# Technical Support Document:

EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions for 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 

# , and 2006 PM 2.5 

# 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 2012For information on this technical support document, please co ntact: 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.gov1



### Table of Contents

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

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

................................................... ....................................1 Background ............................................

................................................... ...............................3 CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission limits and other contr ol 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 cont rol 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 an d 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 nonattainme nt areas ........................................ 37 CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation with government o fficials; 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. E nvironmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) technical review of revisions to the Nevad a 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 (PM 2.5 ), and 2006 PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). They are as follows:

• February 1, 2008 – “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Cur rent 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 Cur rent Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM 2.5 ” to address infrastructure SIP requirements for the

1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (“2008 PM 2.5 Submittal”).

• September 15, 2009 – “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM 2.5 ” to address infrastructure SIP requirements for

the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (“2009 PM 2.5 Submittal”).

• December 4, 2009 – “Current CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Washoe County Portion of the Nevada PM 2.5 SIP” to address infrastructure SIP requirements for

the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the Washoe County portion of the State (“ 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement”).

• July 5, 2012 – “Revisions to Nevada’s Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2) S tate Implementation Plan Submittals; Parallel Processing Request” to address i nfrastructure SIP requirements2

for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 mecha nism 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 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 ) 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 section s 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 elem ents is summarized in the table below.

Element Identification Evaluation (Meets Requirement?)

Elem. Sub

Elem. 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 C onflict 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 mo nitoring 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 revisi ons (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 vis ibility 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 Permitti ng 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 th an three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) sets the conten t requirements of such a plan, which generally relate to the information and authorities, com pliance assurances, procedural4

requirements, and control measures that constitute the "infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program. A SIP submittal addressing these require ments is referred to as

“infrastructure SIP."

On July 18, 1997, the EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone 2 and a new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ). 3 EPA subsequently revised the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2006. 4 Each of these actions triggered a requirement for stat es 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 E arthJustice that obligated EPA to make official findings in accordance with section 110(k)(1) o f 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 5 EPA made such findings for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as published on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205), and for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, as published on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62902).

For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA found that Nevada had failed t o make a complete submittal to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2). 6 For the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA found that Nevada had made a complete submittal to address the require ments of section 110(a)(2).

On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a Consent Decree wit h Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians (“2011 PM 2.5 Consent Decree”) that obligates EPA to take final actio n on Nevada’s

2009 PM 2.5 Submittal by September 30, 2012. On November 30, 2011, EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement also with Sierra Club and WildEar th Guardians that obligates EPA to take final action on Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal by January 31, 2012. T his Settlement Agreement was amended to allow EPA until September 30, 2012 to take fin al action on Nevada’s 2008

Ozone Submittal.

We have evaluated the infrastructure SIP submittals identi fied 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, su mmarize the State’s submittal, and present our evaluation for each inf rastructure SIP element.

2 The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour ave raging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856).

3 The annual PM 2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 ), based on the 3-year average of

annual arithmetic mean PM 2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-orie nted monitors and the 24-hour

PM 2.5 standard was set at 65 μg/m 3 , based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-ho ur PM 2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area (62 FR 38652).

4 The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 from 65 μg/m 3 to 35 μg/m 3 was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144).

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

6 Notwithstanding EPA’s finding of failure to submit, f ootnote 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 t o 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 to5



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission limits and other control m easures Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to “include enforceable em ission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedul es and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requireme nts 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 approve d into the SIP: NAC 445B.22017, NAC 445B.2202, NAQR Article 16.3.3.2 and Article 16.3.3.3, NAC 445.729, NA QR 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 PM 2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal made the same statement as the 2008 Ozone Submittal, except they did not cite NAC 445B.22093 (“Organi c solvents and other volatile compounds”) and they included the following additio n: Under EPA's transition policy, PM 10 may properly be used as a surrogate for PM 2.5 in meeting NSR requirements.

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 8
[Washoe County District Board of Health (WCDBOH)] Regulation 020.020 (Contr ol Officer – Powers and Duties) authorizes the Control Officer to enf orce 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; determinati on 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 e missions 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 thes e requirements.

8 Washoe County District Board of Health (DBOH) Regulatio n 020.020 has not been approved into the Nevada SIP, while portions of Regulations 030.000 through 030.0995 ha ve been approved into the SIP.6

• NAQR Article 7.2.5.1 – Maximum allowable particulate emiss ion 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, respectively 9

• NAC 445.730 – Colemanite flotation processing plants

• NAC 445B.22027 – Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum allo wable 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 sulf ur

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

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

• 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 ne w sources

Most of the SIP rules cited in Nevada’s Infrastructure SI P Submittals relate to particulate matter, except for NAC 445B.22093, which specifically addresses “Organic c ompounds and other volatile compounds,” which are precursors to ozone. These emission limits demonstrate the state’s authority to adopt such limits for regulated poll utants 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 precur sor emissions, such as the emission of nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) 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. Howe ver, we believe that there are

sufficient emissions limitations in rules that are b oth approved into the SIP and part of the current NAC that we can conclude that the Nevada SIP pr ovides sufficient enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or technique s 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, w e note that NAC 445B.22093 ("Organic solvents and other volatile compounds") contains emission s limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques for control of ozone precurs ors. With respect to PM 2.5 , the applicable SIP rules do not include emissions limitations that limit PM 2.5 emissions per se, but do so indirectly by limiting the opacity, particulate matte r emissions (which includes particles constituting PM 10 and PM 2.5 as well as coarser particulate) and PM 10 emissions (which includes particles constituting PM 2.5 as well as particles with diameters larger than 2.5 mi crons but less

9 These NACs were listed in the SIPs as 445B.808 and 445B.816. A dele Malone, Supervisor, Air Planning Branch, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, NDEP clarified to Rory Ma ys, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9 that the letter “B” was inadvertently added to these listings in the SIP re vision (i.e., it should have read 445.808 and 445.816).7

than 10 microns) from stationary sources. For PM 2.5 , the applicable SIP rules that include such enforceable emissions limitations include, among others, NA C 445B.22017 ("Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination and monitoring of opacity"), NAC 445B.22027 ("Emissions of particulate matter: Maximum allowable throughput for calcu lating 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS is that, first, section 110(a)(2)(A) does not es tablish the required stringency of emission limitations and other co ntrol 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 insta nce, the relevant "applicable requirements" of the Act include the requirements to implement, maint ain, and enforce the ozone and PM 2.5 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 a rea of Nevada has been designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , or 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. As such, we believe that the approved volatile organic compound (VOC) and PM-related SI P rules are sufficient to implement, maintain, and enforce the relevant NAAQS w ith respect to the NDEP portion of the

Nevada SIP.

Lastly, for section 110(a)(2)(C), Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submitta l, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and

2009 PM 2.5 Submittal reference two regulations related to startup, shutdo wn, 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 N evada’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 b e separate from this action on the

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals.

