 69 FR 55956, September 17, 

2004). Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated the entire state of Nevada as unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 70 FR 944, January 5, 2005). Effective December 

14, 2009, EPA designated the entire state of Nevada as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (see 74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). 

NDEP and Washoe County

With respect to the Nevada SIP, EPA has promulgated federal implementation plans (FIPs) to 

address the PSD program requirements under part C of title I of the CAA by incorporating 40 

CFR 52.21 into the Nevada SIP, except for Clark County (see 40 CFR 52.1485, “Significant 

deterioration of air quality”).14

As noted in Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, 2009 PM2.5 Submittal, and 

2012 Submittal, EPA fully delegated the implementation of the federal PSD programs to NDEP 

(October 19, 2004, and updated on September 15, 2011) and to Washoe County (March 13, 

2008). However, until a state adopts and submits a PSD program for EPA approval that applies 

to all regulated pollutants, including GHGs, its SIP is not approvable with respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and GHGs, we find that the Nevada SIP does not to meet the 

PSD program requirements in part C for sources under NDEP and Washoe County jurisdictions, 

including fossil fuel-fired steam-generating power plants state-wide, which are under NDEP’s 

jurisdiction. 

 

12 With respect to fossil fuel-fired steam-generating power plants, by State law, NDEP retains permitting authority 

state-wide (i.e., including such sources in Clark and Washoe counties). See NRS 445B.500, subsections (5) and (6); 

71 FR 51766, (August 31, 2006). 

13 See 40 CFR 81.329. The Las Vegas nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS includes the following 

geographic areas: Ivanpah Valley (hydrographic areas 164A, 164B, 165 and 166), Eldorado Valley (hydrographic 

area 167), Las Vegas Valley (hydrographic area 212), Colorado River Valley (hydrographic area 213), Paiute Valley 

(hydrographic area 214), Apex Valley (hydrographic areas 216 and 217), and a portion of Moapa Valley 

(hydrographic area 218). 

14 For more background on PSD-related actions in Nevada, see 47 FR 26621, June 21, 1982 and as amended by 48 

FR 28271, June 21, 1983; 68 FR 11323, March 10, 2003; and 68 FR 74489, December 24, 2003. 
16 

Clark County

With respect to the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP, EPA previously approved the PSD 

program (see 47 FR 26620, June 21, 1982, as amended by 69 FR 54006, September 7, 2004). 

The PSD provisions include definitions, which are found in Clark County Regulation section 0 

(“Definitions”), and the substantive PSD requirements, which are contained in Clark County 

Regulation section 12 (“Preconstruction Review for New or Modified Stationary Sources”). With 

respect to GHGs, Clark County was subject to EPA’s rule, Findings of Substantial Inadequacy 

and SIP Call (“PSD GHG SIP Call”) (see 75 FR 77698, December 13, 2010). In the PSD GHG 

SIP Call, EPA determined that Clark County’s PSD program was substantially inadequate 

because it did not apply to GHG-emitting sources, and established a deadline of July 1, 2011 for 

Clark County to submit its corrective SIP revision. 

Since EPA’s approval of the Clark County PSD program in 2004, Clark County has adopted 

significant revisions to section 12 and repealed the version of section 12 that EPA had previously 

approved (local repeal effective July 1, 2010). Clark County, via NDEP, has submitted the 

following SIP revisions regarding NSR: minor NSR revisions on February 11, 2010; major NSR 

(including PSD) revisions on September 1, 2010; and PSD revisions (including GHG provisions) 

on January 13, 2011 and May 22, 2012. EPA has proposed approval of elements of a PSD 

program that are required for infrastructure SIP purposes, including identification of NOx as an 

ozone precursor;15 provisions to regulate PM2.5, including PM2.5 precursor emissions; and 

provisions to regulate GHGs (see proposal signed on July 13, 2012 and included in the same 

docket as this TSD). We anticipate being able to finalize that proposal prior to or concurrent with 

the final rule on the infrastructure SIP proposal (for which this TSD is written). 

As such, with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and contingent on finalizing the July 13, 2012 proposal on Clark 

County’s NSR program, we proposed to determine that the Nevada SIP will meet the PSD 

program requirements in part C for the Clark County portion of the SIP. 

Conclusion

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of control measures, EPA is proposing to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals based on our conclusion that the State’s general enforcement authorities provide an 

adequate infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewide. With respect to the requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for regulation of the modification and 

construction of stationary sources, including a PSD program under part C of title I, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the Nevada SIP as neither has a SIP-approved PSD program, but to approve 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Clark County on the bases of the related Clark 

County NSR proposal, signed on July 13, 2012. We note that although the SIP remains deficient 

with respect to PSD requirements in the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, no 

 

15 See Clark County permitting rules, Section 12 at 12.2.14. Clark County Regulation Section 12 and copies of the 

submittals cited above were included in the docket for our proposed rule on Clark County NSR signed on July 13, 

2012. See docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0566 at www.regulations.gov. 
17 

further action is necessary for these purposes because the Federal PSD program addresses the 

deficiencies in these two areas. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D) – Interstate transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires that each SIP: 

contain adequate provisions— 

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which 

will— 

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any 

other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air

quality standard, or 

(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation 

plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility, and 

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). 

Section 126(a) of the Act requires notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new 

or modified sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA 

regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 115 of the Act pertains to international transport of air pollution. 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal stated the following: 

On July 31, 2007, EPA’s approval of Nevada’s interstate transport SIP (CAA 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in July 1997 was 

published in the Federal Register (72 FR 41629). Article 13 of the SIP, “General 

Provisions for the Review of New Sources,” requires an environmental evaluation (EE) 

before a registration certificate may be issued (see Enclosure 2). Finally, NDEP has full 

delegation of the federal PSD program, including NSR reform provisions. 

Nevada’s 2008 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal reiterate the content of the 2008 

Ozone Submittal, and add reference to their discussion of section 110(a)(2)(J) regarding 

PSD/visibility, which reiterates the full delegation of the federal PSD program to NDEP. The 

2009 PM2.5 Submittal, in turn, specifically refers to NDEP’s preparation of the state’s Regional 

Haze SIP in its discussion of section 110(a)(2)(J). The 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe 

County) similarly reiterates the 2008 Ozone Submittal and notes the full delegation of the federal 

PSD program to Washoe County. 

Lastly, Nevada’s 2012 Submittal revised the prior submittals for CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) by 

adding the following: 

As noted in element C above, the NDEP has full delegation of the federal PSD program, 

and 40 CFR § 52.1485 incorporates the provisions of § 52.21 into the applicable Nevada 

SIP. The consultation and public notice provisions in the applicable Nevada SIP are 
18 

listed under elements J and M of the NDEP’s 110(a)(2) submittals (listed at the 

beginning of this document). Nevada’s PSD program and these provisions fully address 

the public notice requirements in this element. 

EPA’s evaluation 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

With respect to the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), EPA 

previously approved Nevada’s interstate transport SIP as satisfying the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 

2007). For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the first two “prongs” of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), please refer to the related TSD on 2006 PM2.5 Transport for Nevada, to be 

included in the same docket as this TSD. 

With respect to the third “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding interference with 

measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality), EPA’s evaluation of the Nevada SIP for purposes 

of the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is contained in our evaluation of PSD 

SIP requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), above (i.e., our proposed approvals and 

disapprovals for section 110(a)(2)(C) carry forward to the PSD “prong” of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)). 

Finally, with respect to the fourth “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (regarding 

interference with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any 

other State 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, we propose the same interpretations and conclusions that we proposed 

as part of EPA’s proposed action on the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. See 76 FR 36450 at 36466, 

June 22, 2011. In other words, we propose to find that Nevada’s SIP-approved Regional Haze 

Plan contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states, and therefore meets the 

visibility “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.16

 

16 Section IV.G.7 of the June 22, 2011 Regional Haze SIP proposal (see 76 FR 36450 at 36466) stated the following: 

“Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires SIP revisions to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source 

or other types of emission activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will interfere with 

another state’s plan to protect visibility. Nevada submitted its SIP for Interstate Transport to EPA on February 7, 

2007, which EPA approved and promulgated in the Federal Register on July 31, 2007 (70 FR 41629). In our Federal 

Register Notice, we deferred action on whether Nevada interferes with other states’ plans to address regional

visibility impairment caused by regional haze until we received Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. As explained in 

Section IV.D.2. of this notice, NDEP relied on the [Western Regional Air Partnership’s] source apportionment 

modeling to demonstrate that Nevada’s emissions are projected to have a minimal contribution to sulfate and nitrate 

extinction in each of 24 Class I areas in five adjacent states. Moreover, none of the neighboring western states have 

requested emission reductions from Nevada in order to meet their [reasonable progress goals]. Therefore, in 

proposing to approve Nevada’s [Regional Haze] SIP, we are proposing to find that this plan revision contains 

adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states.” 
19 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement, we note that the 

requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA 

regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

do not apply to our action because there are no such pending petitions relating to Nevada. We 

thus evaluate Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals only for purposes of compliance with 

section 126(a). 

EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for purposes of meeting the requirements of CAA section 126(a) regarding 

notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources. Specifically, 

in the related proposal on Clark County NSR (see section 110(a)(2)(C) above for further 

discussion), we proposed to approve PSD rules at Clark County Regulation Section 12.2, which 

include a requirement for the permitting agency to send a copy of the required public notice to 

EPA and to “[a]ny state, Federal Land Manager, and Indian governing body whose lands may be 

affected by emissions from the source or modification.” See CCR Section 12.2.16.2(d). This 

requirement for notice to nearby states are consistent with EPA’s requirements for PSD 

programs in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). 

NDEP and Washoe County AQMD do not have SIP-approved PSD programs. Thus, the Nevada 

SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requirements in part C, title I of the Act and with 

respect to the requirement in CAA section 126(a) regarding notification to affected, nearby states 

of major proposed new or modified sources in these two areas. These deficiencies are, however, 

adequately addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutants in both areas by the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 and no further action is required. 

For these reasons, we propose to partially approve and partially disapprove Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 relating to interstate 

pollution abatement. 

CAA section 115 authorizes the Administrator to require a state to revise its SIP, in the case of a 

belief or allegation that any air pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air 

pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign 

country. Because there are no such pending actions pursuant to CAA section 115, EPA has no 

reason to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115. 

Conclusion

With respect to the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in any other State), EPA 

previously approved the Nevada SIP with respect to these requirements for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, please refer to the related TSD on 2006 PM2.5

Transport for Nevada, to be included in the same docket as this TSD. 
20 

With respect to the third prong (regarding interference with other states’ measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality), EPA is proposing to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP, but to disapprove 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, 

for the reasons discussed above regarding PSD requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C). 

