1



# Technical Support Document
Evaluation of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO 2 

# and 2010 SO 2



### Evaluation of Nevada Infrastructure SIPs for

C lean Air Act S ection s 110(a) (1) and (2)

U.S. EPA, Region 9 May 2015i 

### Contents

Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1

Element A

– Emission limits and other control measures [CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)]

................................ ..... 4

Element B

-- Ambient air quality monitoring/data system [CAA § 110(a)(2)(B)]

................................ .. 10

Element C

– Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources [CAA § 110(a)(2)(C)]

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12

Element D

– Interstate transport [CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)]

................................ ................................ .......... 20

Element E

– Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies [CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)]

................................ ................................ ............................ 25

Element F

– Stationary source monitoring and reporting [CAA § 110(a)(2)(F)]

................................ ..... 28

Element H

– SIP revisions [CAA § 110(a)(2)(H)]

................................ ................................ ................... 33

Element I

– Plan revisions for nonattainment areas [CAA § 110(a)(2)(I)]

................................ .............. 35

Element J

– Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and v isibility protection [CAA § 110(a)(2)(J)]

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 36

Element K

– Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data [CAA § 110(a)(2)(K)]

................. 37

Element M

– Consultation/Participation be Affected Local Entities [CAA § 110(a)(2)(M)]

.................. 401 

### Summary

This document summarizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of the Nevada

State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions and local provisions to meet the requirements of § 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide ( NO 2 ) and 2010 sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The following information was submitted by Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) on behalf of NDEP, Clark County Department of Air Quality (Clark County) , and Washoe County Health District Air Quality Management Division (Washoe County) :

2008 8

- hour ozone

 The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration of Adequacy

, April 10, 2013

.

 State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Ozone Infrastructure SIP Require ments of the

Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2), Clark County, Nevada, February 2013

.

 The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS : Demonstration of Adequacy

, February 28, 2013

.

 NDEP letter to EPA , dated May 9, 2013 and Washoe County l etter, dated April 26 , 2013, containing the Approved Minutes of the February 28, 2013 public hearing and the Certificate of Adoption.

2010 1

- hour NO 2 ,

 The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Primary NAAQS: Demonstration of Adequacy and appendices, January 18, 2013

.

 State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2) and attachments

, Clark County, Nevada

, December 2012

.

 The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Primary NAAQS; Final Submittal

, March 15, 2013

.

201 0 1

- hour SO 2

 The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary NAAQS, and appendices, June 3, 2013

.

 State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2) and attachments

, Clark County, Nevada, May 2013

 The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2) and attachments, March 28, 2013

(The documents above include all material provided along with the cited reports, such as cover letters.)2

Based on our evaluation, we propose a partial approval and partial disapproval of Nevada’s 2008 ozone,

2010 NO 2

, and 2010 SO 2 Infrastructure s ubmittal s

. Our evaluation is summarized in T able 1: Evaluation Summary. As discussed further below, the propose d partial disapprovals will not trigger a deadline for EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) because each deficiency i s already a dequately addressed by a pre

- existing FIP.



### Table 1: Evaluation Summary

Element Identification Meets Requirement? (clarification or cause of disapproval )
Elem ent SubElement 

### Description NDEP Clark Co unty Washoe

Co

unty



### 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 Partial (PSD FIP) Yes Partial (PSD FIP)



### D i Interstate transport

- significant contribution to

nonattainment (prongs 1

- 2) Partial (no action on ozone or SO 2 )

Interstate transport

- interference with maintenance (prong 3) No ( PSD FIP ) Yes No (PSD FIP)

Interstate transport

- visibility transport (prong 4) 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 )



### E i Necessary assurances of adequate resources

(personnel, funding, authority) Yes Yes Yes



### ii Conflict of interest provisions (per § 128) Yes Yes Yes3



### iii Necessary assurances of adequate oversight of local governments and regional agencies Yes n/a n/a



### F i Stationary source monitoring system

(installation, maintenance, replacement) Yes Yes Yes



### ii Stationary source monitoring system (periodic reports) Yes Yes Yes



### iii Stationary source monitoring system (correlation of reports with emissions limitations or standards) Yes Yes Yes



### G Emergency episodes Yes Yes Yes



### H i SIP revisions (plan revisions for NAAQS or

improved methods of attaining) Yes Yes Yes



### ii SIP revisions (remedy inadequacies identified by EPA) Yes Yes Yes



### I Plan revisions for nonattainment areas n/a n/a n/a



### J § 121 Consultation with government officials Yes Yes Yes

§ 127 Public notification of exceedances Yes Yes Yes

PSD/

visibil ity PSD and visibility protection No (PSD FIP) Yes No (PSD FIP)



### K i Air quality modeling Yes Yes Yes



### ii Submission of modeling data Yes Yes Yes



### L i Permitting fees (reviewing and acting on application) Yes Yes Yes



### ii Permitting fees (implementing and enforcing permit) Yes Yes Yes



### M Consultation with/ participation by affected local

political subdivisions Yes Yes Yes

Background

Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires states to submit a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ) no later than three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. CAA § 110(a)(2) specifies the content s of the require d plan, which generally relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the4

"infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program. A SIP submi ttal addressing these requirements is commonly described as an “infrastructure SIP."

EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 8

- hour ozone on March 27, 2008, 1

- hour NO 2 on February 9, 2010,

and 1

- hour SO 2 on June 22, 2010

. 1 These actions correspondingly triggered requirement s for states to

submit an infrastructure SIP address ing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of each NAAQS revision.