Clark County

In Clark County, local regulations address PM emissions f rom process equipment and burning, while regulations on the proper storage and handling of petro leum products limit VOC emissions. With respect to ozone, the emissions limit ations in the following SIP-approved rules in the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP reduce ozo ne 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 T railers

With respect to particulate matter, the emissions limitations in the following SIP-approved rules in the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP limit PM 2.5 emissions indirectly by limiting PM

and PM 10 emissions from various sources:

• Section 26 – Emission of Visible Air Contaminants8

• 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, Materia l Handling & Storage Yards, & Vehicle & Equipment Storage Yards

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

• Section 94 – Permitting & Dust Control for Construction A ctivities

• Residential Wood Combustion Ordinances adopted by Clark C ounty, the City of Las Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, and the City of He nderson

We believe that the above emissions limitations in t he 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 desig nated

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Washoe County

Similarly, in Washoe County, local regulations address PM emissions from process equipment and burning, open burning, street sanding and sweeping, and reside ntial 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 emiss ions 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 P M 2.5 emissions indirectly by limiting PM

and PM 10 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 – Incinerators9

• 040.051 – Wood Stove/Fireplace Insert Emissions

We believe that the above emissions limitations in t he 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 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Conclusion

Based upon our evaluation, as described above, we propose t o find that the Nevada SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the relevant NA AQS for the entire state.



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) – Ambient air quality monitoring/data sys tem

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishme nt 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 PM

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

CAA section 105 grant work plan.

Nevada’s 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal made the same statement as the 2008 Ozone Submittal, except they included the following addition : Under EPA's transition policy, PM 10 may properly be used as a surrogate for PM 2.5 in meeting [New Source Review (NSR)] requirements.

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: The [Washoe County Air Quality Management District (WCAQMD)] operate s a PM 2.5 ambient air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR 58. The network is reviewed annually to ensure it meets ambient air monitoring objectives. Ambient m onitoring 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 summa rizes 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 Inf rastructure SIP Submittals did not discuss Clark County, we have included all three agencie s since they each operate distinct sets of ambient air quality monitors. Furthermore, while the 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal and 2009

PM 2.5 Submittal referenced only the PM 10 surrogacy policy with respect to PM 2.5 , the three agencies have been monitoring PM 2.5 in recent years. State-wide, the three agencies opera te 2210

ozone monitors and nine PM 2.5 monitors. On November 1, 2011, EPA approved the most recent annual ambient air monitoring network plans for each agenc y, 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 provi ding the requisite data to EPA, Nevada’s air monitoring programs and data systems meet t he requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the Relevant NAAQS for the entire stat e.



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) – Program for enforcement o f control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sourc es.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that each SIP include a progra m 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 S tate’s general enforcement authorities to determine whether they provide an adequate infrastructure f or 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 sta tionary sources, EPA is evaluating only

certain “structural” elements of the State’s Prevent ion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs under part C of title I of the Act to determine w hether these programs are adequate for infrastructure SIP purposes. Specifically, EPA is eval uating the Nevada SIP to determine whether it contains the following required elements of a PSD program: (1) Provisions identifying NO

x as an ozone precursor consistent with the requirements of EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozo ne 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 PM 2.5 , including condensable PM, and its precursor emissions (sulfur dioxide (SO2) in all areas, and NO

x and/or VOC as appropriate), consistent with the requirements of EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 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 “Preventio n of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule ,” 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010) and “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significan t Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implem entation Plans,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010), as applicable.11

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

PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS contain SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), and minor NSR permitting programs a dequate to implement these standards. As explained above, however, EPA is not evaluat ing 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 regar d 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 PM 2.5 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/Visibil ity, below). Nonattainment NSR provisions are found in Article 13 “General Pr ovisions for the Review of New Sources” in the current SIP. (Emphasis added)

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal made a similar statement, except the differe nces 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). Nonattainm ent 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 abov e 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, s ee below.)

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

• NAQR Article 13 – General provisions for the review of ne w sources, which includes an emissions threshold of 50 lbs/hr (equivalent to 219 tons/y r)

• NAQR Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 – Opacity limitations for e missions 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 emissio ns: Scheduled maintenance, testing or repairs; notification of Director; malfunction, upset, start-up, shutdown or human error. The replacement has n ot 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 disc harge 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 po llution control equipment; prohibition of removal of that equipment

• NAC 445B.229 – Director's authority to order reduction or discont inuation of emission causing danger to human health/safety

• NAC 445B.250 – Notification of Director: Construction, initi al 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 o f violation due to lack of permit, lack of following permit, yearly reporting, recordke eping, fee payment, etc

• NAC 445B.277 – Director's authority to issue a stop order for co nstruction, installation, alteration, use of design material, etc

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: 10
WCDBOH Regulation 020.020 (Control Officer – Powers and Duties) authoriz es the Control Officer to enforce all SIP measures, specifically Secti ons 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 f or 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 prov isions 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 Clar k County

Health District.” incorporates the federal PSD provisions into the applicable Nevada SIP, ther eby satisfying USEPA’s reading of the CAA to require that Nevada’s PSD progr am 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 adequat e infrastructure for SIP

enforcement statewide. While Nevada’s submittals identifi ed 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) Regulatio n 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 bel ow. 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 t o the requirement to have a program

for enforcement.

At the state level, the following statutes provide enforc ement 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; addit ional remedies available; penalty”)(72 FR 11, January 3, 2007)

Nevada has used the authority provided by NRS 445B.210 to adopt s pecific enforcement regulations, such as those cited in Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal, which provide enforcement authority for all air pollutants regulated by the state, and not just PM 2.5 . 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). Fir st, 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 re spect to SSM. Secondly, NAC 445.694, regarding emission discharge information and record stor age, was replaced by NAC 445B.269, which was subsequently repealed in 1995. Since neither pro vision is currently in place, it is not clear how Nevada intended that these r egulations support the enforcement of the emission limitation regulations cited in Nevada’s 2008 Ozo ne Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal,

and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal for section 110(a)(2)(A) for sources under NDEP’ s jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding these three provisions, on the basis of t he 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 th e state level.

For Clark and Washoe counties, NRS 445B.500 requires local pro grams to include emission control standards that are equivalent or stricter than t hose at the state level, and to provide adequate enforcement of such emission control standards. S ee 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 cont rol 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 actin g through the Washoe County Air Quality Management District). Thus, the same types of enforcement authorities granted under14

NRS 445B.210, 445B.450, 445B.460, and 455B.640, as identified above, are extende d to the authorized local air pollution control agencies in the s tate of Nevada. (For further discussion of legal authority, see our discussion below regarding CAA s ection 110(a)(2)(E)).

In Clark County, SIP rule Section 4 describes the Contro l 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 popul ation is greater than 700,000) to “delegate to an independent hearing officer or hearing bo ard its authority to determine violations and levy administrative penalties for violations.” The C lark County BCC has delegated certain enforcement authorities to Hearing Officers.