With respect to the fourth prong (regarding interference with other states’ measure to protect 

visibility), EPA previously approved Nevada’s interstate transport SIP as satisfying this 

requirement for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, we propose to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals on the same basis as the 

approval for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: that Nevada’s SIP-approved Regional 

Haze Plan contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states, and therefore meets 

the visibility “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Finally, with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is proposing to 

approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to Clark County portion of the 

Nevada SIP, for which EPA has proposed to approve SIP revisions that contain the required 

notice provisions, and to disapprove the SIP with respect to the NDEP and Washoe County 

portions of the Nevada SIP, which are subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21. 

 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) – Adequate resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to “provide (i) necessary assurances that the State (or, except 

where the Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government or 

governments, or a regional agency designated by the State or general purpose local governments 

for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as 

appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof), 

(ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements respecting State boards under 

section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State 

has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.” 

Section 128 requires SIPs to contain requirements that (1) any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, and (2) any potential conflicts 

of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar 

powers be adequately disclosed. 

Related EPA Regulations

Subpart L (“Legal Authority”) of 40 CFR Part 51 specifies SIP requirements related to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). Subpart L includes three rules: 40 CFR 51.230 (“Requirements 
21 

for all plans”), 51.231 (“Identification of legal authority”), and 51.232 (“Assignment of legal 

authority to local agencies”). 

Section 51.280 (“Resources”) of Subpart O (“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) also 

relates to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and it specifies that, with respect to resources, a SIP must 

include a description of the resources available to the State and local agencies at the date of 

submission of the plan and of any additional resources needed to carry out the plan during the 

five-year period following its submission. The description must include projections of the extent 

to which resources will be acquired at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals. 

Section 51.240 (“General Plan Requirements”) states that “Each State implementation plan must 

identify organizations, by official title, that will participate in developing, implementing, and 

enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations. The plan shall include any 

related agreements or memoranda of understanding among the organizations.” 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal each provided 

a paragraph of information relevant to the legal authority, personnel, and funding in the state 

with respect to NDEP and the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement similarly did so for Washoe County.17

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, however, provided a comprehensive revision (addressing the State of 

Nevada, Clark County, and Washoe County) regarding personnel and resources to replace 

section 12 (“Resources”) of the state’s SIP as of 1972. See Attachment A of Nevada’s 2012 

Submittal. That attachment is the primary basis for our evaluation of Nevada’s personnel and 

funding, while our review of state statutes and other provisions in the Nevada SIP is the primary 

basis for our evaluation of Nevada’s legal authority. 

EPA evaluation 

Legal Authority

The Legal Authority section of the Nevada SIP consists of two letters from the Nevada Attorney 

General: one dated December 21, 1971, approved by EPA at 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972), and 

another dated November 17, 1972, approved by EPA at 38 FR 12702 (May 14, 1973); as well as 

a number of statutory provisions, approved by EPA through a number of rulemakings over the 

years. The statutory references in the 1971 Attorney General’s Letter have been superseded by 

changes made in the laws by the Nevada Legislature. NDEP has submitted more recent versions 

of the relevant statutory provisions and EPA has approved them into the Nevada SIP. The 

following table matches the required authorities with the statutory provisions in the applicable 

Nevada SIP. 

 

17 Regarding legal authority, Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 submittals had a general reference for the state level (“The 

legal authority for carrying out the Nevada SIP is contained in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that have been 

approved into the SIP, and just one specific reference (to NRS 445B.500) for Washoe County. 
22 

Authority to: 

Provided in the following sections of the NRS to the State 

Environmental Commission or the State Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resource:18

Adopt emission standards and limitations 

and any other measures necessary for 

attainment and maintenance of national 

standards. 

• 445B.210 (“Powers of Commission”)(71 FR 51766, August 

31, 2006); and 

• 445B.230 (“Powers and duties of Department”) (72 FR 11, 

January 3, 2007). 

Enforce applicable laws, regulations, and 

standards, and seek injunctive relief. 

• 445B.210 (“Powers of Commission”)(71 FR 51766, August 

31, 2006); 

• 445B.230 (“Powers and duties of Department”) (72 FR 11, 

January 3, 2007); 

• 445B.450 (“Notice and order by Director; hearing; alternative

procedures”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 2007); 

• 445B.460 (“Injunctive relief”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 2007); 

and 

• 455B.640 (“Levy and disposition of administrative fines; 

additional remedies available; penalty”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 

2007). 

Abate pollutant emissions on an emergency 

basis to prevent substantial endangerment to 

the health of persons, i.e., authority 

comparable to that available to the EPA 

Administrator under CAA section 303. 

• 445B.560 (“Plan or procedure for emergency”)(71 FR 51766, 

August 31, 2006). 

Prevent construction, modification, or 

operation of a facility, building, structure, or 

installation, or combination thereof, which 

directly or indirectly results or may result in 

emission of any air pollutant at any location 

which will prevent the attainment or 

maintenance of a national standard. 

• 445B.300 (“Operating permit for source of air contaminant; 

notice and approval of proposed construction; administrative 

fees; failure of Commission or Department to act”)(71 FR 

51766, August 31, 2006). 

Obtain information necessary to determine 

whether air pollution sources are in 

compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and standards, including 

authority to require recordkeeping and to 

make inspections and conduct tests of air 

pollution sources. 

• 445B.225 (“Power of Commission to require testing of 

sources”)(71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006); 

• 445B.230 (“Powers and duties of Department”) (72 FR 11, 

January 3, 2007); 

• 445B.240 (“Power of representatives of Department to enter 

and inspect premises”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 2007); 

• 445B.245 (“Power of Department to perform or require test of 

emissions from stacks”)(71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006); and 

• 445B.580 (“Officer of Department may inspect or search 

premises; search warrant”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 2007). 

Require owners or operators of stationary 

sources to install, maintain and use emission 

monitoring devices and to make periodic 

reports to the State on the nature and 

amounts of emissions from such stationary 

sources; also authority for the State to make 

such data available to the public as reported 

• 445B.225 (“Power of Commission to require testing of 

sources”)(71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006); 

• 445B.245 (“Power of Department to perform or require test of 

emissions from stacks”)(71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006); and 

• 445B.570 (“Confidentiality and use of information obtained 

by Department; penalty”) (72 FR 11, January 3, 2007). 

 

18 Within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, NDEP has responsibility to manage the air quality 

planning and air pollution control programs for the State of Nevada. The Director of the Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources has selected the NDEP Administrator as the official designee for the purposes 

of the CAA, including, but not limited to, adoption, revision and submittal of state implementation plans. See letter 

from Allen Biaggi, Director, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, to Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated May 30, 2007. 
23 

and as correlated with any applicable 

emission standards or limitations. 

As shown in the table above, State law provides for the necessary legal authority to State 

agencies to comply with the related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 

51.230 and 51.231. However, as authorized under the CAA, Nevada State law also provides for 

local air pollution control districts to carry out a portion of the SIP, and we must evaluate the SIP 

to ensure that the SIP provides the necessary legal authority to the local agencies to meet the 

applicable CAA requirements. 

Under NRS section 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”) (see 71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006), the district 

board of health, county board of health, or board of county commissioners in each county whose 

population is 100,000 or more must establish a program for the control of air pollution and 

administer the program within its jurisdiction unless superseded. The two counties in Nevada to 

which this statutory provision applies are Clark County and Washoe County. 

In Clark County, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners is responsible for the 

program called for in NRS section 445B.500. With respect to air pollution control, the Clark 

County Board of County Commissioners acts through the Clark County Department of Air 

Quality (DAQ). In Washoe County, the District Board of Health of the Washoe County Health 

District is responsible for the air pollution control program called for in State law. The Washoe 

County District Board of Health (WCDBOH) acts through the Air Quality Management Division 

(AQMD) within the District Health Department. 

Under NRS section 445B.500(1)(b), the local programs must include, without limitation, 

standards for the control of emissions and emergency procedures established by ordinance or 

local regulation which are equivalent to or stricter than those established by statute or state 

regulations and must provide for adequate administration, enforcement, financing and staff. 

Moreover, under NRS section 445B.500(1)(c), the applicable district board of health, county 

board of health or board of county commissioners is designated as the air pollution control 

agency of the county for the purposes of state law and the Clean Air Act insofar as it pertains to 

local programs, and that agency is authorized to take all action necessary to secure for the county 

the benefits of the Clean Air Act. Lastly, under NRS section 445B.500(1)(d), all of the powers 

and responsibilities provided for in NRS sections 445B.210, 445B.240 to 445B.470, inclusive, 

445B.560, 445B.570, 445B.580, and 445B.640 are binding upon and inure to the benefit of local 

air pollution control authorities within their jurisdiction. Thus, the same types of authorities 

granted under State law to the State Environmental Commission and the State Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources are extended to the authorized local air pollution control 

agencies in the State of Nevada. Thus, the SIP meets the related requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.232(b)(1). 

With respect to local air pollution control programs, NRS section 445B.520 (“Commission may 

establish or supersede county program”)(see 71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006), the State 
24 

Environmental Commission is authorized to administer an adequate air pollution control 

program within the county and may supersede any existing county air pollution control program 

where the State Environmental Commission finds that such a program has become inadequate 

and if the county program fails to take corrective measures identified by the commission. As 

such, the applicable Nevada SIP provides the necessary assurances that, where the state has 

relied on local governments or regional agencies, the State has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of the SIP as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and 40 CFR 

51.232(b)(2). 

Therefore, based on the evaluation provided above, we can conclude that the applicable Nevada 

SIP provides for the necessary legal authority to carry out the SIP and thus meets the related 

requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), and 40 CFR 51.230 through 40 CFR 

51.232. None of the statutory provisions discussed above are limited to specific pollutants and 

thus would apply for the purposes of the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Personnel and Funding

The applicable Nevada SIP includes a section titled “Resources” (i.e., section 12), which EPA 

last approved in 1972 (see 37 FR 10842, May 31, 1972). That section of the Nevada SIP presents 

information on personnel and funding available to State, Clark County, Washoe County air 

pollution control agencies in the 1970s, which is now outdated. Nevada’s 2012 Submittal 

provides a comprehensive revision regarding Nevada’s resources that is intended to replace 

section 12 from the 1972 SIP. 

Attachment A of the 2012 Submittal identifies the entities throughout the state that are 

responsible for air pollution control programs and describes the funding mechanisms, funding 

level, and personnel for NDEP, Clark County DAQ, and Washoe County AQMD as the primary 

agencies for implementing such air pollution control programs. At the state level, the revised 

Section 12 describes various funding mechanisms established by the state, including the state’s 

“Account for the Management of Air Quality...,” and state’s Air Pollution Control Account, and 

those provided by U.S. EPA, including grants pursuant to CAA sections 103 and 105. It also 

describes the roles of NDEP’s two bureaus, the Bureau of Air Quality Planning and the Bureau 

of Air Pollution Control, and the typical and current funding levels and current personnel level 

for NDEP. 