We have compared the infrastructure SIP submittals identified in the S ummary section of this do cument to the requirements or elements of CAA § 110(a)(2) for each NAAQS. 2 In the following pages, we describe the requirements, summarize the State’s submittal, and present our conclusions for the

infrastructure SIP element s

.



### Element A

– Emission limits and other control measures [ CAA § 110(a)(2)(A)]

Statutory Requirement

CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marke table permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.”

Nevada’s response to this requirement
Nevada’s submittals note the primary source sectors for each NAAQS. For o zone, which is not emitted directly but created by chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) , the submittal notes the primary sources of NO x and VOCs. The primary source sectors are mobile sources and fuel combustion, for NO x , mobile sources, solvent and industrial processes for VOCs, and power plants and other industrial facilities for SO 2 . NDEP’s submittal for the

2010 SO 2 NAAQS also notes smalle r sources of emissions such as extracting metal from ore as well as burning of high s u lfur fuels by locomotives, large ships and nonroad equipment. The emission sources in NDEP’s portion of the Infrastructure SIP Submittal for the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS al so cite the same NO x sources noted in NDEP’s portion of the Infrastructure SIP Submittal for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

Table 2 provides a summary of the regulations cited by NDEP to address each NAAQS. Appendices to the submittals include statutory (the Nevada Revi sed Statutes or NRS ) and regulatory (Nevada

Administrative Code or NAC) elements identified by the submittals and in Table 2.

1 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008)

, 75 FR 6474 ( February 9, 2010) , and 75 FR 35520 ( Jun e 22, 2010 ) respectively

2 Two section 110(a)(2) requirements are considered by EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions because they pertain to plan requirements for nonattainment areas: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs under par t D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety. This TSD does not address these requirements.5



## Table 2: Rules Identified by NDEP Rules Addressing Element A

Regulatory
Section (Nevada Admin. Code) Description of Emission Limits/Control Measures Most Recent
SIP Approval Ozone NO 2 SO 2

Article 8.2.1 [Indirect Heat Transfer Fuel Burning Equipment

-- Sulfur

emission limits] 37 FR 10842
5/31/72 X

Article 8.2.2 ["Sulfur emission" defined for purposes of Article 8] 46 FR 43141
8/27/81 X

445B.2204 “Sulfur emission” defined 71 FR 15040 X
445B

. 22043 Sulfur emissions: Calculation of total sulfur feed 73 FR 19144 X
445B.22047 Sulfur emissions: Fuel

- burning equipment 71 FR 15040 X
445B.2205 Sulfur emissions: Other processes which emit sulfur 73 FR 19144 X
445B.22067 Open Burning 71 FR 15040 X X X
445B. 2207 Incinerator Burning 71 FR 15040 X X
445B. 22083 Construction, major modification or relocation of plants

to generate electricity using steam produced by burning
of fossil fuels. 73 FR 20536
X X X

445B.220 9 3 Organic solvents and other volatile organic compounds 73 FR 19144 X
445B. 22095 Emission limitation for BART. 77 FR17334 X X X
445B. 22096 Control measures constituting BART; limitations on

emissions. 77 FR 50936 X X X

445B. 22097 Standards of quality for ambient air. 71 FR 15040 X X X
445B. 308 Prerequisites and conditions for issuance of certain

operating permits; compliance with applicable state implementation plan. 77 FR 59321

X X X

445B. 310 Environmental evaluation: Applicable sources and other

subjects; exemption. 77 FR 59321 X X X

445B. 311 Environmental evaluation: Contents; consideration of

good engineering practice stack height 77 FR 59321 X X X

Not in the SIP but contained in NAC
445B.22057 Allowable emissions of sulfur from specific sources:

Units Numbers 1,2 and 3 of Reid Gardner Power Station NI X

445B.2206 Allowable emissions of sulfur from specific sources:

Unit Number 4 of Reid Gardner Power Station NI X

445B.22063 Allowable emissions of sulfur from specific sources:

North Valmy Power Station NI X

445B.2208 E missions of sulfur from specific sources: Adoption by

reference and emissions of hydrogen sulfide from certain facilities for generating electricity from geothermal brine NI X

445B.221 Adoption by reference and applicability of certain

provisions of federal law and regulations NI X X X

NI

– Not incorporated in the Nevada SIP6



## Table 3: Rules Identified by Clark County Rules Addressing Element A

Regulation
Section Description of Emission Limits/Control Measures Most Recent SIP Approval Ozone NO 2 SO 2

0 Definitions 79 FR 62351 X X X
9 Civil Penalties NI X X X
10 Compliance Schedules 46 FR 43141 X X X
12.0 Applicability, General Requirements, Transition Procedures 79 FR 62350 X X X
12.1 Permit Requirements for Minor Sources 79 FR 62350 X X X
12.2 Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Attainment Areas

(PSD) 79 FR 62350 X X X

12.3 Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Nonattainment

Areas 79 FR 62350 X X X

12.4 Authority to Construct Application and Permit

Requirements for Part 70 Sources 79 FR 62350 X X X

12.11 General Permits for Minor Stationary Sources NI X X X
13 Hazardous Air Pollutants NI X X X
14 New Source Performance St NI X X X
25 Affirmative Defense for Excess Emissions Due to