Specific local rules that provide for a program for enfor cement 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 Dir ector of Washoe County AQMD) has been delegated certain permitting and enforcement responsibilitie s. See, e.g. Washoe County Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 020.020 (“Control Officer – Powers and Duties”), as cited in

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement, and AQR 020.030 (“Notice of Violation”), which desc ribe the

Control Officer’s authorities and duties to issue correc tive 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 pro vided 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 enfor cement of emissions limitations in the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP include 020.035 ("Vi olations of Regulations"), 020.040 ("Notice of Violation"), 020.045 ("Citation"), 020.050 ("Admin istrative 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 a re subject to PSD requirements under part C of title I of the CAA (i.e., unclassifiable/att ainment 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 Co unty portions of the State. Clark County DAQ and Washoe County AQMD are responsible for NS R 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 t o a hearing officer or hearing board. We intend to approv e this revised statute into the SIP, but it is inconsequential for Clark County since the County has a population greater t han 700,000.15

with the exception of fossil fuel-fired steam-generatin g power plants, for which NDEP is responsible. 12

Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated Clark County as nonat tainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and designated the rest of Nevada as unclas sifiable/attainment (see 69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004). However, the State submitted additional infor mation to EPA that resulted in the deferral of the final designation of C lark 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 County 13 was designated nonattainment and the rest of Clark County was designated unclassifiable/attainm ent (see 69 FR 55956, September 17, 2004). Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated the entire state of Nevada as unclassifiable/

attainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (see 70 FR 944, January 5, 2005). Effective December 14, 2009, EPA designated the entire state of Nevada as uncla ssifiable/attainment for the 2006

PM 2.5 NAAQS (see 74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009).

NDEP and Washoe County

With respect to the Nevada SIP, EPA has promulgated fede ral 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 PM 2.5 Submittal, 2009 PM 2.5 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 Co unty (March 13, 2008). However, until a state adopts and submits a PSD progr am 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

PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and GHGs, we find that the Nevada SIP does not t o meet the PSD program requirements in part C for sources under NDE P and Washoe County jurisdictions, including fossil fuel-fired steam-generating power plants st ate-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 Was hoe 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 th e 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), Colora do 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 S IP, 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 Cl ark County Regulation section 0 (“Definitions”), and the substantive PSD requirements, whi ch 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, Decemb er 13, 2010). In the PSD GHG SIP Call, EPA determined that Clark County’s PSD program w as substantially inadequate because it did not apply to GHG-emitting sources, and esta blished 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 versi on 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 revisio ns on February 11, 2010; major NSR (including PSD) revisions on September 1, 2010; and PSD revisi ons (including GHG provisions) on January 13, 2011 and May 22, 2012. EPA has proposed approval of e lements of a PSD program that are required for infrastructure SIP purposes, including identification of NO

x as an

ozone precursor; 15 provisions to regulate PM 2.5 , including PM 2.5 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 w hich this TSD is written).

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

PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and contingent on finalizing the July 13, 2012 proposa l on Clark County’s NSR program, we proposed to determine that the Ne vada SIP will meet the PSD program requirements in part C for the Clark County porti on 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 appro ve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals based on our conclusion that the State’s genera l 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 regula tion of the modification and construction of stationary sources, including a PSD progra m 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 a lthough 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 p roposed 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 t he 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 im plementation 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 affe cted, nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to pet itions by affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” pr ovisions 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 (CA A 110(a)(2)(D)(i)) for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal reiterate the content of the 2008 Ozone Submittal, and add reference to their discussion o f section 110(a)(2)(J) regarding PSD/visibility, which reiterates the full delegation o f the federal PSD program to NDEP. The

2009 PM 2.5 Submittal, in turn, specifically refers to NDEP’s prepara tion of the state’s Regional Haze SIP in its discussion of section 110(a)(2)(J). The 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) similarly reiterates the 2008 Ozone Submittal and n otes the full delegation of the federal PSD program to Washoe County.

Lastly, Nevada’s 2012 Submittal revised the prior submittals f or CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) by adding the following: As noted in element C above, the NDEP has full delegation of the fede ral PSD program, and 40 CFR § 52.1485 incorporates the provisions of § 52.21 into the applicable Ne vada SIP. The consultation and public notice provisions in the applicable Nevada SIP ar e18

listed under elements J and M of the NDEP’s 110(a)(2) submittals (li sted at the beginning of this document). Nevada’s PSD program and these provisions fully addre ss 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 main tenance in any other State), EPA previously approved Nevada’s interstate transport SIP as sat isfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). For purposes of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the first two “prongs” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), please refer to the related TSD on 2006 PM 2.5 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 implemen tation 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 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 sectio n 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 Nev ada’s interstate transport SIP as satisfying this requirement for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS, we propose the same interpretations and conclus ions 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 S IP-approved Regional Haze Plan contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in o ther states, and therefore meets the visibility “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 16

16 Section IV.G.7 of the June 22, 2011 Regional Haze SIP pr oposal (see 76 FR 36450 at 36466) stated the following: “Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires SIP rev isions to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any s ource or other types of emission activity within the state fr om emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will inter fere with another state’s plan to protect visibility. Nevada subm itted its SIP for Interstate Transport to EPA on Februa ry 7, 2007, which EPA approved and promulgated in the Federal Regist er on July 31, 2007 (70 FR 41629). In our Federal Register Notice, we deferred action on whether Nevada i nterferes with other states’ plans to address regional visibility impairment caused by regional haze until we r eceived 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 proj ected to have a minimal contribution to sulfate and nitra te extinction in each of 24 Class I areas in five adjacent st ates. 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 ar e proposing to find that this plan revision contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in other sta tes.”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 interst ate pollution abatement, we note that the requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which pertain to pe titions by affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” pr ovisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), do not apply to our action because there are no such pendi ng petitions relating to Nevada. We thus evaluate Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals only f or 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 sectio n 110(a)(2)(C) above for further discussion), we proposed to approve PSD rules at Clark Coun ty Regulation Section 12.2, which include a requirement for the permitting agency to send a c opy 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 pr ograms. Thus, the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to the PSD requireme nts 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 ar eas. These deficiencies are, however, adequately addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutan ts 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 par tially disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the requireme nt 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 th e 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 t o CAA section 115, EPA has no reason to approve or disapprove any existing state rules wit h 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 main tenance in any other State), EPA previously approved the Nevada SIP with respect to these requ irements for the 1997 ozone and

1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. For the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, please refer to the related TSD on 2006 PM 2.5 Transport for Nevada, to be included in the same docket a s this TSD.20

With respect to the third prong (regarding interference wit h other states’ measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality), EPA is proposin g 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 W ashoe County portions of the SIP, for the reasons discussed above regarding PSD requireme nts under section 110(a)(2)(C).

With respect to the fourth prong (regarding interference w ith other states’ measure to protect visibility), EPA previously approved Nevada’s interstate t ransport SIP as satisfying this requirement for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. For purposes of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, we propose to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Subm ittals on the same basis as the approval for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS: that Nevada’s SIP-approved Regional Haze Plan contains adequate provisions to protect visibilit y in other states, and therefore meets the visibility “prong” of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Finally, with respect to the requirements of CAA sectio n 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 revisi ons that contain the required notice provisions, and to disapprove the SIP with respect t o the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada SIP, which are subject to the Federa l PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21.



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) – Adequate resources and authority, con flict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to “provide (i) necessar y 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 a uthority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementati on 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 requ irements 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 implement ation 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 a t least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significa nt 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 o f an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

Related EPA Regulations

Subpart L (“Legal Authority”) of 40 CFR Part 51 specifies S IP requirements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). Subpart L includes three rules: 40 CFR 51.230 (“Requirements21

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 Pl an Content Requirements”) also relates to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and it specifies th at, with respect to resources, a SIP must include a description of the resources available to the Sta te and local agencies at the date of submission of the plan and of any additional resources ne eded to carry out the plan during the five-year period following its submission. The description m ust include projections of the extent to which resources will be acquired at 1-, 3-, and 5-year i ntervals.