For Clark County and Washoe County, the revised Section 12 reaffirms the legal authorities of 

each county, as discussed above in the subsection entitled “Legal Authority,” and describes the 

funding mechanisms in use by each county including fees charged for permits and technical 

services, federal grants under CAA sections 103 and 105, state grants from the Pollution Control 

Account, transportation funds (either through regional transportation commission taxes or state 

Department of Motor Vehicle fees), and funds from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Program (for Clark County) or funds from the three local entities participating in the 

“Interlocal Agreement Concerning the Washoe County District Health Department.” 

Furthermore, the revised Section 12 asserts that NDEP, Clark County DAQ, and Washoe County 

AQMD have been implementing programs to meet the CAA SIP requirements for 40 years and 
25 

that they have “adequate funding and personnel... to meet the needs of these programs.” Lastly, 

with respect to projections of resource needs, it asserts that “[o]ver the next five years, current 

funding and personnel levels are expected to remain stable via the funding mechanisms 

described.” 

We conclude that such description provides the necessary assurances of adequate funding and 

personnel with respect to the 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for all three 

jurisdictions in Nevada (NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County) and thus meets the 

resources-related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280. 

State Boards and Conflicts of Interest

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) refers to the requirements of CAA section 128, which addresses 

potential conflicts of interest concerning final decisions by boards or the heads of executive 

agencies on permits and orders issued under air pollution control programs developed to meet 

CAA requirements. Please refer to the related TSD entitled “EPA Evaluation of Nevada 

Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128” for EPA’s evaluation of Nevada’s 

provisions addressing potential conflicts of interest. 

Conclusion as to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)

None of the state or local laws cited above are pollutant specific, and thus, to the extent we find 

that they meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) and the applicable EPA 

regulations, they do so for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, based on 

our review of the applicable Nevada SIP and Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we 

conclude that these submittals meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) for the 

NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County portions of the SIP. We also find that Nevada meets 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) (with respect to state oversight of local agencies). 

Our conclusions regarding the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) are discussed in the 

related TSD, which is also part of the docket for our proposal on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F) – Stationary source monitoring and reporting 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires, “as may be prescribed by the Administrator— (i) the 

installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other 

necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such 

sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data 

from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established pursuant to this CAA, which reports shall be available at 

reasonable times for public inspection.” 

The SIP must provide citations to regulations with source monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements applicable to ozone and related precursors. See 40 CFR part 51, subpart K 

(“Source Surveillance”). 
26 

NDEP’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated 

“Nevada’s current SIP provides a system for monitoring emissions from stationary sources and 

the submittal of periodic emission reports in NAC 445B.256 to 445B.265 and 445B.267.” 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) added the following: 

Authority for stationary source monitoring and reporting is provided in WCDBOH

Regulation 020.060 (Sampling and Testing), 030.210 (Permit to Operate Issuance), 

030.230 (Record Keeping), and 030.235 (Requirements for Source Sampling and 

Testing). 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal provided further information with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii), as follows: 

NAC 445B.315(3), submitted to USEPA on January 24, 2011, requires the holder of an 

operating permit to retain all required monitoring data and provides NDEP the authority 

to require any information necessary to determine compliance with conditions of the 

operating permit. NAC 445B.265 requires reporting of monitored emissions, including 

excess emissions. NAC 445B.252 provides the authority to require compliance testing 

and sampling. Compliance inspection reports correlate the reported emissions to the 

emission limitations in the operating permit; these reports are available on site at the 

NDEP offices for public inspection during business hours. Together with NAC 445B.3368 

and 445B.346, submitted to USEPA on January 24, 2011, the provisions cited above 

satisfy the element 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) requirements for the correlation of emissions from 

stationary sources with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the 

CAA, and the availability of such information for public inspection. 

EPA evaluation 

NDEP

EPA reviewed the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, other supporting NDEP information, and the applicable SIP,19 and determined that 

NDEP requirements (i.e., NAC 445B.252, 445B.256 through 445B.265, inclusive, and 

445B.267) adequately address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), and (iii). In our evaluation, 

we also identified NRS 445B.570 (“Confidentiality and use of information obtained by 

Department; penalty”) as supportive of the portion of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) 

requirement pertaining to the public availability of reports. The relevant supporting requirements 

in the SIP are listed below. 

 

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) requirements applicable to NDEP and 

supportive of CAA §110(a)(2)(F) Federal Register 

NRS 445B.570 Confidentiality and use of information obtained by

Department; penalty. 

72 FR 11, January 3, 2006

 

19 The Nevada SIP includes NAC 445.694 (“Emission discharge information”) to address the correlation 

requirement in CAA section 110(a)(F)(iii), but NDEP repealed NAC 445.694 and did not submit a replacement for 

inclusion in the SIP. Thus, NAC 445.694 remains in the SIP, and EPA is not removing it at this time. 
27 

Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) requirements applicable to NDEP and 

supportive of CAA §110(a)(2)(F) Federal Register 

NAC 445B.252 Testing and sampling 73 FR 20536, April 16, 2008

NAC 445B.256 Monitoring systems: Calibration, operation and maintenance 

of equipment 

71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.257 Monitoring systems: Location 71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.258 Monitoring systems: Verification of operational status. 72 FR 19801, April 20, 2007 

NAC 445B.259 Monitoring systems: Performance evaluations 72 FR 19801, April 20, 2007

NAC 445B.260 Monitoring systems: Components contracted for before 

September 11, 1974 

72 FR 19801, April 20, 2007

NAC 445B.261 Monitoring systems: Adjustments 71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.262 Monitoring systems: Measurement of opacity 71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.263 Monitoring systems: Frequency of operation 71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.264 Monitoring systems: Recordation of data 71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.265 Monitoring systems: Records; reports 71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.267 Alternative monitoring procedures or requirements 71 FR 71486, December 11, 2006

NAC 445B.315(3) Contents of operating permits: Exception for operating 

permits to construct; required conditions 

NPR 77 FR 38557, June 28, 

2012; Separate NFR pending 

NAC 445B.3368 Additional requirements for application; exception NPR 77 FR 38557, June 28, 

2012; Separate NFR pending 

NAC 445B.346 Required contents of permit NPR 77 FR 38557, June 28, 

2012; Separate NFR pending 

Summary of NRS and NAC requirements applicable to NDEP and supportive of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F)

NRS 445B.570 requires any information obtained by NDEP during performance of its duties is 

public information unless otherwise designated as confidential information pursuant to the 

criteria in provisions in NRS 445B.570. The emission of an air contaminant which has an 

ambient air quality standard or emission standard or has been designated as a hazardous air 

pollutant by regulation of the State Environmental Commission cannot be certified as being 

confidential. EPA has determined NRS 445B.570 is supportive of the component in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii) that reports be made available to the public. 

NAC 445B.252 requires that results of source testing must be submitted to the Director the data 

must reduced in accordance with applicable procedures. EPA has determined NAC 445B.252 is 

supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii). 

NAC 445B.256 requires owners or operators of all stationary sources identified in Appendix P to 

40 CFR Part 51 to install, calibrate, operate and maintain all monitoring equipment necessary for 

continuously monitoring the pollutants specified in Appendix P for applicable source categories. 

Those stationary sources must meet the basic requirements of Appendix P of 40 CFR 51. NAC 

445B.256’s reference to Appendix P is consistent with requirements found in 40 CFR 51.214 of 

Subpart K, and therefore, is supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i). NACs 445B.257 through 

445B.264 provide additional detail of the monitoring requirements and are also supportive of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i). 

NAC 445B.265 requires a source operating a continuous monitoring system to submit written 

reports of excess emissions. The reports are submitted quarterly and must include: (a) the 
28 

magnitude and time period of the excess emissions; (b) specific identification of each period of 

excess emissions that occurs during start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions of the affected 

facility; (c) the nature and cause of any malfunction, if known, and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted; (d) Specific identification of each period during which the 

continuous monitoring system was inoperative. EPA has determined NAC 445B.265 is 

supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii). 

NAC 445B.315(3) describes conditions that must be in the permit, including: (1) the holder of 

the operating permit shall retain records of all required monitoring data and supporting 

information for 5 years after the date of the sample collection, measurement, report or analysis, 

and (2) allowances for the Director or his representative to copy records and sample or monitor 

to demonstrate compliance. To the extent this information including reports that are available to 

the public, NAC 445B.315(3) is generally supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii). 

NAC 445B.3368 establishes additional content requirements for applications for operating permits 

for those facilities for which applications for operating permits to construct were not previously 

submitted. Such content requirements include applicable test methods, calculations, compliance 

plans, and compliance certifications. NAC 445B.3368 is limited to a subset of sources, but for those 

sources and to the extent the requirement results in reports that are available to the public, NAC 

445B.3368 is generally supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii). 

NAC 445B.346 identifies conditions that must be contained in Class II operating permits in addition 

to the general conditions that apply under NAC 445B.315. These conditions include: (1) all 

requirements for monitoring, testing and reporting that apply to the stationary source; and (2) 

prompt reporting of any deviations from any requirements of the operating permit. NAC 

445B.346 is limited to a subset of sources but is generally supportive of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F)(i)-(iii). 

EPA anticipates that final approval of NAC 445B.315(3), NAC 445B.3368, and NAC 445B.346 

may occur prior to final approval of our action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals.20 If it 

does not, then these rules cannot be used in support of EPA’s action. Regardless, even if the rules 

are not approved into the SIP before final approval of the Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, EPA is not relying on these rules as the only justification for approval of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii). 

As such, we find, that the portion of the Nevada SIP applicable to NDEP meets the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 standard, and 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard. 

Clark County

EPA has reviewed the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, other supporting information (e.g., recent Clark County SIP submittals), and the 

applicable SIP to determine if Clark County has addressed the CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) 

requirements. Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals did not directly address the infrastructure 

 

20 See 77 FR 38557, June 28, 2012 for EPA’s proposed approval of these provisions. 
29 

requirements in the context of Clark County, and as a result, EPA has reviewed other available 

information in an effort to determine whether the requirements have been met. 

As described elsewhere in this TSD (e.g., see discussion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)), Clark 

County made significant revisions to their Section 12 permitting requirements and submitted to 

EPA revisions to Sections 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 and 12.11 for inclusion in the SIP. In a 

separate action, EPA is acting on these permitting requirements.21 

Clark County requirements supportive of CAA §110(a)(2)(F) Federal Register 

Section 12.1: Permit Requirements for Minor Sources

 

Separate FR pending

Section 12.2: Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Attainment Areas 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration) 

Separate FR pending 

Section 12.3: Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas Separate FR pending 

Section 12.4: Authority to Construct Application and Permit Requirements For 

Part 70 Sources 

Separate FR pending

Section 12.11: General Permits for Minor Stationary Separate FR pending

Summary of Clark County requirements supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)

Section 12.1 requires terms and conditions in a permit for a minor source permit include 

monitoring, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that ensure reasonable 

information is provided to evaluate compliance consistent with permit terms and conditions, the 

underlying requirements of these regulations, and the CAA. 