Malfunctions, etc. 46 FR 43141 X X X

28 Fuel Burning Equipment 46 FR 43141 X X X
33 Chlorine in Chemical Processes 51 FR 29923 X X X
45 Idling of Diesel Powered Motor Vehicles NI X X X
50 Storage of Petroleum Products 46 FR 21758 X X X
51 Petroleum Product Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers 46 FR 21758 X X X Local Rules not incorporated into the SIP
12.9 Annual Emissions Inventory Requirements NI
12.10 Continuous Monitoring Requirements for Stationary

Sources NI

21 Acid Rain Permits NI Nevada (State

- wide) Rules
NAC
445B.400 Emissions from Engines to control emissions from vehicles 73 FR 38124

NI

– Not incorporated in the Nevada SIP



## Table 4: Rules Identified by Washoe County Addressing Element A

Regulation
Section Description of Emission Limit s /Control Measure s Most Recent SIP Approval Ozone NO 2 SO 2

030.000 Sources

– General 46 FR 21758 X X X
030.010 Limits on issuance of authorities to construct 46 FR 21758 X X X
030.015 Public notice requirements for major sources 46 FR 21758 X X X
030.0 2 5 Registration Application 46 FR 21758 X X X
030.030 Limits on effect of acceptance of permit application or

issuance of Authority to Construct 46 FR 21758 X X X7

030.11 0 Modifications 46 FR 21758 X X X 030.115(1), (5) and
Subsection B Additional requirements for major sources in general

and specific additional requirements for major sources
of no nattainment pollutants 46 FR 21758 X X X

030.1201 Person served with Stop Work Order 46 FR 21758 X X X

030.205 Registration Requirement 46 FR 21758 X X X

030.215 Limits on Meaning of Issuance of Permit to Operate 46 FR 21758 X X X
030.245 Permit to Operate is not transferable 46 FR 21758 X X X
030.250 Permit to Operate is subject to suspension or

revocation for violation 46 FR 21758 X X X

030.300 Fee and Fee Schedule 46 FR 43141 X X X
030.305 Plan Review Fees 46 FR 43141 X X X
030.310 Permit to Operate

- Schedule of Fees 46 FR 43141 X X X
030.3101 Fuel Burning Equipment 46 FR 43141 X X X
030.3102 Incinerators 46 FR 43141 X X X
030.3103 Storage Tanks 46 FR 43141 X X X
030.3104 Processes 46 FR 43141 X X X
030.3105 Hazardous Materials Processes NI X X X
030.3107 Untitled, but related to the cost for permit transfer NI X X X
030.3108 Untitled, but related to the cost for permit replacement NI X X X
030.218 Demonstration of Compliance 77 FR 60915 X X X
030.230 Recordkeeping 77 FR 60915 X X X
030.970A Part 70 Permit Monitoring and Compliance 77 FR 60915 X X X
040.070 Storage of Petroleum Products 46 FR 21758 X X X
040.075 Gasoline Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers 46 FR 21758 X X X
040. 0 80 Gasoline Unloading from Tank Trucks and Trailers

into Storage Tanks 46 FR 21758 X X X

040. 0 85 Organic Solvents 46 FR 21758 X X X
040. 0 90 Cut

- Back Asphalt 46 FR 21758 X X X
050.001 Emergency Episode Plan 46 FR 21758 X X X
Local r ules not contained in the SIP , but supporting the requirements of this element
002.0051 Board of Health

– Powers and Duties NI X X X
002.020 Control Officer

– Power and Duties NI X X X

NI

– Not incorporated in the Nevada SIP , see 40 CFR 52.149(c)(16)(ix) ( A)

EPA’s Evaluation

NDEP

As NDEP noted, ozone is formed from NO x and VOCs (see EPA’s rule proposing the 2008 ozone NAAQS 3 ). NDEP’s submission describes the largest sources of emissions for NO x (fuel combustion and mobile sources)

, VOC s (mobile sources solvents and industrial processes)

, and SO 2 (fuel combustion

3 73 FR 1643 6 (March 27, 2008).8

and industrial processes), which is consistent with our understanding of their sources

. 4 While NDEP has not identified specific sources of NO 2 , w e have stated that, “ EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality

Standard uses NO 2 as the indicator for the larger group of nitrogen oxides. ” 5 So, NDEP’s identification

of NO x sources, rather than NO 2 sources, is appropriate. While mobile sources are a large category of emissions for the NAAQS evaluated here, we point out that mobile so urces are controlled, for the most part, by federal regulations and not by state and local agencies.

In addition to the permitting requirements discussed in Element C, NDEP ’s control of NO
x and SO x emission s is mainly accomplished through its regulation of fuel combustion. NDEP regulates large power plants as well as smaller stationary combustion sources (e.g. portable generators ). NDEP retains authority over fossil fuel

- fired power plants, even if located wi thin Clark or Washoe Counties, in accordance with NAC 445B.500 (5) and (6). NO x and SO x emission limits are set by N RS 445B.22095

and NRS 445.22096. NAC 445B.22095 identifies factors considered in determin in g Bes t Available Control Technology for major sou rces , and NAC 445B

. 22096 provides numeric emission limits for specific sources where a Best Available Control Technology has been established

. N AC 445B.2206

establishes sulfur emissions standards for (fossil fuel) power generating unit N umber 4 of NV Energy’s

Reid Gardner Generating Station . NAC 445B.22057 sets sulfur emissions limits for units 1

- 3 at the Reid Gardner Generating Station, but has since been replaced by a FIP. 6

Article 8.2.1 limits sulfur emissions that are not limited by other regulations, such as Best Available Control Technology requirements [ NRS 445B.22095]. NDEP also regulates emissions of hydrogen

sulfide from facilities that generate electricity from geothermal brine . In the environment, hydrogen sulfide can readily convert to SO 2 . Additionally, NDEP controls emissions of NO x and SO x through regulation of open burning [NRS 22067] and incinerator burning [NRS 445B.2207 ]

. NDEP identified a single rule for controlling VOC emissions, NAC 445B.22093 . It includes requireme nts to store and process solvents and volatile compounds in a manner that minimizes emissions.