Section 51.240 (“General Plan Requirements”) states that “Each State implementation plan must identify organizations, by official title, that will par ticipate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organiz ations. 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 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal each provided a paragraph of information relevant to the legal authorit y, personnel, and funding in the state with respect to NDEP and the 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement similarly did so for Washoe County. 17
Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, however, provided a comprehensive revisio n (addressing the State of Nevada, Clark County, and Washoe County) regarding personne l and resources to replace section 12 (“Resources”) of the state’s SIP as of 1972. Se e Attachment A of Nevada’s 2012 Submittal. That attachment is the primary basis for our e valuation of Nevada’s personnel and funding, while our review of state statutes and other provis ions 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 n umber of rulemakings over the years. The statutory references in the 1971 Attorney Ge neral’s Letter have been superseded by changes made in the laws by the Nevada Legislature. NDE P 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 th e 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 con tained in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that have be en approved into the SIP, and just one specific reference (t o 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; administrativ e fees; failure of Commission or Department to act”)(71 F R 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 Res ources, NDEP has responsibility to manage the air qualit y planning and air pollution control programs for the State o f Nevada. The Director of the Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources has selected the ND EP Administrator as the official designee for the purpo ses of the CAA, including, but not limited to, adoption, revi sion and submittal of state implementation plans. See letter from Allen Biaggi, Director, Nevada Department of Conse rvation and Natural Resources, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated May 30, 2007.23

and as correlated wi th 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 Sta te law also provides for local air pollution control districts to carry out a p ortion 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; n otice of public hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative pe nalties; 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 count y commissioners in each county whose population is 100,000 or more must establish a program for the c ontrol of air pollution and administer the program within its jurisdiction unless supe rseded. 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 Commiss ioners is responsible for the program called for in NRS section 445B.500. With respect to ai r pollution control, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners acts through the Cla rk 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 t he Air Quality Management Division (AQMD) within the District Health Department.

Under NRS section 445B.500(1)(b), the local programs must incl ude, without limitation, standards for the control of emissions and emergency proc edures established by ordinance or local regulation which are equivalent to or stricter th an those established by statute or state regulations and must provide for adequate administration, enf orcement, financing and staff. Moreover, under NRS section 445B.500(1)(c), the applicable dis trict board of health, county board of health or board of county commissioners is desi gnated as the air pollution control agency of the county for the purposes of state law and th e Clean Air Act insofar as it pertains to local programs, and that agency is authorized to take all a ction 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 benefi t of local air pollution control authorities within their jurisdict ion. Thus, the same types of authorities granted under State law to the State Environmental Commiss ion and the State Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources are extended to the aut horized 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, N RS section 445B.520 (“Commission may establish or supersede county program”)(see 71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006 ), the State24

Environmental Commission is authorized to administer an a dequate air pollution control program within the county and may supersede any existing coun ty air pollution control program

where the State Environmental Commission finds that suc h a program has become inadequate and if the county program fails to take corrective measure s identified by the commission. As such, the applicable Nevada SIP provides the necessary assura nces that, where the state has relied on local governments or regional agencies, the St ate has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP as required under CAA sec tion 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), a nd 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 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Personnel and Funding

The applicable Nevada SIP includes a section titled “Resour ces” (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 outdate d. 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 describe s the funding mechanisms, funding level, and personnel for NDEP, Clark County DAQ, and Wash oe County AQMD as the primary agencies for implementing such air pollution control progra ms. At the state level, the revised Section 12 describes various funding mechanisms established by t he state, including the state’s “Account for the Management of Air Quality...,” and sta te’s Air Pollution Control Account, and those provided by U.S. EPA, including grants pursuant to CAA se ctions 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 f unding 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 enti tled “Legal Authority,” and describes the funding mechanisms in use by each county including fees cha rged 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 t ransportation 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 thr ee local entities participating in the “Interlocal Agreement Concerning the Washoe County Distri ct Health Department.”

Furthermore, the revised Section 12 asserts that NDEP, C lark County DAQ, and Washoe County AQMD have been implementing programs to meet the CAA S IP requirements for 40 years and25

that they have “adequate funding and personnel... to meet the needs of these programs.” Lastly, with respect to projections of resource needs, it asser ts 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 as surances of adequate funding and personnel with respect to the 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 o f 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 con trol programs developed to meet CAA requirements. Please refer to the related TSD enti tled “EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128” for E PA’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 pollutan t 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 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Thus, based on our review of the applicable Nevada SIP and Nevada’s Infras tructure 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 respec t 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 prop osal on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP

Submittals.



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F) – Stationary source monitoring and report ing

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires, “as may be prescribed by t he Administrator— (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment , and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary s ources 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, whic h reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.”

The SIP must provide citations to regulations with source m onitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements applicable to ozone and related prec ursors. See 40 CFR part 51, subpart K (“Source Surveillance”).26

NDEP’s response to this requirement

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal stated “Nevada’s current SIP provides a system for monitoring emis sions from stationary sources and the submittal of periodic emission reports in NAC 445B.256 to 445B.265 and 445B.267.”

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 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 respec t to CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), as follows: NAC 445B.315(3), submitted to USEPA on January 24, 2011, requires the holder o f an operating permit to retain all required monitoring data and provides NDEP the aut hority to require any information necessary to determine compliance with conditi ons of the operating permit. NAC 445B.265 requires reporting of monitored emissions, including excess emissions. NAC 445B.252 provides the authority to require compl iance testing and sampling. Compliance inspection reports correlate the reported emissions to the emission limitations in the operating permit; these reports are availabl e on site at the NDEP offices for public inspection during business hours. Together with NA C 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 correl ation of emissions from stationary sources with any emission limitations or standards established pur suant 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 applica ble SIP, 19 and determined that NDEP requirements (i.e., NAC 445B.252, 445B.256 through 445B.265, inclus ive, 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 inf ormation 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 inf ormation”) to address the correlation requirement in CAA section 110(a)(F)(iii), but NDEP repealed N AC 445.694 and did not submit a replacement for inclusion in the SIP. Thus, NAC 445.694 remains in the SIP, a nd 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, D ecember 11, 2006 NAC 445B.258 Monitoring systems: Verification of operationa l 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 contracte d 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 system s: 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 monito ring 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 F R 38557, June 28, 2012; Separate NFR pending

NAC 445B.3368 Additional requirements for application; exception NPR 77 F R 38557, June 28, 2012; Separate NFR pending

NAC 445B.346 Required contents of permit NPR 77 F R 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 perf ormance of its duties is public information unless otherwise designated as confidentia l information pursuant to the criteria in provisions in NRS 445B.570. The emission of an a ir contaminant which has an ambient air quality standard or emission standard or has be en designated as a hazardous air pollutant by regulation of the State Environmental Commis sion cannot be certified as being confidential. EPA has determined NRS 445B.570 is supportive of th e component in CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) that reports be made available to the publi c.