In Sections 12.2 and 12.3, major sources shall monitor the emissions of any regulated new source 

review pollutant that could increase as a result of the project and that are emitted by an 

applicable emissions unit; and calculate and maintain a record of the annual emissions, in tons 

per year. The owner or operator of the major stationary source with a plantwide applicability 

limits (PALs) shall comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

provided in Sections 12.2.19.12 through 12.2.19.14 for each emissions unit under the PAL 

through the PAL effective period. 

Section 12.4 describes the administrative procedures for sources to apply for and obtain an 

Authority to Construct Permit (ATC Permit), consistent with the applicable requirements of 

Sections 12.2 or 12.3. An application for an ATC Permit shall contain, if applicable, a 

description of how the permittee proposes to comply with the compliance assurance monitoring 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 64, including a plan describing how the applicant will comply with 

the monitoring design criteria in 40 CFR 64.3. Section 12.4 also requires the permit contain (1) 

all applicable requirements, emission limits, and standards,22 and (2) monitoring, recordkeeping, 

 

21 Revisions to the Section 12 submittals were adopted by Clark County on January 3, 2006, November 3, 2009, 

May 18, 2010, November 16, 2010, and March 6, 2012. NDEP is the governor’s designee for submitting official 

revisions of the Nevada SIP to EPA. NDEP subsequently submitted to EPA revisions to Section 12 on February 11, 

2010, September 1, 2010, January 13, 2011, and May 22, 2012, respectively. On July 13, 2012, EPA proposed 

approval of the revisions to Section 12. 

22 Applicable requirements not required by the Act or implementing federal regulations, and that are not in the 

Nevada SIP, may be included in the permit but shall be specifically designated as being not federally enforceable 
30 

and reporting requirements sufficient to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 64 or paragraph 

(d) of Section 12.5.2.6, as deemed necessary by the Control Officer. 

As such, we find, contingent on approval of Section 12 requirements into the SIP, that the 

Nevada SIP applicable to Clark County meets the monitoring and reporting requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5

standard, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard. However, the permitting requirements do not adequately 

address section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). The applicable SIP contains Clark County Section 24 

(“Sampling and Testing – Records and Reports”), and Section 24.5 addresses CAA 

section110(a)(2)(F)(iii), but Section 24 was repealed by Clark County and no longer effective as 

of July 1, 2010. Neither Clark County nor NDEP has submitted for inclusion in the SIP a 

replacement for Section 24 to address the SIP gap created when Section 24 was repealed. Thus, 

Section 24 remains in the SIP. Neither NDEP nor Clark County has demonstrated the SIP 

contains a requirement in Clark County that addresses the correlation requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii). 

Washoe County

EPA has reviewed the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, other supporting NDEP and Washoe County information, and the SIP to determine if 

Washoe County has addressed the CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requirements. Nevada’s 2012 

Submittal included provisions to address these requirements in the context of Washoe County. 

Thus, EPA has reviewed those provisions and other available information in an effort to 

determine whether the requirements have been met. 

EPA has determined that requirements applicable in Washoe County adequately address CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), or (iii). Even though Washoe County does not have a rule in the SIP 

that adequately addresses the monitoring requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i), EPA 

issued a policy memorandum23 in May 1980 indicating a state no longer had to promulgate 

continuous emissions monitoring regulations for sources not yet in existence at the time of the 

memorandum. Based on the memorandum and communications with Washoe County, EPA has 

determined that Washoe County does not have any sources requiring the type of monitoring 

described in 40 CFR 51.214 of Subpart K. Therefore, the Nevada SIP as it applies in Washoe 

County adequately addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i). 

 

and not enforceable by a citizen's suit pursuant to the Act, and shall be designated as “county only requirements.” 

Terms and conditions so designated are not subject to the requirements that apply to permit review by EPA and 

affected states. 

23 Clarification of Requirements for Inclusion of Continuous Emission Monitoring Provisions in State 

Implementation Plans from Edward E. Reich, Director of the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, to 

Enforcement Division Directors and Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors in Regions I-X dated May 9,

1980. The Reich memorandum states, “... a state need not promulgate CEM regulations to apply to Appendix P 

sources not yet in existence in the state. Appendix P by its terms permits states, in their CEM regulations, to exempt 

from its coverage sources which would be subject to any NSPS requiring CEM. All four of the source categories 

covered by Appendix P would, if new, be subject to NSPS continuous monitoring requirements. Should a source 

meeting the Appendix P size threshold be subsequently constructed in a state, it would be governed by 

the CEM provisions of the applicable NSPS. Coverage under Appendix P would therefore be unnecessary to 

assuring the continuous monitoring of that new source.” 
31 

Although Washoe County rules supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii) are currently 

not in the SIP, Washoe County requested24 that NDEP submit a SIP revision to EPA to initiate 

parallel processing of four Washoe rules supportive of (F)(ii) and (iii). On July 5, 2012, NDEP 

formally requested parallel processing of the relevant Washoe rules described below. In a 

separate action, signed on July 18, 2012 and included in the same docket as this TSD, EPA is 

proposing to approve the four rules into the SIP.25 

Washoe County requirements supporting CAA §110(a)(2)(F) Federal Register

030.218 Demonstration of Compliance Separate FR pending

030.230 Recordkeeping Separate FR pending

030.235 Requirements For Source Sampling and Testing Separate FR pending

030.970.A Part 70 Permit Monitoring and Compliance, Compliance Statements Separate FR pending

Summary of Washoe County requirements supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)

Rule 030.218 authorizes the Control Officer to require a source to provide applicable data to 

demonstrate compliance with the conditions of their permit. 

Rule 030.230 authorizes the Control Officer to require any permit holder to keep adequate 

records concerning contaminant emissions for any equipment or process for which the permit 

was issued. All permittees operating add-on emissions control equipment are required to 

maintain records sufficient to legally demonstrate that the equipment has operated in compliance 

with all applicable Federal, State and District regulations. 

Rule 030.235 authorizes the Control Officer to require source stack testing, or other types of 

source testing, to determine the exact quantity and effect of emissions produced by stationary 

sources. 

Rule 030.970 requires sources subject to Part 70 permits to annually (or more frequently if 

required) submit a statement of compliance addressing each term or condition of operation on an 

item by item basis. The compliance statement includes a variety of criteria such as the 

compliance status and monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements, and test methods 

used for determining the compliance. Approval of Rule 030.970 into the SIP is intended to 

address CAA sections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii). 

As such, we find, contingent on approval of the four Washoe County rules into the SIP, that the 

Nevada SIP applicable to Washoe County meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard. 

 

24 On June 21, 2012, Washoe County sent a letter to NDEP requesting they submit a parallel processing request to 

EPA to revise the Washoe County portion of the Nevada's PM2.5 infrastructure SIP by adding rules 030.218, 

030.230, 030.235, and 030.970.A. 

25 40 CFR 52.1473 applies in Washoe County and contains a requirement addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). 

This requirement remains in effect, and EPA is not removing it at this time. 
32 

Conclusion

In conclusion, EPA has reviewed the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and compared 

them to the Nevada ozone and PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs, other supporting information, and the 

applicable SIP. Based on this review, we propose to find that the portion of the Nevada SIP that 

applies to NDEP and Washoe County adequately addresses CAA sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), 

and (iii). With respect to the portion of the Nevada SIP that applies to Clark County, CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) have been met, but section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) has not. 

Our proposed approval of sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) for Clark County is contingent upon 

EPA approval into the SIP of Section 12 permitting regulations previously discussed. Our 

proposed approval of 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii) for Washoe County is contingent upon receipt of 

fully adopted versions of four Washoe County regulations previously discussed, which must go 

through a local SIP rulemaking process before NDEP submits them to EPA as SIP revisions, and 

EPA approval of the rules into the SIP. We propose, in the alternative, to disapprove the Nevada 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) in 

Clark and Washoe counties, if either NDEP does not submit these regulations as SIP revisions 

following all required procedures or EPA does not approve the rules into the SIP before we take 

final action on the NV Infrastructure SIP. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G) – Emergency episodes 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in section 

303 and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.” 

EPA promulgated rules for emergency episodes in 1971 and revised those rules in 1986 to clarify 

state requirements related to emergency episodes found in section 110(a)(2)(G). These rules are 

found at 40 CFR 51.150 through 153, inclusive. EPA has also issued guidance on this subject. 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal and 2008 PM2.5 Submittal stated “Emergency powers 

are provided in Nevada’s current SIP in NRS 445B.560, NAC 445.665, and NAC 

445B.230.” Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal reiterated the prior submittals (except for 

NAC 445.665) and added that “Nevada also has a SIP approved Emergency Episode 

Plan, despite being categorized as a priority III region (exempt from developing episode 

plans; 40 CFR 51 § 152) for purposes of emergency episode planning.”

 

These air quality regulations are part of the Nevada SIP (except as noted below) and they address 

emergency episode planning. The full text of each regulation is included in Enclosure 2 of each 

of the above SIP submittals and the subject of each is summarized as follows: 

• NAC 445.665 – (Note: Replaced by NAC 445B.229, see below.) 

• NAC 445B.229 – Hazardous emissions: Order for reduction or discontinuance. Provides 

authority to Director and local air pollution control agencies if emissions are determined 

to be hazardous to human health or safety. 

• NAC 445B.230 – “Powers and duties of Department.” Among other things, requires any 

source emitting more than 100 tons/year of any regulated air pollutant must prepare an 
33 

emergency management plan upon written notice from the Director. 

• NRS 445B.560 – “Plan or procedure for emergency.” Provides for Director's authority in 

requiring and evaluating emergency plans; and to order reductions or cessation of 

operation should emissions substantially endanger public health. 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 

Since 1999, the WCAQMD has not monitored a 24-hour ambient PM2.5 concentration 

greater than 140.4 μg/m3. Emergency powers are authorized under WCDBOH 

Regulation 050.001 (Emergency Episode Plan) which begins actions at 65.4 μg/m3.

EPA evaluation 

General authority evaluation

NRS 445B.560 provides the State Environmental Commission the authority to provide “for alert, 

warning, and emergency standards and abatement procedures relative to air pollution episodes or 

emergencies constituting, or likely to constitute, an imminent and substantial danger to the health 

of persons.” See NRS 445B.560(1). It also provides authority for the Director of the DCNR to 

require sources to develop emergency episode plans, as per NRS 445B.560(2),26 and to order the 

reduction or discontinuation immediately of air contaminant emissions that constitute an 

emergency, as per NRS 445B.560(3). 