As Clark County noted, NAC 445B.400 through 445B.735 are rules governing v ehicle inspection and

maintenance . The program help s to improve air quality by identifying high

- emitting vehicles in need of repair (through visual inspection, emissions testing, and/or the downloading of fault codes from a vehicle's onboard computer) and causing them to be fixed as a prerequisite to vehicle re gistration within a given area

.

We also acknowledge the importance of regulations identified by NDEP submittals that do not contain specific emission limits, but provide a foundation for the regulations mentioned in this section. NAC 445B.2204, for exam ple, provides the definition of sulfur emissions.

Clark County

4 See h ttp://www.epa.gov/cgi

- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.national_1.sas&polchoice=NOX
for NO
x sources. See http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listByAlpha&r=209842&subtop=341 for VOC
sources. See http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/ for SO
x sources (accessed 1/21/2015)

. 5 see http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/ (accessed 1/21/2015)

. 6 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012)

.9

Clark County has broadly identified permitting related rules in responding to this requirement of

Element A for an Infrastructure SIP

. Several specific rules within those identified by Clark County limit

emissions for NO x , SO x and VOCs. For minor sources, AQR 12.1.3.6 requires a determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), defined in AQR 0, for new sources and existing sources proposing significant emissions or significant increases in emissions . AQR 12.1.4.1 (f) requires permits to “ensure compliance with any RACT determination, if one has been made.” For PSD permits

, AQR 12.2.9.1 requires the use of Best Available Control Technology “ for each regulated NSR pollutant

that it would have the potential to emit in significant amounts. ” The term significant is defined at AQR 12.1.1 (g) for minor sources and AQR 12.2. 2 ( uu ) for major sources in attainment areas

. To summarize, Clark County permits require RACT for minor sources, i f a determination has been made, and BACT for major sources in attainment areas.

Clark County identified many other regulations in the SIP that control emissions, such as AQR 50 and

51 . These rules minimize VOC emissions through regulation of petroleum storage and petroleum loading from tank trucks

. AQR 42, which was not mentioned in the county’s submittal, limits open burning and in the process reduces NO x emissions. AQR 45, a local rule (which is not in the Nevada SIP), limits idling of diesel powered motor vehicles to now more than 15 minutes. Reduced idling

reduce s NO x , SO x emissions

, and ozone formation

.

Washoe County In their submittals, Washoe County identifies the same regulations to meet the 2008 Ozo ne, 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS; however, s everal regulations in the SIP focus on control of VOC emissions,

while other control NO 2 and SO 2 . VOC emissions are controlled through Section 040.070 (Storage of Petroleum Products) , 040.075 (Gasoline Loading into Tank Truck s and Trailers) , 040.080 ( Gasoline Unloading from Tank Trucks and Trailers into Storage Tanks ) , 040.085 (Organic Solvents) and 040.90 (Cut

- back A sphalt s ). These regulations limit emissions b y specify ing procedures

, equipment and specific emission reductions to be achieved. Section 040.070 minimizes emissions loss to the atmosphere during storage. Section 040.075 and 040.080 require the use of submerged fill pipes or vapor recovery equipment for loading and unloading gasoline. Section 040.085 includ es equipment and specifications to reduce emissions by 85% for open top degreasers

. Section 040.090 limits the cut of cut

back asphalts

. While the previously mentioned regulations were incorporated into the SIP in 1981, several of the regulations have been significantly revised in the current local rules.

Rules controlling NO x and SO x emissions, contained in the Washoe County portion of the SIP include a
0.2% limit on SO 2 emissions [040.015]

, control of emissions from open burning [0 4 0.035, 0 4 0.040 and

0 4 0.045]

, incinerators [0 4 0.050] and wood stoves [0 4 0.051]

. 7 Washoe County has additional local rules that do not appear in the SIP, but can reduce NO x , SO x and VOC emissions. Most importantly, Section 002.0051 allows the Board of Health to set new air quali ty regulations. Updated versions of older rules mentioned in this section, which are contained in the SIP, are also local rules that can reduce emissions. Section 040.080, for example, is considerably longer and more detailed in Washoe County’s currently

r egulations than in the SIP. Section 040.200 reduces emissions of NO x by limiting idling of diesel trucks

to less than 15 minutes.

7 A local rule approved into the SIP, 040.060, also limits sulfur in fuel to 1%, but sulfur content in fuel has been further reduced by EPA’s Highway, Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine Diesel Fuel Sulfur Standards [40 CFR 80 Subpart I] and
Gasoline Sulfur Sta ndards [40 CFR 80 Subpart H].10

We note d several regulations that are not part of the Nevada SIP were identified in the County’s submittal as being in cluded in t he SIP

– 030.115 and 030.205

. Should Washoe County consider measures to update the current SIP, which EPA would welcome, we also point out that the county’s submittal includes several SIP regulations where no current County regulation exists. For the r ules identified in response to this Infrastructure S I P element, these include 030.030, 030.3103, and 030.3104

. Regulations identified at 030.3105, 030.3107 and 030.3108 do not appear in the SIP or local regulations. 8

Conclusion

.