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 ha s 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 identifi ed 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 requireme nts of Appendix P of 40 CFR 51. NAC 445B.256’s reference to Appendix P is consistent with requireme nts 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 s ystem to submit written reports of excess emissions. The reports are submitted quarterly and must include: (a) the28

magnitude and time period of the excess emissions; (b) spec ific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during start-ups, shutdowns an d 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 det ermined 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 per mit, including: (1) the holder of the operating permit shall retain records of all require d 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 representat ive to copy records and sample or monitor to demonstrate compliance. To the extent this informatio n including reports that are available to the public, NAC 445B.315(3) is generally supportive of CAA sectio n 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 permi ts to construct were not previously submitted. Such content requirements include applicable test methods, c alculations, compliance plans, and compliance certifications. NAC 445B.3368 is limited to a subset of sources, but for those

sources and t o the extent the requirement results in reports that ar e available to the public, NAC 445B.3368 is generally supportive of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) an d (iii).

NAC 445B.346 identifies conditions that must be contained in Class II oper ating 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 suppor tive 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 j ustification for approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii).

As such, we find, that the portion of the Nevada SIP appli cable to NDEP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, and

the 2006 PM 2.5 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 C ounty SIP submittals), and the applicable SIP to determine if Clark County has addressed th e CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requirements. Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals did no t directly address the infrastructure

20 See 77 FR 38557, June 28, 2012 for EPA’s proposed approval of these p rovisions.29

requirements in the context of Clark County, and as a r esult, EPA has reviewed other available information in an effort to determine whether the requi rements have been met.

As described elsewhere in this TSD (e.g., see discussio n of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)), Clark County made significant revisions to their Section 12 permit ting requirements and submitted to EPA revisions to Sections 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 and 12.11 for i nclusion in the SIP. In a separate action, EPA is acting on these permitting requi rements. 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 A ttainment Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) Separate FR pending

Section 12.3: Permit Requirements for Major Sources in N onattainment Areas Separate FR pending

Section 12 .4: Authority to Construct Application and Permit Requirement s For

Part 70 Sources Separate FR pending

Section 12.11: General Permits f or Minor Stationary Separate FR pending

Summary of Clark County requirements supportive of CAA sec tion 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 consisten t 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 em issions of any regulated new source review pollutant that could increase as a result of the pr oject 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 stationa ry source with a plantwide applicability limits (PALs) shall comply with the monitoring, recor dkeeping, 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 so urces 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 s hall contain, if applicable, a description of how the permittee proposes to comply wit h the compliance assurance monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 64, including a plan describing ho w the applicant will comply with the monitoring design criteria in 40 CFR 64.3. Section 12.4 al so requires the permit contain (1) all applicable requirements, emission limits, and stand ards, 22 and (2) monitoring, recordkeeping,

21 Revisions to the Section 12 submittals were adopted by C lark County on January 3, 2006, November 3, 2009, May 18, 2010, November 16, 2010, and March 6, 2012. NDEP is the gover nor’s designee for submitting official revisions of the Nevada SIP to EPA. NDEP subsequently s ubmitted to EPA revisions to Section 12 on February 11, 2010, September 1, 2010, January 13, 2011, and May 22, 2012, respective ly. On July 13, 2012, EPA proposed approval of the revisions to Section 12.

22 Applicable requirements not required by the Act or impleme nting federal regulations, and that are not in the Nevada SIP, may be included in the permit but shall be spe cifically designated as being not federally enforceabl e30

and reporting requirements sufficient to meet the requir ements 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 requi rements 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 ozon e standard, the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM 2.5 standard. However, the permitting requirements do not adequat ely address section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). The applicable SIP conta ins 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 Clar k County and no longer effective as of July 1, 2010. Neither Clark County nor NDEP has submitte d for inclusion in the SIP a replacement for Section 24 to address the SIP gap create d when Section 24 was repealed. Thus,

Section 24 remains in the SIP. Neither NDEP nor Clark C ounty 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 informatio n, and the SIP to determine if Washoe County has addressed the CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) r equirements. 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 C ounty adequately address CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), or (iii). Even though Wash oe 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 memorandum 23 in May 1980 indicating a state no longer had to promulgate continuous emissions monitoring regulations for sources n ot yet in existence at the time of the

memorandum. Based on the memorandum and communications wi th Washoe County, EPA has determined that Washoe County does not have any sources requir ing the type of monitoring described in 40 CFR 51.214 of Subpart K. Therefore, the Nevada S IP 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 Ac t, and shall be designated as “county only requirements.” Terms and conditions so designated are not subject to th e requirements that apply to permit review by EPA and

affected states.

23 Clarification of Requirements for Inclusion of Continuo us Emission Monitoring Provisions in State Implementation Plans from Edward E. Reich, Director of t he Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, to

Enforcement Division Directors and Air and Hazardous M aterials 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 requiri ng CEM. All four of the source categories covered by Appendix P would, if new, be subject to NSPS continuous mon itoring requirements. Should a source meeting the Appendix P size threshold be subsequently constructe d 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 requested 24 that NDEP submit a SIP revision to EPA to initiate parallel processing of four Washoe rules supportive of (F)(i i) and (iii). On July 5, 2012, NDEP formally requested parallel processing of the relevant Wash oe rules described below. In a separate action, signed on July 18, 2012 and included in the s ame 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 Recordkeepin g Separate FR pending 030.235 Requirements For Source Sampling and Testing Separate FR pending 030.970.A Part 70 Permit Monitoring and Compliance, Complianc e Statements Separate FR pending

Summary of Washoe County requirements supportive of CAA s ection 110(a)(2)(F)

Rule 030.218 authorizes the Control Officer to require a so urce to provide applicable data to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of their pe rmit.

Rule 030.230 authorizes the Control Officer to require any pe rmit 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 cont rol equipment are required to maintain records sufficient to legally demonstrate that the equipment has operated in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and District regulatio ns.

Rule 030.235 authorizes the Control Officer to require sourc e 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 annua lly (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 report ing 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 Washo e County rules into the SIP, that the Nevada SIP applicable to Washoe County meets the requireme nts of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM 2.5 standard.

24 On June 21, 2012, Washoe County sent a letter to NDEP re questing they submit a parallel processing request to EPA to revise the Washoe County portion of the Nevada' s PM 2.5 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 requi rement addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). This requirement remains in effect, and EPA is not rem oving it at this time.32

Conclusion

In conclusion, EPA has reviewed the requirements in CA A section 110(a)(2)(F) and compared

them to the Nevada ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIPs, other supporting information, and the applicable SIP. Based on this review, we propose to find tha t the portion of the Nevada SIP that applies to NDEP and Washoe County adequately addresses CAA s ections 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), and (iii). With respect to the portion of the Nevada S IP that applies to Clark County, CAA sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) have been met, but secti on 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 regulatio ns previously discussed. Our proposed approval of 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii) for Washoe C ounty 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 requireme nts 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 th e 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 author ity comparable to that in section 303 and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. ”

EPA promulgated rules for emergency episodes in 1971 and revis ed those rules in 1986 to clarify state requirements related to emergency episodes found in s ection 110(a)(2)(G). These rules are found at 40 CFR 51.150 through 153, inclusive. EPA has also issue d guidance on this subject.

Nevada’s response to this requirement

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal and 2008 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Submittal reiterated the prior submittals (except for NAC 445.665) and added that “Nevada also has a SIP approved Emer gency 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 regulati on is included in Enclosure 2 of each of the above SIP submittals and the subject of each is su mmarized as follows:

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

• NAC 445B.229 – Hazardous emissions: Order for reduction or disc ontinuance. Provides authority to Director and local air pollution control age ncies if emissions are determined to be hazardous to human health or safety.