The SEC implemented such authority by adopting NAC 445B.229, which provides authority to 

the Director of the DCNR and local air pollution control agencies, upon determination of a 

general air pollution emergency, or an air pollution emergency due to one or more stationary 

sources, to order persons causing or contributing to the emergency to reduce or discontinue the 

emission of air contaminants. Similarly, the SEC used it’s authority to adopt Section 6 

(“Emergency Episode Plan”) of Nevada’s January 28, 1972 submittal, which was last approved 

by EPA on July 10, 1980 (see 45 FR 46385),27 herein referred to as the “Nevada Emergency 

Episode Plan.” The Nevada Emergency Episode Plan sets forth specific procedures to be 

followed in the event of an air pollution emergency in the three Air Quality Control Regions 

included in the State of Nevada. 

Clark County and Washoe County have each adopted regulations for emergency episodes that 

have been incorporated into the Nevada SIP. While Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals did 

not address Clark County, CCR Section 70 (“Emergency Procedures”) was approved into the 

Nevada SIP on August 27, 1981 (46 FR 43141).28 We note that CCR Section 70.1 refers 

 

26 NAC 445B.230 (“Powers and duties of Department”) manifests the authority of NRS 445B.560 by requiring any 

source emitting more than 100 tons/year of regulated air pollutants to prepare an emergency management plan upon 

written notice from the Director. 

27 EPA disapproved Section 6.1.5 of the Plan because it did not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.16 and 

Appendix L. 

28 CCR Section 70 was revised on July 1, 2004 – a version that has not been submitted for incorporation into the 

SIP. However, the only textual difference between the provisions are the replacement of “Health District” with

“Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management” in the Section 70.3 phrase “incorporated or 

unincorporated areas of the Health District.” Because these both referred to a geographic area, which is the entirety 

of Clark County, there is no substantive difference. Thus while the August 27, 1981 approval suffices for purposes 
34 

specifically to the state’s Section 6 “as a guide for the actions during an episode condition” and 

that its provisions generally follow provisions of NRS 445B.560, NAC 445B.229, and NAC 

445B.230 while establishing the Clark County Control Officer’s authority to order reduction or 

discontinuation of air contaminant emissions during an emergency, and to require emergency 

episode planning by sources. 

Washoe County DBOH Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 050.001, cited in Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5

Submittal, was approved into the SIP on June 18, 2007 (see 72 FR 33397). This regulation 

begins with defining its purpose, applicability (the whole Health District), and relevant terms 

(see AQR 050.001 Sections A and B). It then establishes emergency episode criteria levels for 

three stages (Alert, Warning, and Emergency) for several pollutants including ozone and PM2.5

(see AQR 050.001 Section C). For each stage, the Control Officer is responsible for taking 

certain actions commensurate with the severity of the air pollution problem and, for all stages, 

for notifying the appropriate entities as to the episode stage that exists. He or she also has 

authority to require the preparation and submittal of emergency plans by relevant stationary or 

mobile sources, as per AQR 050.001(E)(1). Therefore, the provisions of AQR 050.001 generally 

follow provisions the state’s Section 6 while establishing the Washoe County Control Officer’s 

authority to order reduction or discontinuation of air contaminant emissions during an 

emergency, and to require emergency episode planning by sources. 

The prior approvals of the state, Clark County, and Washoe County provisions, as identified 

above, continue to provide a adequate basis for meeting the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). Below, we outline the requirements of 40 CFR 51.150 through 153, inclusive, and 

identify elements of Nevada SIP that address these requirements in order to more specifically 

address emergency episode planning for the 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Evaluation for ozone

Section 51.150 provides criteria for the classification of areas for emergency episode planning 

purposes, based on previously measured concentrations of ambient air pollutants, specifically 

sulfur oxides, particulates (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone 

(O3). Areas are classified as Priority I, IA, II or III, with Priority I areas being those with the 

highest measured air pollutants and Priority III regions as those with the lowest. Priority I 

regions are required to develop emergency episode plans, while Priority III areas are not required 

to develop episode plans.29 Nevada treats the entire state as a Priority I area for emergency 

episode planning purposes for ozone and therefore meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.150. 

Section 40 CFR 51.151 defines “Significant Harm Levels” (SHLs), which are the concentrations 

of the aforementioned air pollutants that would trigger the implementation of an emergency 

episode plan. Nevada’s SHLs for ozone (1200 μg/m3 or 600 ppm, 2-hour average) are identical 

to the SHLs in 40 CFR 51.151 and therefore meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.151; see 

Section 6.1.4 of the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan. 

 

of this infrastructure SIP evaluation, we recommend that Clark County submit the revised CCR Section 70 for 

incorporation into the SIP. 

29 There are currently no priority classifications for PM2.5. 
35 

40 CFR 51.152 (a) describes the elements required in contingency plans in the event of an 

emergency episode. Subsection (1) requires two or more stages of episode criteria. Nevada’s 

plan specifies three stages of episode criteria; see Section 6.1.4 of the Nevada Emergency 

Episode Plan and Washoe County AQR 050.001(Section C). Subsection (2) of 40 CFR 51.152 

requires public announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to exist. 

Nevada’s public information plans includes public announcements when episodes stages have 

been reached; see Section 6.5, Subsection (3) of the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan, which 

requires adequate emission control actions to be taken at each episode stage, and Washoe County 

AQR 050.001(Section D). Nevada’s plan includes emission control actions, at each episode 

level, for major point sources and “other sources,” see Sections 6.4 through 6.4.3 of the Nevada 

Emergency Episode Plan, and Washoe County AQR 050.001(Section C).30

40 CFR 51.152 (b) sets forth the following additional requirements in the event of an emergency 

episode. Subsection (1) requires prompt acquisition of forecasts of atmospheric stagnation 

conditions and of updates of such forecasts as frequently as they are issued by the National 

Weather Service. Section 6.3.1 of the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan sets forth procedures for 

receiving up-to-date forecasting and current conditions from the National Weather Service. 

Subsection (2) requires inspection of sources to ascertain compliance with the applicable 

emission control requirements. Section 6.5.1(e) of the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan pertains 

to source inspections during an emergency episode. Inspections are carried out by field 

inspectors and police departments. Subsection (3) requires communications procedures for 

transmitting status reports and orders as to emission control actions to be taken during an episode 

stage. Communications procedures for status reports and orders are set forth in the Nevada 

Emergency Episode Plan in Section 6.5.1(c). 

Section 51.152 contains several other provisions, but these do not apply to Nevada because the 

Nevada SIP treats the entire state as a Priority I area for emergency episode planning purposes 

for ozone. With respect to the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.152, Nevada meets all 

requirements. 

40 CFR 51.153 requires periodic reviews and updates to the priority level classifications set forth 

in 40 CFR 51.150. Because Nevada has chosen to classify the entire state at the highest priority 

level, Priority I, a review or update process is not necessary to ensure that the degree of 

emergency episode planning is sufficient based on prior measured levels of air pollution listed in 

section 51.150. Nevada meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.153. 

Evaluation for PM2.5

To evaluate whether the Nevada SIP meets the requirements for contingency plans for the 1997 

PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we used guidance issued in 2009 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.31

The 2009 Guidance for PM2.5 recommends that a state with at least one monitored 24-hour PM2.5 

 

30 CCR Section 70.1 requires the Clark County Control Officer to use the state’s Section 6 as a guide for actions 

during an episode condition, which applies for the various requirements of 40 CFR 51.152. 

31 Memorandum issued by William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, "Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)," dated September 25, 2009. 
36 

value exceeding 140.4 μg/m3 since 2006 establish an emergency episode plan and contingency 

measures to be implemented should such level be exceeded again. Additionally, the 2009 

Guidance for PM2.5 recommends that if no area of a state has exceeded this 140.4 μg/m3 level 

since 2006 and the state has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2.5 related 

episodes, then no specific emergency episode plans are necessary at this time given the existing 

monitored levels. EPA PM2.5 monitoring data has shown that 24-hour PM2.5 values have not 

exceeded 140.4 μg/m3 from 2006 through 2011.32

Therefore, Nevada is not required to develop a contingency plan for PM2.5 at this time and only 

needs authority comparable to that in CAA section 303. This is the same conclusion that Nevada 

drew in its 2009 PM2.5 Submittal – that the state is not required to have a contingency plan for 

PM2.5.

33 NRS 445B.560, NAC 445B.230, and NAC 229 (for the state level), CCR Section 70 (for 

Clark County) and AQR 050.001 (for Washoe County) provide the authority comparable to CAA 

section 303, including the authority for the DCNR Director and county Control Officers to order 

the reduction or discontinuation of emissions from one or more air contaminant sources that are 

causing or contributing to an emergency risk to the public’s health. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, we propose to find that the Nevada SIP meets the applicable requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) – SIP revisions 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to “provide for revision of such plan—(i) from time to time 

as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to 

attain the national ambient air quality standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with 

any additional requirements established under this Act.” 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated the 

following: 

NRS 445B.205 designates the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

(Department) as the air pollution control agency for the State of Nevada for the purposes 

of the Clean Air Act insofar as it pertains to State programs. Within the Department, 

NDEP has responsibility to manage the air quality planning and air pollution control 

programs for the State. NDEP commits to submit appropriate SIP revisions whenever 

revised air quality standards are promulgated by EPA. 

 

32 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Violation Day Count Report for 2006 24-hour PM2.5, July 9, 

2012. 

33 Note, however, that Nevada’s conclusion was based on the incorrect assertion in the 2009 PM2.5 Submittal that the 

state is “categorized as a priority III region.” EPA has not promulgated any prioritization tables for PM2.5 into the 

CFR to date. In other words, the prioritization of areas for emergency episode purposes is NAAQS-specific. 
37 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) added that “WCDBOH Regulation 

020.0051 (Board of Health - Powers and Duties) authorizes the WCDBOH to revise a SIP ‘to 

achieve and maintain levels of air quality to protect human health’.” 

EPA evaluation 

NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County

EPA has reviewed the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 

infrastructure SIP submittals, and other supporting NDEP information. In addition to NRS 

445B.205, EPA also reviewed NRS 445B.135, 445B.210, 445B.220, and 445B.500 as possibly 

providing adequate “authority” for NDEP, Washoe County, and Clark County to implement 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(H). 

• NRS 445B.135 “Federal Act” defined. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006) 

• NRS 445B.205 Department designated as State Air Pollution Control Agency. (see 72 FR 

11, 1/3/2007) 

• NRS 445B.210 Powers of Commission. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006) 

• NRS 445B.220 Additional powers of Commission. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006) 

• NRS 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. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006) 

Conclusion

We propose to find that Nevada statutes provide for revision of the SIP (1) as necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the 

availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard and (2) 

whenever the Administrator finds that Nevada’s plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or does not comply with requirements established under the Act. Therefore, we propose 

to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I) – Plan revisions for nonattainment areas 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires SIPs to “in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area 

designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to 

nonattainment areas).”