Based upon our review of current regulations in the SIP, we propose to find that the Nevada SIP meets

the r equirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) for the relevant NAAQS for the entire state.



### Element B

-- Ambient air quality monitoring/data system [ CAA § 110(a)(2)(B)]

Statutory Requirement

CAA § 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to

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

Nevada’s response to this requirement The Nevada infrastructure SIP submittals state that NDEP, Clark County and Washoe C ounty operate an air quality monitoring network in compliance with 40 CFR 58. The submittals contain or refer to annual network plans submitted to EPA. The submittals all contain letters from EPA acknowledging that the Annual Network Monitoring Plans are i n compliance with 40 CFR 58.10; however, EPA notes that our letters may contain a limited scope of approval where there was insufficient information to make a judgment on the plan . The Clark County submittal and NDEP’s monitoring plan, an appendix to its

s ubmittal, discuss submission of data via EPA’s Air Quality System.

EPA’s evaluation Authority and Responsibility Following the submission of the collective Nevada infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA published guidance stating that air agencies should incl ude statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the authority and responsibility to:

 Monitor air quality.

 Submit data to EPA.

 Provide information on monitoring activities.

8 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009). We note that these rules were only recently removed from the Washoe County portion of EPA’s Air Quality State Implementation Plans at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&count=2000&state=Nevada&cat=Washoe+County

- Agency

Wide+Provisions

.11

 Obtain EPA approval of planned changes (see pages 22 and 23 of the guidance for further discussion). 9

T he infrastructure submittals did not address th e recommendation to include statutory or regulatory provisions, contained in the new guidance, so we have identified relevant authorities for each agency.

Per Nevada Revised Statute 445B.210 (“Powers of Commission”), the Nevada State Environmental Commission is vested with authority to adopt measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of national standards. Similarly, NRS 445B.230 (“Powers and duties o f Department”) authorizes the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which manages air quality planning and control responsibilities through NDEP, to make determinations and issue orders to implement the purposes of the state’s air pollution law s (i.e., NRS 445B.100 thru 445B.640). Monitoring is necessary to assess the

attainment and maintenance status for the 2008 o zone, 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Therefore, the monitoring program falls within the measures and determinations that the State Env ironmental Commission and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources may undertake to secure air quality that protects human health and welfare. In addition, NRS 445B.235 (“Additional Powers of Department”) authorizes the Department of Conservation a nd Natural Resources to apply for and receive funds from the federal government, which applies to EPA monitoring funds made available to states through CAA § 105.

The Clark County Board of Commissioners and the Washoe County District Board of Health are designated as the air pollution control agencies for the purposes of state law and the CAA as it pertains to local programs, per NRS 445B.500. These boards are authorized to take all actions necessary to secure for the county the benefits of the CAA. Also, under NRS section 445B.500(1)(d), all of the powers and responsibilities provided for in NRS sections 445B.210, 445B.240 thru 445B.470, 445B.560, 445B.570, 445B.580, and 445B.640 are binding upon and inure to the benefit of local air pollution control aut horities within their jurisdiction. The same types of authorities granted under State law to the Nevada State Environmental Commission and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources are extended to the authorized local air pollution control agenc ies in the State of Nevada. This authority is implemented by Clark County Board of County Commissioners and Washoe County District Board of Health, through Clark County Department of Air Quality and Washoe County Air Quality Management District, respective ly.

Air Monitoring Network Plans Since the submission of the Infrastructure SIP submittals, the Nevada agencies have submitted Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plans for 2013 and 2014. On December 11, 2013 and October 28, 2014

, EPA approved the 2013 and 2014 annual ambient air monitoring network plans for each agency , however, these letters also note areas where the Agency was not acting due to deficiencies or the need for further justification.

NDEP monitoring network includes three locations for ozone monitoring, a minimum requirement of 40 CFR Part 58 for the portion of Nevada outside Clark and Washoe counties. NDEP is not required to

monitor NO 2 , because its regulated Core Based Statistical Areas do not exceed the NO 2 monitoring

9 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (S IP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 2013

.12

threshold of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, 4.3.2(a) (500,000 people) and D 4.3. 3 (1 million people). Also, NDEP is not required to sample for SO 2 because its population weighted exposure index does not exceed 5000 (million person

- tons per year of SO 2 ) [40 CFR Part 58 Appen dix D 4.4.2].

Clark County currently samples ozone at 11 locations , exceeding the minimum regulatory requirement

of two locations . Clark County is required to monitor trace level SO 2 at their National Core monitoring (NCore) site , meeting the minimum requ irement (they do not trigger source

- oriented SO 2 monitoring),

and currently samples NO 2 at two area

- wide locations, one more than required

. Clark County is required

to establish two near

- road NO 2 ¬ sites, one by January 2014 and one by January 2015. EPA approved the locations for these two sites in our October 28, 2014 letter. The first near

- road site is expected to be operational in May 2015 and the second in November 2015. Clark County continues to make progress in meeting th is monitoring requirement. I n our October 28, 2014 letter we also approved one of Clark County’s NO 2 locations as one of the monitors meeting the nation

- wide requirement for NO 2 monitors in areas representing susceptible and vulnerable populations (see: http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/svpop.html ).