• NAC 445B.230 – “Powers and duties of Department.” Among other t hings, requires any source emitting more than 100 tons/year of any regulated a ir pollutant must prepare an33

emergency management plan upon written notice from the Director.

• NRS 445B.560 – “Plan or procedure for emergency.” Provides for Di rector's authority in requiring and evaluating emergency plans; and to order reduct ions or cessation of operation should emissions substantially endanger public he alth.

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: Since 1999, the WCAQMD has not monitored a 24-hour ambient PM 2.5 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 a uthority to provide “for alert, warning, and emergency standards and abatement procedures relat ive to air pollution episodes or emergencies constituting, or likely to constitute, an im minent and substantial danger to the health of persons.” See NRS 445B.560(1). It also provides authority fo r the Director of the DCNR to require sources to develop emergency episode plans, as per N RS 445B.560(2), 26 and to order the reduction or discontinuation immediately of air contami nant emissions that constitute an emergency, as per NRS 445B.560(3).

The SEC implemented such authority by adopting NAC 445B.229, whic h 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 emerge ncy due to one or more stationary sources, to order persons causing or contributing to the eme rgency to reduce or discontinue the emission of air contaminants. Similarly, the SEC use d it’s authority to adopt Section 6 (“Emergency Episode Plan”) of Nevada’s January 28, 1972 submit tal, 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 fo rth specific procedures to be followed in the event of an air pollution emergency in th e 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 Proce dures”) 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 t he 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 pro visions 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 the se both referred to a geographic area, which is the entir ety of Clark County, there is no substantive difference. Thus while the August 27, 1981 approval suffices for purposes34

specifically to the state’s Section 6 “as a guide for th e 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 eme rgency, and to require emergency episode planning by sources.

Washoe County DBOH Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 050.001, cit ed in Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal, was approved into the SIP on June 18, 2007 (see 72 FR 33397). This regulation begins with defining its purpose, applicability (the whole H ealth District), and relevant terms (see AQR 050.001 Sections A and B). It then establishes eme rgency episode criteria levels for three stages (Alert, Warning, and Emergency) for several po llutants including ozone and PM 2.5 (see AQR 050.001 Section C). For each stage, the Control O fficer is responsible for taking certain actions commensurate with the severity of th e air pollution problem and, for all stages, for notifying the appropriate entities as to the episode st age that exists. He or she also has authority to require the preparation and submittal of emergen cy plans by relevant stationary or mobile sources, as per AQR 050.001(E)(1). Therefore, the provi sions 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 con taminant emissions during an emergency, and to require emergency episode planning by sources.

The prior approvals of the state, Clark County, and Wash oe 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 requir ements in order to more specifically address emergency episode planning for the 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 amb ient air pollutants, specifically sulfur oxides, particulates (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and ozone (O 3 ). 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, whi le Priority III areas are not required to develop episode plans. 29 Nevada treats the entire state as a Priority I are a for emergency episode planning purposes for ozone and therefore meets the r equirements 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 t he 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 requireme nts of 40 CFR 51.151; see Section 6.1.4 of the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan.

of this infrastructure SIP evaluation, we recommend that C lark County submit the revised CCR Section 70 for incorporation into the SIP.

29 There are currently no priority classifications for PM 2.5

.35

40 CFR 51.152 (a) describes the elements required in contingen cy plans in the event of an emergency episode. Subsection (1) requires two or more sta ges of episode criteria. Nevada’s plan specifies three stages of episode criteria; see S ection 6.1.4 of the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan and Washoe County AQR 050.001(Section C). Subsect ion (2) of 40 CFR 51.152 requires public announcement whenever any episode stage has b een 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 Ne vada 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 cont rol 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 require ments in the event of an emergency episode. Subsection (1) requires prompt acquisition of fore casts 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 Ep isode 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. Inspectio ns are carried out by field inspectors and police departments. Subsection (3) requires c ommunications procedures for transmitting status reports and orders as to emission co ntrol 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 C FR 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 e ntire state at the highest priority level, Priority I, a review or update process is not nec essary to ensure that the degree of emergency episode planning is sufficient based on prior mea sured levels of air pollution listed in section 51.150. Nevada meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.153.

Evaluation for PM 2.5

To evaluate whether the Nevada SIP meets the requirement s for contingency plans for the 1997

PM 2.5 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, we used guidance issued in 2009 for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 31

The 2009 Guidance for PM 2.5 recommends that a state with at least one monitored 24-h our PM 2.5

30 CCR Section 70.1 requires the Clark County Control Offi cer to use the state’s Section 6 as a guide for action s during an episode condition, which applies for the various requir ements 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 (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," dated September 25, 2009.36

value exceeding 140.4 μ g/m 3 since 2006 establish an emergency episode plan and contingenc y measures to be implemented should such level be exceeded again. Additionally, the 2009

Guidance for PM 2.5 recommends that if no area of a state has exceeded thi s 140.4 μ g/m 3 level since 2006 and the state has appropriate general emergency powe rs to address PM 2.5 related episodes, then no specific emergency episode plans are n ecessary at this time given the existing

monitored levels. EPA PM 2.5 monitoring data has shown that 24-hour PM 2.5 values have not exceeded 140.4 μg/m 3 from 2006 through 2011. 32

Therefore, Nevada is not required to develop a contingency plan for PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Submittal – that the state is not required to have a con tingency plan for

PM 2.5

. 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 a uthority 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 h ealth.

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 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 mo re expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whe never the Administrator finds on

the basis of information available to the Administrato r that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air quality standard which i t 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 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 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 f or 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 cont rol programs for the State. NDEP commits to submit appropriate SIP revisi ons whenever revised air quality standards are promulgated by EPA.

32 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Viola tion Day Count Report for 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 , July 9,

2012.

33 Note, however, that Nevada’s conclusion was based on the incorrect assertion in the 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal that the state is “categorized as a priority III region.” EPA has not promulgated any prioritization tables for PM 2.5 into the CFR to date. In other words, the prioritization of area s for emergency episode purposes is NAAQS-specific.37

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) added that “WCDBOH Regulatio n 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 inf ormation. In addition to NRS 445B.205, EPA also reviewed NRS 445B.135, 445B.210, 445B.220, and 445B.500 as poss ibly 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 Con trol 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; con tents 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 o f public hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative pe nalties; cities and smaller counties; regulation of certain electric plants prohibit ed. (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 at taining 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 un der the Act. Therefore, we propose to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for secti on 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 ozone,

1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I) – Plan revisions for nonattainment ar eas 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 dead line identified in CAA section38

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 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal stated “NDEP commits to submit timely SIP revisions whenever areas o f the State are newly designated nonattainment for any federal ambient air quality standar d.” Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) added the following: Washoe County is currently designated attainment or attainment/unclassifiable for the

24-hour and annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The WCAQMD commits to submit SIP revisions whenever the county, or portions of the county, are newly designated non-att ainment for any federal NAAQS.

EPA evaluation
As noted above, the specific nonattainment area plan requ irements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the tim ing 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 wi ll be completed in relation to the relevant nonattainment area plans. This only applies to plan submittal s for the Las Vegas, Nevada nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, since it’s the only nonattainment area in Nevada

for ozone or PM 2.5

.



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation with government offici als; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to “meet the applica ble 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 a nd visibility protection).”