While this section requires States to meet nonattainment area requirements, pursuant to CAA 

title I, part D, when submitting plans or plan revisions for nonattainment areas, EPA has 

concluded that the submission of, and subsequent EPA action on, nonattainment SIP revisions by 

States is not governed by the three-year submission deadline identified in CAA section 
38 

110(a)(1). Instead, SIP revisions for nonattainment areas are due and evaluated under the 

requirements for nonattainment areas described in part D. 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated “NDEP 

commits to submit timely SIP revisions whenever areas of the State are newly designated 

nonattainment for any federal ambient air quality standard.” Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement 

(for Washoe County) added the following: 

Washoe County is currently designated attainment or attainment/unclassifiable for the 

24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The WCAQMD commits to submit SIP revisions 

whenever the county, or portions of the county, are newly designated non-attainment for 

any federal NAAQS. 

EPA evaluation 

As noted above, the specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are 

subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). 

This element is therefore not applicable to this action. Any evaluations of the Nevada SIP in 

relation to the requirements of CAA title I, part D will be completed in relation to the relevant 

nonattainment area plans. This only applies to plan submittals for the Las Vegas, Nevada 

nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, since it’s the only nonattainment area in Nevada 

for ozone or PM2.5. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation with government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility protection 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 

(relating to consultation), section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to 

prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).” 

CAA section 121 requires SIPs, in carrying out the requirements under the CAA requiring SIPs 

to contain any transportation controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements or 

preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, or any measure referred to in part D or 

part C of title I,34 to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, 

designated organizations of elected official of local governments and any Federal land manager 

(FLM) having authority over Federal land to which the State plan applies. Such process shall be 

in accordance with regulations promulgated by EPA. In essence, section 121 requires a 

satisfactory process of consultation with three kinds of organizations (general purpose local 

governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any FLM) 

for three kinds of planning arenas (transportation controls, air quality maintenance plans, and 

preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, including PSD). 

 

34 Section 121 was added by the CAA Amendments of 1977, and it also refers to section 113(d) (relating to certain 

enforcement orders), but section 113(d) was significantly amended by the CAA Amendments of 1990, and as so 

amended, no longer relates to state enforcement orders. Also, we view the requirement of section 121 to provide a

satisfactory process of consultation for “any measure referred to in part D” to be outside the scope of infrastructure 

SIP evaluations since the part D requirements pertain to nonattainment planning requirements. 
39 

CAA section 127 requires SIPs to contain measures to effectively notify the public during any 

calendar year on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any NAAQS is exceeded or was 

exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year, to advise the public of the health 

hazards associated with such pollution, and to enhance public awareness of the measures which 

can be taken to prevent such standards from being exceeded and the ways in which the public 

can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. Such measures may include 

the posting of warning signs on interstate highway access points to metropolitan areas or 

television, radio, or press notices or information. 

For a discussion of the CAA title I, part C requirements, see our evaluation of section 

110(a)(2)(C) above. 

Related EPA Regulations

EPA’s regulations concerning consultation are set forth in subpart M (“Intergovernmental 

Consultation”) of 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.240 (“General plan requirements”) and 51.241 

(“Nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide and ozone”). Under section 51.240, each SIP must 

identify organizations, by official title, that will participate in developing, implementing, and 

enforcing the SIP and the responsibilities of such organizations. The SIP shall include any 

related agreements or memoranda of understanding among the organizations. Under section 

52.241, for each Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) or portion of an AQCR in which the 

NAAQS for carbon monoxide or ozone, the Governor must certify, after consultation with local 

officials, the organization responsible for developing the revised SIP or portions thereof for such 

AQCR. 

EPA’s regulations concerning public notification are set forth in set forth in subpart O 

(“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) of 40 CFR part 51, section 51.285 (“Public 

notification”). Section 51.285 requires SIPs to provide for (a) notifying the public on a regular 

basis of instances or areas in which any primary standard was exceeded during any portion of the 

preceding calendar year; (b) advising the public of the health hazards associated with such an 

exceedance of a primary standard; and (c) increasing public awareness of: (1) Measures which 

can be taken to prevent a primary standard from being exceeded, and (2) Ways in which the 

public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Consultation

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated the 

following: 

The Nevada Administrative Procedure Act, NRS Chapter 233B, requires notification and 

provision of comment opportunities to all parties affected by proposed regulations. 

Additionally, NAC 445.707 requires public participation in the State program to issue air 

quality operating permits (registration certificates). NDEP commits to maintaining a 

process of consultation with parties designated under section 121 (i.e., general purpose 
40 

local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and 

affected Federal land managers). 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 

All SIP elements are adopted by the WCDBOH before being formally submitted as the 

Washoe County portion of the Nevada PM2.5 SIP. Participation by local political 

subdivisions is authorized by WCDBOH Regulation 020.005 (Board of Health - 

Responsibility) and an interlocal agreement between the City of Reno, City of Sparks, 

and the County of Washoe, Nevada. This inter-local agreement requires that the 

WCDBOH include one elected official from each of the three political subdivisions in 

Washoe County. The WCAQMD is committed to include all stakeholders, such as local 

governments and federal land managers, in the SIP development process. 

While the 2008 and 2009 submittals provided some information regarding consultation, 

the 2012 Submittal substantially revised the description of the state and counties’ 

consultation process and requested that Section 11 of Nevada’s SIP (“Intergovernmental 

Consultation”), which was submitted in 1972, be replaced with a revised Section 11 

(attached to the 2012 Submittal) for purposes of satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2)(M). 

The 2012 Submittal also included a revised version of NRS 445B.500 (2011 codification) 

and a newly submitted NRS 445B.503, which is relevant to consultation. 

Public Notification

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated the 

following: 

The only nonattainment areas in the State lie within Washoe and Clark Counties; the rest 

of the State (NDEP’s jurisdiction) is attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS. NDEP 

maintains a web site, http://ndep.nv.gov/, which describes the State’s air quality planning 

and air pollution control programs and includes public information pages with public 

notices and news releases. Air quality monitoring data and trends are reported on the 

web site, including real-time monitoring for particulate matter (PM10) in Pahrump, 

Nevada. 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 

WCDBOH Regulation 050.001 (Emergency Episode Plan) authorizes the WCAQMD to 

advise the public on measures that are taken to reduce their exposure during elevated 

PM2.5 levels. Additionally, near-time ambient PM2.5 monitoring data are posted on the 

WCAQMD website. 

PSD and Visibility Protection

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated the 

following: 

NDEP was given partial delegation of the federal PSD program (40 CFR 52.21) on May 

20, 1983; full delegation effective October 10, 1988; revoked for a 3 month period from 

March 3 to June 3, 2003; partial delegation June 3, 2003. NDEP was again given full 
41 

delegation of the federal PSD program on October 19, 2004, including NSR reform 

provisions. 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 

On July 31, 2007, EPA’s approval of Nevada’s interstate transport SIP (CAA 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in July 1997 was 

published in the Federal Register (72 FR 41629). Also, Article 13 of Nevada’s SIP, 

“General Provisions for the Review of New Sources,” requires an environmental 

evaluation before a registration certificate may be issued. Finally, the WCAQMD has full 

delegation of the federal PSD program. 

Lastly, Nevada’s 2012 Submittal revised the prior submittals for CAA section 

110(a)(2)(J) by adding the following: 

As noted under element C, the NDEP has full delegation of the federal PSD program, which 

is made part of Nevada’s applicable SIP per 40 CFR § 52.1485. The consultation and public 

notice provisions in the applicable SIP (as listed under elements J and M of the NDEP’s 

110(a)(2) submittals noted at the beginning of this document) fulfill the public notice 

requirements of CAA [title I,] Part C, subchapter I. 

EPA Evaluation 

Consultation

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal is the primary basis for our evaluation of Nevada’s consultation 

provisions given that a) it substantially revised the 2008 and 2009 submittals, b) it included a 

Attachment D (Section 11, “Intergovernmental Consultation”) to replace the outdated Section 11 

(“Intergovernmental Relations”) of the 1972 SIP, and c) provided one revised and one new 

statute for incorporation into the SIP. 

Attachment D of Nevada’s 2012 Submittal identifies the relevant federal statutes and regulations, 

as discussed above in the opening paragraphs of this TSD’s section on CAA section 110(a)(2)(J), 

and describes the process for consultation for the following geographic areas relevant to the SIP: 

statewide, Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County. For each area, Attachment D 

identifies the applicable state and local provisions governing consultation; describes provisions 

relevant to consultation in permitting new or modified stationary sources; and, for Clark County, 

Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County, addresses consultation’s role in transportation planning 

and conformity to the Nevada SIP. Attachment D also includes four exhibits: two are letters in 

support of the legal authority of certain parties (i.e., the NDEP Administrator, and the Clark 

County BCC), while the other two are state statutes in support of consultation requirements in 

Clark County (NRS 445B.503) and representative composition of the DBOH in Washoe County 

(NRS 439.390). As Exhibits to Attachment D, we understand the state’s SIP revision request to 

include these Exhibits. We also understand the state’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement, Attachment D 

(“Interlocal Agreement Concerning the Washoe County District Health Department”), to be a 

SIP revision request 
42 

We find that Attachment D provides a satisfactory process of consultation throughout the state 

with a) general purpose local governments, b) designated organizations of elected officials of 

local governments, and c) any affected Federal Land Manager for 1) transportation controls, 2) 

maintenance plan requirements, and 3) preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution 

(including PSD). We also find that this SIP revision identifies organizations that participate in 

developing, implementing, and enforcing the plan at the state level and in Clark County, Lake 

Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County, as per the requirement to do so under 40 CFR 51.240. 

Public Notification

In connection with this requirement, the existing applicable Nevada SIP only includes a 

regulation applicable within Clark County. Clark County Regulation section 4 (“Control 

Officer”), subsection 4.12 (“Public Notification”)(see 46 FR 43141, August 27, 1981) requires 

the Control Officer to notify the public on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any 

ambient air quality standard was exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year and 

also addresses the other requirements in CAA section 127. Because Clark County section 4.12 

refers to any ambient air quality standard, it applies to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard even 

though the SIP rule dates from 1981. Clark County’s current rulebook continues to include 

section 4.12 as approved into the SIP in 1981. Historically, the frequency of NAAQS 

exceedances was greatest in Clark County. Moreover, a portion of Clark County is the only 

portion of the State of Nevada designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

(see 40 CFR 81.329) and is the only portion of the state where exceedances of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard have been measured since 2004. Therefore, the lack of specific public 

notification requirements in the SIP for the rest of Nevada is acceptable with respect to the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. In conclusion, based on the existing SIP rule (Clark County Regulation 

section 4.12), we find that the Nevada SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 127 with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

PSD and Visibility Protection

Pursuant to the CAA, a SIP should provide for the implementation of any new PSD requirements 

that are triggered upon the effective date of any new NAAQS. However, sources in a state may 

be subject to the federal PSD requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21, if a state does not have a 

SIP-approved PSD program. As described above for section 110(a)(2)(C), such a state remains 

obligated to adopt and submit a PSD program for EPA approval that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants, including GHGs. Until a state provides such a program, its SIP would not be 

approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). 