Washoe County Air Quality Management District (AQMD) monitors ozone concentrations at 6 locations, exceeding EPA’s requirement for monitoring at two locations. It has no minimum monitoring requirements for SO 2 based on their population weighted exposure in dex and is not required to monitor

near

- road or area

- wide NO 2 concentrations. Washoe County does operate the required NO 2 and trace

level SO 2 monitors at their National Core monitor site. Monitoring from all three Nevada air pollution control agencies is submitted to EPA and available at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/.

Conclusion Nevada air pollution control agencies establish and operat e applicable monitoring networks required

under the Clean Air Act for the 2008 o zone, 2010 NO 2 , and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS; submit monitoring plans and data to EPA; obtain EPA approval for modifications to the monitoring network; and operate under statutes and regulations that authorize and require continuation of these practices. For these r easons, w e propose to find that Nevada’s air monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of § 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 ozone, 201 0 NO 2 and 201 0 SO 2 NAAQS for the entire state

.



### Element C

– Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources [ CAA § 110(a)(2)(C)]

Statutory Requirement
CAA § 110(a)(2)(C) requires that each SIP “include a program to provide for the enforcement of the

measures described in § 110(a)(2)(A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source” [i.e., new source review (NSR)] “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 enforcement of control measures, EPA is evaluating the state’s general enforcement authorities to determine whether they provide an adequate infrastructure for SIP enforcement statewide.13

For th e requirement to regulat e the modification and construction of stationary sources, EPA is evaluating certain “structural” elements of the state’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs under part C of title I of the CAA to determine whether these programs are adequate for infrastructure SIP purposes. Specifically, EPA recently evaluated the Nevada SIP to determine whether it contained the following required elements of a PSD program: 10

(1) Ozone: Provisions identifying nitrogen oxides ( NO x ) as ozone precursor s consistent with the requirements of EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS

, 11

(2) PM 2.5 : Provisions to regulate PM 2.5 , including condensable PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions, consistent with the requirements of EPA’s NSR implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, 12

(3) PM 2.5 : Provisions to regulate PSD increments consistent with the requirements of EPA’s PSD implementation rule for PM 2.5 , 13 and

(4) GHGs: P rovisions to regulate g reenhouse g ases (GHGs) consistent with EPA’s regulations and a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, as discussed below.

Regarding GHGs, EPA established that new or modified sources of GHG emissions at or above certain thresholds are required to seek PSD permit s , beginning on January 2, 2011 . Four of these actions include, as they are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and “Cause or Contribute Finding,” which EPA issued in a single final action, the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,” the “Light

- Duty

Vehicl e Rule,” and the “Tailoring Rule.” Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took e ffect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased

- in basis.

However, on June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision addres sing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also sai d that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consisten tly with its understanding of the Court’s decision, EPA is not currently applying EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not requiring that a state’s SIP

- approved PSD program require sources to obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a signifi cant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).

10 See our proposed (August 3, 2012, 77 FR 46361) and final rules (October 23, 2012, 77 FR 64737) on Nevada’s
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2 .5 NAAQS.

11 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005. Codified at 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(49)(i)(b)(1).

12 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008. Codified at 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(49)(i).

13 75 FR 64864, October 10, 2010. Codified at 40 CFR 51.166(c).14

Generally, section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires that an infrastructure SIP contain SIP

- approved nonattainment NSR and minor NSR programs adequate to implement these standards. EPA is assessing the status of California’s minor NSR programs. However, EPA is not evaluating CAA title I, part D nonattainment area requirements (such as the nonattainment NSR program) in this proposed action for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(C) because these SIPs are due on a separate schedule under CAA section 172(b). Thus, our evaluation section below includes sub

- sections for PSD and minor NSR.

Previous Findings

In our final rulemaking on Nevada’s Infra structure SIP for Lead ( P b) NAAQS

, we determined that the Clark County portion of the state met the permitting requirements for this element though its SIP

approved PSD program and that NDEP and Washoe County did not . NDEP and Washoe County implement delegated PSD FIPs. At this time, NDEP a nd Washoe County continue to rely on FIP s for their permitting program s

. 14

Generally, CAA § 110(a)(2)(C) requires that an infrastructure SIP contain SIP approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permit programs adequate to implement the appropriate standards. EPA is assessing the status of Nevada’s minor NSR programs for 2008 ozone, 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS; h owever, EPA is not evaluating part D nonattainment area requirements (such as the nonattainment NSR program) in this proposed action . The se SIPs are due on a separate schedule under
CAA § 172(b).