CAA section 121 requires SIPs, in carrying out the requireme nts under the CAA requiring SIPs to contain any transportation controls, air quality main tenance 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 l ocal governments, designated organizations of elected official of local gover nments and any Federal land manager (FLM) having authority over Federal land to which the Stat e plan applies. Such process shall be in accordance with regulations promulgated by EPA. In ess ence, section 121 requires a satisfactory process of consultation with three kinds of organizations (general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials o f local governments, and any FLM) for three kinds of planning arenas (transportation contro ls, 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 a lso refers to section 113(d) (relating to certain enforcement orders), but section 113(d) was significantly a mended 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 r eferred to in part D” to be outside the scope of infrastr ucture SIP evaluations since the part D requirements pertain t o nonattainment planning requirements.39

CAA section 127 requires SIPs to contain measures to effec tively notify the public during any calendar year on a regular basis of instances or area s in which any NAAQS is exceeded or was exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year, t o 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 improv e 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 requirement s, 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 p lan requirements”) and 51.241 (“Nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide and ozone”). U nder section 51.240, each SIP must identify organizations, by official title, that will par ticipate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the SIP and the responsibilities of such organizat ions. 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 port ion 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 t he revised SIP or portions thereof for such AQCR.

EPA’s regulations concerning public notification are set f orth in set forth in subpart O (“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) of 40 CFR pa rt 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 standar d was exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year; (b) advising the public of the heal th 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 ex ceeded, and (2) Ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to i mprove air quality.

Nevada’s response to this requirement

Consultation

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal stated the following: The Nevada Administrative Procedure Act, NRS Chapter 233B, requires not ification and provision of comment opportunities to all parties affected by proposed regulat ions. Additionally, NAC 445.707 requires public participation in the State program to i ssue air quality operating permits (registration certificates). NDEP commit s to maintaining a process of consultation with parties designated under section 121 (i.e., gene ral purpose40

local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local gov ernments and affected Federal land managers).

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: All SIP elements are adopted by the WCDBOH before being formally subm itted as the Washoe County portion of the Nevada PM 2.5 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 politic al 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 regardi ng consultation, the 2012 Submittal substantially revised the description of th e state and counties’ consultation process and requested that Section 11 of Nevada ’s SIP (“Intergovernmental Consultation”), which was submitted in 1972, be replaced wi th 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 consul tation.

Public Notification

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 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 reporte d on the web site, including real-time monitoring for particulate matter (PM 10 ) in Pahrump,

Nevada.

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 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 duri ng elevated

PM 2.5 levels. Additionally, near-time ambient PM 2.5 monitoring data are posted on the WCAQMD website.

PSD and Visibility Protection

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 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 f ull41

delegation of the federal PSD program on October 19, 2004, including NSR reform provisions.

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: On July 31, 2007, EPA’s approval of Nevada’s interstate transport SIP (CA A 110(a)(2)(D)(i)) for the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS promulgated in July 1997 was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 41629). Also, Article 13 of Ne vada’s SIP, “General Provisions for the Review of New Sources,” requires an env ironmental 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 f or 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 publi c notice requirements of CAA [title I,] Part C, subchapter I.

EPA Evaluation

Consultation

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal is the primary basis for our evaluat ion of Nevada’s consultation provisions given that a) it substantially revised the 2008 an d 2009 submittals, b) it included a Attachment D (Section 11, “Intergovernmental Consultatio n”) to replace the outdated Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Relations”) of the 1972 SIP, and c) pro vided one revised and one new statute for incorporation into the SIP.

Attachment D of Nevada’s 2012 Submittal identifies the relev ant federal statutes and regulations, as discussed above in the opening paragraphs of this TSD’s se ction on CAA section 110(a)(2)(J), and describes the process for consultation for the fol lowing geographic areas relevant to the SIP: statewide, Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe Co unty. For each area, Attachment D identifies the applicable state and local provisions governi ng consultation; describes provisions relevant to consultation in permitting new or modifie d stationary sources; and, for Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County, addresses consultat ion’s role in transportation planning and conformity to the Nevada SIP. Attachment D also inc ludes 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 t he DBOH in Washoe County (NRS 439.390). As Exhibits to Attachment D, we understand the s tate’s SIP revision request to

include these Exhibits. We also understand the state’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement, Attachment D (“Interlocal Agreement Concerning the Washoe County Dist rict Health Department”), to be a SIP revision request42

We find that Attachment D provides a satisfactory process of consultation throughout the state with a) general purpose local governments, b) designated organi zations of elected officials of local governments, and c) any affected Federal Land Manage r for 1) transportation controls, 2) maintenance plan requirements, and 3) preconstruction re view of direct sources of air pollution (including PSD). We also find that this SIP revision iden tifies organizations that participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the plan at the st ate level and in Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County, as per the requirement t o do so under 40 CFR 51.240.

Public Notification

In connection with this requirement, the existing applica ble Nevada SIP only includes a regulation applicable within Clark County. Clark County Regu lation 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 bas is 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. B ecause Clark County section 4.12 refers to any ambient air quality standard, it applies to th e 1997 8-hour ozone standard even though the SIP rule dates from 1981. Clark County’s current rul ebook continues to include section 4.12 as approved into the SIP in 1981. Historically, t he frequency of NAAQS exceedances was greatest in Clark County. Moreover, a port ion of Clark County is the only portion of the State of Nevada designated as nonattainme nt for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (see 40 CFR 81.329) and is the only portion of the state wher e 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 existi ng SIP rule (Clark County Regulation section 4.12), we find that the Nevada SIP meets the requi rements 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 impleme ntation of any new PSD requirements that are triggered upon the effective date of any new NAAQ S. However, sources in a state may be subject to the federal PSD requirements pursuant to 40 C FR 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 pro gram, 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 pr omulgated FIPs to address the PSD program requirements under part C of title I of the C AA 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). Therefo re, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and GHGs, we find that43

the Nevada SIP does not to meet the PSD program requirem ents 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 no t 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

NO

x as an ozone precursor; provisions to regulate PM 2.5 , including PM 2.5 precursor emissions; and provisions to regulate GHGs (see proposal signed on Ju ly 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 w hich this TSD is written). As such, with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for th e 1997 8-hour ozone standard, we find that the Nevada SIP does not to meet the PSD program re quirements in part C for the Clark County portion of the State.