As discussed above for section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA previously promulgated FIPs to address the 

PSD program requirements under part C of title I of the CAA by incorporating 40 CFR 52.21 

into the Nevada SIP, except for Clark County, and fully delegated implementation of the PSD 

FIPs to NDEP and Washoe County. However, until a state adopts and submits a PSD program 

for EPA approval that applies to all regulated pollutants, including GHGs, its SIP is not 

approvable with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and GHGs, we find that 
43 

the Nevada SIP does not to meet the PSD program requirements in part C for the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the State. 

Also as discussed above for section 110(a)(2)(C), for the Clark County portion of the Nevada 

SIP, EPA previously approved the PSD program. However, On December 13, 2010, Clark 

County was subject to the PSD GHG SIP Call, wherein EPA determined that Clark County’s 

PSD program was substantially inadequate because it did not apply to GHG-emitting sources. 

Since EPA’s approval of the Clark County PSD program in 2004, Clark County has adopted 

significant revisions to Clark County Regulation section 12 and repealed the version of section 

12 that EPA had previously approved (repeal effective July 1, 2010). Clark County, via NDEP, 

has submitted several SIP revisions regarding NSR and EPA has proposed approval of elements 

of a PSD program that are required for infrastructure SIP purposes, including identification of 

NOx as an ozone precursor; provisions to regulate PM2.5, including PM2.5 precursor emissions; 

and provisions to regulate GHGs (see proposal signed on July 13, 2012 and included in the same 

docket as this TSD). We anticipate being able to finalize that proposal prior to or concurrent with 

the final rule on the infrastructure SIP proposal (for which this TSD is written). As such, with 

respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, we find 

that the Nevada SIP does not to meet the PSD program requirements in part C for the Clark 

County portion of the State. 

With regard to the requirement of the plan to meet the applicable requirements for visibility 

protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of title I of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 

169B). Thus, EPA concludes there are no new applicable obligations to protect visibility under 

section 110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Conclusion

Based on our review of the applicable Nevada SIP and Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, 

we propose find that Nevada has met the public notification and visibility requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the entire state for the relevant NAAQS. We also propose to revise the 

SIP, as requested by Nevada, by a) replacing Section 11 of the 1972 Nevada SIP with the revised 

Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Consultation”) provided as Attachment B of Nevada’s 2012 

Submittal, including its four exhibits (two letters, NRS 445B.503, and NRS 439.390), and by b) 

replacing the version of NRS 445B.500 in the Nevada SIP with the submitted version (adopted 

in 2011). Contingent upon these SIP revisions, we find that the Nevada SIP meets the 

consultation requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the entire state for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For these three NAAQS, we also find 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 discussed above, and that the 

NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada SIP do not meet the PSD-related 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the reasons discussed in our evaluation of sections 

110(a)(2)(J) and 110(a)(2)(C). 
44 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) – Air quality modeling and submission of modeling 

data 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to “provide for—(i) the performance of such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient 

air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a 

national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to 

such air quality modeling to the Administrator.” 

EPA requires air quality impacts analyses for purposes of the regulation of new sources and 

modifications and has prescribed guidelines on air quality models. See 40 CFR 51.160(f), 

51.166(l), and Appendix W (“Guideline on Air Quality Models”).

35 Specifically, EPA’s PSD 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.166 require that SIPs specify that all applications of air quality 

modeling for PSD purposes must be “based on the applicable models, data bases, and other 

requirements specified in appendix W of [part 51].” 40 CFR 51.166(l). Likewise, EPA’s general 

new source review regulations in section 51.160 require that SIPs contain procedures to “discuss 

the air quality data and the dispersion or other air quality modeling used to meet the requirements 

of [40 CFR part 51, subpart I]” and require that all such applications of air quality modeling be 

“based on the applicable models, data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of 

[part 51].” 40 CFR 51.160(f). Both of these provisions state that where an air quality model 

specified in Appendix W36 is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model 

substituted with EPA’s written approval, following notice and opportunity for public comment. 

40 CFR 51.160(f)(2), 51.166(l)(2). EPA’s PSD regulations also provide that SIPs must require 

the permitting authority to make available in at least one location in the region where a proposed 

source would be constructed a copy of all materials that the permit applicant submitted, and to 

notify EPA (among others) of the public comment period on any proposed PSD permit. 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(ii), (iv). 

NDEP’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated “[t]his 

requirement is addressed by the environmental evaluation provisions in the ‘General Provisions 

for the Review of New Sources’ in Article 13 of the SIP.” Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for 

Washoe County) added that “Air quality modeling to ensure attainment and/or maintenance of 

the NAAQS is authorized under WCDBOH Regulation 030.210 (Permit to Operate Issuance).” 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal stated the following: 

The following NAC provisions were submitted to USEPA on January 24, 2011 as a SIP 

revision: 

 

35 EPA also requires that each SIP identify and describe the air quality model(s) used to demonstrate the adequacy 

of a control strategy to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.112 and 

51.115(b)) and has issued guidance for such purposes. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals 

for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,” EPA-454/B-07-002 (April 2007). These provisions address requirements 

under part D, title I of the Act and do not apply to our evaluation of an infrastructure SIP under CAA section 110(a).

36 EPA’s requirements for air quality modeling in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, were significantly amended on 

November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68218). 
45 

• 445B.308 Prerequisites and conditions for issuance of certain operating permits;

compliance with applicable state implementation plan. 

• 445B.310 Environmental evaluation: Applicable sources and other subjects; 

exemption. 

• 445B.311 Environmental evaluation: Contents; consideration of good 

engineering practice stack height. 

Together with Nevada’s full delegation of the federal PSD program, as adopted into the 

applicable Nevada SIP through 40 CFR § 52.1485 (see element C above), these 

regulations fully satisfy the requirements of this element. 

EPA Evaluation 

NDEP

NDEP currently does not have a federally approved PSD program in the Nevada SIP, but 

NDEP's PSD program incorporates by reference 40 CFR Part 52.21, including subsection (l) 

“Air quality models.” Modeling requirements have been submitted by Nevada and approved into 

the SIP. As the State noted, modeling is also part of the New Source Review (NSR) permitting 

program, and is described by the State pursuant to SIP Article 13.1.1 and 13.4.1.2(b). 

Specifically, these require an environmental evaluation before a source may be issued a 

“registration certificate” (defined under NAC 445.592 as an approval of source construction), 

and that the evaluation consider “diffusion modeling” including “dispersion equations.” 

EPA interprets 110(a)(2)(K) as requiring that the permitting authority establish PSD 

requirements for air quality models consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(l). Because EPA previously 

promulgated PSD FIPs for the portion of the Nevada SIP applicable to areas covered by NDEP, 

the NDEP portion of the Nevada SIP does not satisfy 110(a)(2)(K). Even though Article 13.1.1 

and 13.4.1.2(b) were approved into the SIP on March 26, 1975 (40 FR 13306), EPA has 

determined that Article 13.1.1 and 13.4.1.2(b) do not equal or exceed the PSD requirements 

pertaining to modeling and do not provide a basis for approval of 110(a)(2)(K). 

NAC 445B.308 requires that an applicant for an operating permit submit to the Director an 

environmental evaluation and any other information the Director determines is necessary to 

make an independent air quality impact assessment. The Director may impose any reasonable 

conditions requiring the owner or operator of the stationary source to conduct monitoring of the 

quality of the ambient air at the facility site for a reasonable period before the commencement of 

construction or modification and for any specified period after operation has begun at the 

stationary source. While NAC 445B.308 requires an air quality impact assessment, the required 

assessment does not equal or exceed the PSD requirements pertaining to modeling and does not 

provide a basis for approval of 110(a)(2)(K). 

EPA has determined that NAC 445B.310 does not address modeling, does not equal or exceed 

the PSD requirements pertaining to modeling, and, therefore, does not provide a basis for 

approval of 110(a)(2)(K).
46 

NAC 445B.311 requires that a dispersion analysis used to determine the location and estimated 

value of the highest concentration of each regulated air pollutant must include a dispersion model 

based on the applicable models, bases and other requirements specified in the “Guideline on Air 

Quality Models,” which is Appendix W of 40 C.F.R. Part 51. While NAC 445B.311 does 

correctly reference EPA’s modeling guideline, NDEP does not have an approved PSD program 

that is equal to or exceed the PSD requirements, and thus, does not provide a basis for approval 

of 110(a)(2)(K). 

EPA anticipates final approval of NAC 445B.308, NAC 445B.310, and NAC 445B.311 may 

occur prior to final approval of our action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals. 

Regardless, even if the rules are not approved into the SIP before final approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals, approval of these rules is not sufficient to justify approval of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(K). 

As such, we find, that the Nevada SIP does not meet the modeling requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM2.5

standard for the portion of the State covered by NDEP. 

Clark County

Clark County has previously submitted the modeling and emissions reductions data with 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions, which rely on the State’s capacity to model the effect of 

emissions on ambient air quality. For instance, see the final rule redesignating the Las Vegas, 

Nevada carbon monoxide nonattainment area to attainment, (see 75 FR 59090, September 27, 

2010). Also, on April 11, 2011, NDEP transmitted the Clark County Ozone Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan to EPA to redesignate the Las Vegas, Nevada 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment. Like the request to redesignate the Las Vegas, Nevada carbon 

monoxide area to attainment, the April 11, 2011 submittal required and included air quality 

modeling. EPA has not yet acted upon that submittal, but it serves to underscore Clark County’s 

practice of conducting air quality modeling for attainment demonstration purposes. 