Nevada’s response to this requirement



## Table 5: Regulations Cited by NDEP Addressing Element C

Regulatory

Section Description of Emission Limits/Control Measures Most Recent SIP Approval

Nevada Revised Statute
445B.210* Powers of Commission 73 FR 38124

445B.230* Powers and duties of Department 73 FR 38124

445B.450* Notice and order by Director; hearing; alternative

procedures 72 FR 11

445B.460* Injunctive relief 72 FR 11

445B.640* Levy and disposition of administrative fines; additional

remedies available; penalty 72 FR 11

Nevada Administrative Code

445B.225 Prohibited conduct: Concealment of emissions 73 FR 19144

445B.227 Prohibited conduct: Operation of source without required

equipment; removal or modification of required equipment; modification of procedure 73 FR 19144

14 This deficiency was identified in our October 18, 2012 final rule on Clark County’s permit program submittals. See 77 FR
64039 and 64040.15

445B.229 Hazardous emissions; Order for reduction of emissions 73 FR 19144
445B.667 Excess emissions 49 FR 11626

445B.250 Notification of planned construction or reconstruction 73 FR 20536

445B .252 Testing and Sampling 73 FR 20536
455.694 Emissions discharge information 49 FR 11626
445B .275 Violations: Acts constituting; notice 73 FR 19144
445B .277 Stop orders 73 FR 19144

445B .308 Prerequisites and conditions for issuance of certain

operating permits; compliance with applicable state implementation plan 77 FR 59321

445B .310 Environmental evaluation: Applicable sources and other

subjects; exemption 77 FR 59321

455B.311 Environmental Evaluation: Contents; consideration of

good engineering practice stack height 77 FR 59321

Nevada Air Quality Regulations

Article 13 “General Provisions for the Review of New Sources” 46 FR 21758 *authority extended to local air pollution agencies

In addition to identifying the regulations in the table above, NDEP’s portion of the submittals also

states:

The NDEP does not have a SIP

- based program to prevent significant deterioration of air quality; however, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u), the US EPA has delegated its responsibility for implementation of the federal PSD program as it existed on July 20, 2011 to the NDEP, thus helping to meet the requirements of this element.



## Table 6: Regulations Cited by Clark County Addressing Element C

AQR Section Description of Emission Limits/Control Measures Most Recent SIP Approval

10 Compliance Schedules 79 FR 62350

12.1 Permit Requirements for Minor Sources 79 FR 62350

12.2 Permit Requirements for Major Sources in Attainment

Areas 79 FR 62350

12.3 Permit Requirements for Majors Sources in

Nonattainment Areas 79 FR 62350

12.4 Authority to Construct Application and Permit

Requirements for Part 70 Sources 79 FR 62350

12.11 General Permits for Minor Stationary Sources NI

13 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NI

1 4 New Source Performance Standards NI

25 Affirmative Defense for Excess Emissions Due to

Malfunctions 46 FR 43141

26 Emission of Visible Air Contaminants 46 FR 4314116

27 Particulate Matter from Process Weight Rate 47 FR 26386
28 Fuel Burning Equipment 46 FR 43141

NI

– Not Incorporated into the Nevada SIP



## Table 7: Regulations Cited by Washoe County Addressing Element C

WCDBOH Regulation
Section Description of Emission Limit s /Control Measure s Most Recent SIP Approval

030.000 Sources

– General 46 FR 21758
030.005 Authority to Construct m ust be i ssued b efore a ny b uilding p ermit 46 FR 21758
030.010 Limits on issuance of authorities to construct 46 FR 21758
030.015 Public notice requirements for major sources 46 FR 21758
030.0 2 5 Registration Application 46 FR 21758
030.030 Limits on effect of acceptance of permit application or issuance

of Authority to Construct 46 FR 21758

030.11 0 Modifications 46 FR 21758 030.115(1), (5) and
Subsection

B Additional requirements for major sources in general and

specific additional requirements for major sources of nonattainment pollutants 46 FR 21758

030.1201 Person served with Stop Work Order 46 FR 21758

030.205 Registration Requirement 46 FR 21758

030.215 Limits on Meaning of Issuance of Permit to Operate 46 FR 21758
030.218 Demonstration of Compli ance 77 FR 60915
030.230 Recordkeeping 77 FR 60915
030.245 Permit to Operate is not transferable 46 FR 21758
030.250 Permit to Operate is subject to suspension or revocation for

violation 46 FR 21758

030.300 Fee and Fee Schedule 46 FR 43141
030.305 Plan Review Fees 46 FR 43141
030.310 Permit to Operate

- Schedule of Fees 46 FR 43141
030.3101 Fuel Burning Equipment 45 FR 43141
030.3102 Incinerators 45 FR 43141
030.3103 Storage Tanks 45 FR 43141
030.3104 Processes 45 FR 43141
030.3105 Hazardous Materials Processes NI
030.3107 Untitled, but related to the cost for permit transfer NI
030.3108 Untitled, but related to the cost for permit replacement NI
030.970A Part 70 Permit Monitoring and Compliance 77 FR 60915
040.070 Storage of Petroleum Products 46 FR 21758
040.075 Gasoline Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers 46 FR 21758
040.80 Gasoline Unloading from Tank Trucks and Trailers into Storage

Tanks 46 FR 21758

040.85 Organic Solvents 46 FR 2175817

040.90 Cut

- Back Asphalt 46 FR 21758
050.001 Emergency Episode Plan 72 FR 33397 Local rules not contained in the SIP, but identified as addressing the requirements
010.1303 Regulated Air Pollutants
002.0051 Board of Health

– Powers and Duties
002.020 Control Officer

– Powers and Duties
030.002 Construction or Modification of Permitting Operations
030.020 Permit Application
030.500 New Source Review (NSR) Applicability
030.502 Review for Emissions Limitation Compliance
030.503 Conditions for Approval
030.504 Emissions Offset Ratios
030.505 Completeness of Application
030.506 Requirements for Public Notice
030.507 Comments
030.508 Final Action
030.905 Sources Requiring Part 70 Permits

NI

– Not incorporated in the Nevada SIP, see 40 CFR 52.149(c)(16)(ix)(A)

In addition to identifying the regulations in the table above, NDEP’s portion of the submittals also states that Washoe County received full delegation of the federal PSD program and it is incorporated into Nevada’s SIP (40 CFR 52.1485).