With regard to the requirement of the plan to meet the appl icable requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visib ility 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 obliga tions to protect visibility under section 110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 notificatio n and visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the entire state for the relev ant 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 At tachment 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 wit h the submitted version (adopted in 2011). Contingent upon these SIP revisions, we find that th e Nevada SIP meets the consultation requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) fo r the entire state for the 1997 ozone,

1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 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 m eet the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the reasons dis cussed 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 perf ormance 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 submiss ion, 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 m odels. 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 al l 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 quali ty modeling used to meet the requirements of [40 CFR part 51, subpart I]” and require that all such appl ications of air quality modeling be “based on the applicable models, data bases, and other re quirements specified in appendix W of [part 51].” 40 CFR 51.160(f). Both of these provisions state th at where an air quality model specified in Appendix W 36 is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another mo del 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 pro vide that SIPs must require the permitting authority to make available in at least o ne location in the region where a proposed source would be constructed a copy of all materials that t he 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 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal stated “[t]his requirement is addressed by the environmental evaluation provi sions in the ‘General Provisions

for the Review of New Sources’ in Article 13 of the SIP .” Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) added that “Air quality modeling to ensure atta inment and/or maintenance of the NAAQS is authorized under WCDBOH Regulation 030.210 (Perm it 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 th e air quality model(s) used to demonstrate the adequacy of a control strategy to provide for the timely attainme nt 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 Ana lyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goa ls for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze,” EPA-454/B-07-002 (April 2007). These prov isions address requirements under part D, title I of the Act and do not apply to our ev aluation 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 pro gram 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 submi tted 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 Artic le 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 a pproval of source construction), and that the evaluation consider “diffusion modeling” incl uding “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 exce ed 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 Dire ctor determines is necessary to make an independent air quality impact assessment. The Di rector may impose any reasonable conditions requiring the owner or operator of the station ary 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 perio d 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 pe rtaining 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, doe s 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 determ ine 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. Whi le NAC 445B.311 does correctly reference EPA’s modeling guideline, NDEP does n ot have an approved PSD program that is equal to or exceed the PSD requirements, and thus, do es not provide a basis for approval of 110(a)(2)(K).

EPA anticipates final approval of NAC 445B.308, NAC 445B.310, and NA C 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 m odeling requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM 2.5 standard for the portion of the State covered by NDEP.

Clark County

Clark County has previously submitted the modeling and emiss ions reductions data with attainment demonstration SIP revisions, which rely on t he State’s capacity to model the effect of emissions on ambient air quality. For instance, see th e final rule redesignating the Las Vegas,

Nevada carbon monoxide nonattainment area to attainmen t, (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 rede signate the Las Vegas, Nevada carbon monoxide area to attainment, the April 11, 2011 submittal requir ed 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 de monstration 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 model ing 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 bas es approved by U.S. EPA and be subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. Howeve r, as discussed above for section 110(a)(2)(C), since EPA’s approval of the Clark Co unty PSD program in 2004, Clark County has adopted significant revisions to Section 12 and repe aled 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 implement ing that version of the rule, and we cannot rely on it as the basis to find that the Clark Co unty 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 revis ions to Section 12. These revisions were submitted by NDEP to EPA for approval into th e 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 t o 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 w hich Clark County has been designated as attainment or unclassifiable and certain oth er (non-criteria) pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA. Section 12.2.11 addresses a ir quality models, and specifically requires all estimates of ambient concen trations required under Section 12.2 be based on applicable air quality models, databases, and o ther 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 int o 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

PM 2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM 2.5 standard for the Clark County portion of the State.

Washoe County

Washoe County currently does not have a federally approve d 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 ar e 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 t o Construct application and determine by approved modeling or other methods if the proposed control technology will meet regulatory requirements. Regulation 030.235 indicates that th e Control Officer may require a pollutant impact analysis, including but not limited to, sou rce 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 C ounty as deficient with respect to PSD requirements, the Washoe County portion of the Neva da SIP does not satisfy 110(a)(2)(K). Even if Washoe County regulations 030.023 and 030.235 were submitted a nd approved into the SIP with the intention of displacing the applicable Fede ral PSD rules, EPA has determined that regulations 030.023 and 030.235 do not equal or exceed the PSD require ments 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 J anuary 3, 2006; May 18, 2010; November 16, 2010; and March 6, 2012. NDEP is the governor’s designee for sub mitting 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 t he revisions to Section 12, including Section

12.2.48

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal included WCDBOH regulation 030.235 for paral lel 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 sufficien t to address the requirements in Section 110(a)(2)(K).

As such, we find, that the Nevada SIP does not meet the m odeling requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM 2.5 standard for the Washoe County portion of the State.

Conclusion

Based on our review of the applicable Nevada SIP and the N evada 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 PM 2.5 standard, and the 2006 PM 2.5 standard, the Nevada SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for th e Clark County portion of the SIP, contingent upon EPA’s final approval of Clark County Regulat ion 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 def iciency 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 Stat e 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 own er 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 reasonabl e 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 t erms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated wi th 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 re gulations providing for collection of permitting fees under an EPA-approved title V operating perm its program.

Nevada’s response to this requirement

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) added49

that “[p]ermitting fees are authorized under WCDBOH Regul ation 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 a s noted above, the permitting fee requirement under CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) is superseded by EP A 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 collecti on of the necessary permitting fees. See NAC section 445B.327; Clark County Board of County Commis sioners 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 thr ough 030.335, inclusive.

Conclusion

We propose to find that the Nevada SIP meets the requireme nts of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS because each portion of the State is covered by an EPA-approved title V program, and the approved pr ograms provide for the collection of the necessary fees.



### CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) – Consultation/participatio n by affected local

entities

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to “provide for consultat ion 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 pla n. 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 organiz ations. See 40 CFR 51.240 (“General plan requirements”).

Nevada’s response to this requirement

Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM 2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM 2.5 Submittal stated the following: The Nevada Administrative Procedure Act, NRS Chapter 233B, requires not ification and provision of comment opportunities to all parties affected by proposed regulat ions. NAC 445B.707 requires public participation in the State program to issue air quality operating permits (registration certificates).

Nevada’s 2009 PM 2.5 Supplement (for Washoe County) stated the following: All SIP elements are adopted by the WCDBOH before being formally subm itted as the Washoe County portion of the Nevada PM 2.5 SIP. Participation by local political50

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 politic al subdivisions in Washoe County.

While the 2008 and 2009 submittals provided some information regardi ng 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”), w hich was submitted in 1972, be replaced with a revised Section 11 (attached to the 2012 Subm ittal) for purposes of satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2)(M).

EPA Evaluation

NDEP

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal is the primary basis for our evaluat ion of Nevada’s consultation provisions given that a) it substantially revised the 2008 an d 2009 Submittals, and b) it included a Attachment D (Section 11, “Intergovernmental Consultat ion”) to replace the outdated Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Relations”) of the 1972 SIP.

Attachment D of Nevada’s 2012 Submittal identifies the relev ant 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 tw o infrastructure SIP elements. Section 110(a)(2)(J) refers to section 121, which specificall y 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 gov ernments, and any FLM for transportation controls, air quality maintenance plans , and preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, including PSD). By contrast, se ction 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 re fers to “participation” in addition to consultation). Thus, for our evaluation of 110(a)(2)(M) w e looked to Nevada’s more general provisions for consultation and participation by local pol itical 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 fo r the following geographic areas relevant to the SIP: statewide, Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, a nd Washoe County. For each area, Attachment D identifies the applicable state and local pr ovisions governing consultation and notification to affected entities, including for those pa rts of the SIP related to permitting new and modified major sources and transportation planning, as appro priate. 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 P lanning 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 political51

subdivisions. Beyond these county and regional subdivis ions, each of the three local jurisdictions (Clark County, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County) integr ate further local political subdivisions in matters relating to the SIP. These inc lude regional planning organizations; regional transportation organizations; and incorporated citi es in Clark and Washoe counties, where the vast majority of the Nevada population reside s. 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 Washo e 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 C ommission 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 sub divisions affected by the SIP for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. We therefore propose to replace Section 11 of th e 1972 SIP with the revised Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Cons ultation”) embodied by Attachment D and its Exhibits, consistent with our propo sal above for section 110(a)(2)(J).