Modeling is also part of Clark County’s SIP-approved PSD and CAA Part 70 source permitting 

programs. Specifically, Section 12.5 (“Air Quality Models”) requires that permit applicants for 

any major new or modified source conduct mathematical modeling to calculate the maximum 

ambient concentration increase of any regulated pollutant. Furthermore, Section 12.5.3 requires 

that such air quality modeling be based on models and data bases approved by U.S. EPA and be 

subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. However, as discussed above for 

section 110(a)(2)(C), since EPA’s approval of the Clark County PSD program in 2004, Clark 

County has adopted significant revisions to Section 12 and repealed the version of Section 12 

that EPA had previously approved (repeal effective July 1, 2010). Thus, even though Clark 

County’s SIP-approved version of Section 12 could be found to meet the relevant permit 

modeling requirements, Clark County is no longer implementing that version of the rule, and we 

cannot rely on it as the basis to find that the Clark County portion of the SIP meets the NSR 

modeling requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). 
47 

As described above, Clark County has made significant revisions to Section 12. These 

revisions were submitted by NDEP to EPA for approval into the Nevada SIP and 

included revisions to Section 12.2 (“Permit Requirements for Major Sources in 

Attainment Areas”).37 Section 12.2 contains all of Clark County’s regulations to 

implement the requirements of the PSD program in part C, title I of the Act and EPA’s 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160-164 and 51.166. This program applies to 

large new and modified sources of criteria pollutants for which Clark County has been 

designated as attainment or unclassifiable and certain other (non-criteria) pollutants 

subject to regulation under the CAA. Section 12.2.11 addresses air quality models, and 

specifically requires all estimates of ambient concentrations required under Section 12.2 

be based on applicable air quality models, databases, and other requirements specified in 

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W (“Guideline on Air Quality Models”). Where an air quality 

model specified in Appendix W is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another 

model substituted, but only after obtaining written approval of the Administrator.

As such, we find, contingent on approval of Section 12.2 into the SIP, that the Nevada SIP meets 

the modeling requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 

PM2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard for the Clark County portion of the State. 

Washoe County

Washoe County currently does not have a federally approved PSD program in the Nevada SIP, 

but Washoe County's PSD program incorporates by reference 40 CFR Part 52.21, including 

subsection (l) “Air quality models.” Modeling requirements are also briefly described in Washoe 

County District Board of Health (WCDBOH) regulations 030.023 (“Evaluation of Registration 

Application”) and 030.235 (“Requirements for Source Sampling and Testing”). Regulation 

030.023 requires the Control Officer to review an Authority to Construct application and 

determine by approved modeling or other methods if the proposed control technology will meet 

regulatory requirements. Regulation 030.235 indicates that the Control Officer may require a 

pollutant impact analysis, including but not limited to, source or receptor modeling. 

EPA interprets 110(a)(2)(K) as requiring that the permitting authority establish PSD 

requirements for air quality models consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(l). Because EPA previously 

found the portion of the Nevada SIP applicable in Washoe County as deficient with respect to 

PSD requirements, the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP does not satisfy 110(a)(2)(K). 

Even if Washoe County regulations 030.023 and 030.235 were submitted and approved into the 

SIP with the intention of displacing the applicable Federal PSD rules, EPA has determined that 

regulations 030.023 and 030.235 do not equal or exceed the PSD requirements pertaining to 

modeling and do not provide a basis for approval of 110(a)(2)(K) or displacement of the federal 

PSD requirements. 

 

37 Revisions to Section 12.2 were adopted by Clark County on January 3, 2006; May 18, 2010; November 16, 2010; 

and March 6, 2012. NDEP is the governor’s designee for submitting official revisions of the Nevada SIP to EPA. 

NDEP subsequently submitted to EPA revisions to Section 12.2 on September 1, 2010; January 13, 2011; and May 

22, 2012, respectively. On July 13, 2012, EPA proposed approval of the revisions to Section 12, including Section 

12.2. 
48 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal included WCDBOH regulation 030.235 for parallel processing as 

provided by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, Section 2.3. In a separate action, EPA is proposing to 

approve regulation 030.235 into the SIP as supportive of Section 110(a)(2)(F); however, as 

stated above, approval of regulation 030.235 is not sufficient to address the requirements in 

Section 110(a)(2)(K). 

As such, we find, that the Nevada SIP does not meet the modeling requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM2.5

standard for the Washoe County portion of the State. 

Conclusion

Based on our review of the applicable Nevada SIP and the Nevada infrastructure SIP submittals, 

and for the reasons given above and summarized below, we propose to conclude that for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the Nevada 

SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the Clark County portion of the SIP, 

contingent upon EPA’s final approval of Clark County Regulation Section 12.2. 

For the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, we propose to disapprove the Nevada 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). If EPA 

finalizes the disapproval, the State can correct the deficiency by a submitting SIP revision(s) 

addressing the PSD requirements relating to air quality models in 40 CFR 51.166(l) as applicable 

in areas covered by NDEP and Washoe County. If the State does not wish to correct the 

deficiency, no further action is necessary because the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 

addresses this deficiency and would remain in effect. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L) – Permitting fees 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires that each SIP require the owner or owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under 

the Act, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, 

the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit 

(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such 

fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator’s approval of a 

fee program under title V of the Act. 

This requirement may be satisfied by referencing State regulations providing for collection of 

permitting fees under an EPA-approved title V operating permits program. 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated “[t]he 

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that deal with funding to support SIP requirements include NRS 

445B.230, 445B.235 and 445B.300. Permitting fees are required by NAC 445.704, 445.706, 

445.707 and 445.712 to 445.716.” Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) added 
49 

that “[p]ermitting fees are authorized under WCDBOH Regulation 030.210 (Permit to Operate 

Issuance).” 

EPA’s evaluation 

In Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 ozone infrastructure SIP submittals, the State refers to a number of 

statutory provisions and regulations that refer generally to permitting fees. We do not find the 

necessary provisions in the provisions cited by NDEP, but as noted above, the permitting fee 

requirement under CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) is superseded by EPA approval of a fee program 

under title V of the CAA, and we have approved the title V programs of NDEP, Clark County, 

and Washoe County (i.e., the entire state) (see 66 FR 63188, December 5, 2001). Each of these 

approved programs contains regulations providing for collection of the necessary permitting fees. 

See NAC section 445B.327; Clark County Board of County Commissioners Air Quality 

Regulations sections 19.7 [now implemented as section 12.5.2.6(h)] and 18.6; and WCDBOH 

Regulations governing Air Quality Management sections 030.300 through 030.335, inclusive. 

Conclusion

We propose to find that the Nevada SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for 

the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because each portion of the State is 

covered by an EPA-approved title V program, and the approved programs provide for the 

collection of the necessary fees. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) – Consultation/participation by affected local 

entities 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to “provide for consultation and participation by local 

political subdivisions affected by the plan.” 

EPA interprets this requirement as meaning more than just allowing for public input. The SIP 

must identify policies or procedures requiring consultation and participation by local political 

subdivisions affected by the relevant implementation plan. The SIP must also identify the 

organizations responsible for implementing and enforcing air quality regulations, and any related 

agreements or memoranda of understanding among these organizations. See 40 CFR 51.240 

(“General plan requirements”). 

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal stated the 

following: 

The Nevada Administrative Procedure Act, NRS Chapter 233B, requires notification and 

provision of comment opportunities to all parties affected by proposed regulations. NAC 

445B.707 requires public participation in the State program to issue air quality

operating permits (registration certificates). 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 

All SIP elements are adopted by the WCDBOH before being formally submitted as the 

Washoe County portion of the Nevada PM2.5 SIP. Participation by local political 
50 

subdivisions is authorized by WCDBOH Regulation 020.005 (Board of Health - 

Responsibility) and an interlocal agreement between the City of Reno, City of Sparks, 

and the County of Washoe, Nevada. This inter-local agreement requires that the 

WCDBOH include one elected official from each of the three political subdivisions in 

Washoe County. 

While the 2008 and 2009 submittals provided some information regarding consultation 

and participation by local political subdivisions, the 2012 Submittal substantially revised 

the description of the state and counties’ consultation process and requested that Section 

11 of Nevada’s SIP (“Intergovernmental Consultation”), which was submitted in 1972, 

be replaced with a revised Section 11 (attached to the 2012 Submittal) for purposes of 

satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2)(M). 

EPA Evaluation 

NDEP

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal is the primary basis for our evaluation of Nevada’s consultation 

provisions given that a) it substantially revised the 2008 and 2009 Submittals, and b) it included 

a Attachment D (Section 11, “Intergovernmental Consultation”) to replace the outdated Section 

11 (“Intergovernmental Relations”) of the 1972 SIP. 

Attachment D of Nevada’s 2012 Submittal identifies the relevant federal statutes and regulations 

for consultation that tie to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 110(a)(2)(M), as discussed above in 

the opening paragraphs of this TSD’s evaluation of these two infrastructure SIP elements. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) refers to section 121, which specifically addresses three kinds of entities for 

three types of air quality plans (i.e., consultation with general purpose local governments, 

designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any FLM for 

transportation controls, air quality maintenance plans, and preconstruction review of direct 

sources of air pollution, including PSD). By contrast, section 110(a)(2)(M) refers only to “local 

political subdivisions affected by the [SIP],” but takes a broader view (i.e., it does not refer to 

specific types of air quality plans within the SIP and refers to “participation” in addition to 

consultation). Thus, for our evaluation of 110(a)(2)(M) we looked to Nevada’s more general 

provisions for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions, such as the Clark 

County DAQ, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Washoe County AQMD, and respective 

incorporated cities and county and regional organizations in each. 

Attachment D describes the process for consultation for the following geographic areas relevant 

to the SIP: statewide, Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County. For each area, 

Attachment D identifies the applicable state and local provisions governing consultation and 

notification to affected entities, including for those parts of the SIP related to permitting new and 

modified major sources and transportation planning, as appropriate. By the very nature of 

delegating air program responsibilities to Clark County BCC and DAQ and Washoe County 

DBOH and AQMD and cooperating with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, while retaining 

SIP revision authority at the state level, Nevada has instilled a process for developing, 

implementing, and enforcing the SIP that relies upon the involvement of such local political 
51 

subdivisions. Beyond these county and regional subdivisions, each of the three local jurisdictions 

(Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County) integrate further local political 

subdivisions in matters relating to the SIP. These include regional planning organizations; 

regional transportation organizations; and incorporated cities in Clark and Washoe counties, 

where the vast majority of the Nevada population resides. In addition, the Nevada SIP (including 

the revised NRS 445B.500 and the newly submitted NRS 445B.503) provides authority and 

functionality to the primary agencies in Clark and Washoe counties to engage local political 

subdivisions on air quality planning. 

EPA also identified other SIP provisions that support, but are not sufficient in themselves, 

Nevada’s consultation processes. These include NRS 445B.210 (“Powers of Commission”), 

NRS 445B.220 (“Additional powers of Commission”), and NRS 445B.235 (“Additional powers 

of Department...”), which contain language indicating the Commission and Department “may” 

cooperate with local government. 

Thus, we find that Attachment D addresses the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(M) to provide 

for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We therefore propose to replace Section 11 of the 

1972 SIP with the revised Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Consultation”) embodied by 

Attachment D and its Exhibits, consistent with our proposal above for section 110(a)(2)(J).