EPA Analysis

1

. Enforcement

NDEP has the authority to inspect permitted facilities and facilities suspected to be operating without a permit [445B.580]. NDEP has the authority to seek injunctive relief (i.e. court ordered compliance with its regulations) [445B.460], and to levy fines [445B.640] . NDEP has also set out provisions for facilities

to contest alleged violations [445B.450]. Additionally, these authorities are available to Clark and Washoe Counties. NDEP regulations identify prohibited activity such as concealing emissions [4 45B.225] and modifying equipment and procedures [445B.227 ]. NDEP has also identified acts constituting violations [ 445B.275 ] and has the ability to issue stop orders when the director determines

there has been a violation [445B.277]

.

Clark County has the authority to inspect regulated facilities ( AQR 4.3

, 4.4 and 5.1.2 ) and potentially regulated sources ( AQR 4.10). Clark County has procedures for notification of violations [ AQR 4.7] and can seek injunctive relief and civil penalties ( AQR 8 and 9). Clark C ounty has a hearing process to challenges to alleged violations [ AQR 7 ]. The regulations mentioned above are included in the SIP, except the Counties regulations on civil penalties.

Washoe County has the authority to inspect facilit ies [020.0051 ] , issue n otices of violation [ 020.030 ]

, and to charge facilities and individuals with c ivil and criminal penalties [020.040 and 020.042] . It specifically prohibits the concealment of emissions and hindering inspectors [020.070 and020.050].18

Washoe County may seek i njunctive relief [020.045] and s ampl e and test sources of emissions . Washoe

C ounty has created an a ppeal process for alleged violations [020.0252]

.

2

. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

The NDEP and Washoe County submittals acknowledge promulgation of a FIP for PSD permitting for their jurisdictions , and that implementation of the program has been delegated to them (NDEP and Washoe County). As EPA guidance discusses

, in a s ection titled Effects of a Federal Implementation

Plan on an Infr astructure FIP, “a FIP is not a state plan thus cannot serve to satisfy the state’s obligation

to submit a SIP. ” 15 Because the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP rely on a F IP for PSD permitting, they do not meet the requirements of this element ; ho wever, because a FIP is already in place, no additional FIP clock is triggered by our disapproval of this portion of Nevada’s infrastructure

SIP. W e continue to compare NDEP and Washoe County SIP elements to the remainder of the criteria

for this element.

EPA recently approved new revisions to Clark County ’s permitting rules into the SIP

. 16 EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking (to incorporate the permitting rules into the SIP) explain ed that the rules satisfy previously identified deficiencies in PSD and nonattainment NSR permitting. 17 This includes the

deficienc ies noted in our t echnical s upport d ocument and rulemaking for Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for Lead (Pb) : (1) regulation of condensable PM consistent with the requirements of EPA’s implementation

rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS 18 ; and (2) revision of the PSD increment provisions so that new and major sources of PM 2.5 estimate significant deterioration of ambient air quality consistent with the requirements of EPA’s 2010 PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 19
Prior to that, EPA approved other changes to the Clark County PSD program 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. 20

PSD permitting of sources within Clark County is for the most part under the authority of the County’s Department of Air Quality

. NDEP , however, retains permitting authority over fossil fuel

- fired steam

generating power plants, in accordance with 445B.500 ( 5 ) and ( 6 )

. 21

3

. Minor Source Permitting

15 (See page 16).

16 79 FR 62350 ( October 17, 2014 )

. 17 79 FR 62350 ( Octob er 17, 2014 )

. 18 This deficiency was identified in our October 18, 2013 final rule on Clark County’s permit program submittals. See 77 FR

64039 at 64040.

19 See 75 FR 64864 (October 10, 2010), which set a deadline of July 20, 2012 for SIP revisions to incorporate the final PSD
increments for PM 2.5 (see page 64898). In addition, this rule set requirements for significant impact levels (SILs) and significant monitoring concentrations (SMCs) for PM 2.5 . However, as a result of litigation, on January 22, 2013, the D.C.

Circuit C ourt granted a request from EPA to vacate and remand the SIL provisions of this rule and to vacate the SMC provisions of this rule. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 10

- 1413, Decided January 22, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia C ircuit (D.C. Cir. 2013). As such we did not evaluate the SIP

- approved PSD program in Clark County for SILs and SMCs for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) as part of this proposal.

20 77 FR 64039 ( October 18, 2012 )

. 21 77 FR 64737 ( October 23

, 2012)

.19

NDEP

In our evaluation of NDEP’s minor source permitting program for our action on Nevada’s Infrastructure

SIP for 2008 Pb , we found the program failed to meet the requirement of CAA § 110 (a) (2)(C)

, because

it reference d protection of EPA’s older Pb standard. 22 Nevada has addressed this deficiency by revising NAC 445B.22097, 445.308 and 445B.311. The revision to NAC 445B.22097 also included an update to

reflect the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. EPA added these rules into the Nevada

SIP in direct final rule. 23 The following summarizes relevant changes to NDEP’s minor source permitting program:

for minor stationary sources in the Nevada SIP, NAC sections 445B.310 and 445B.311 require permit applicants to prepare environmental evaluations that contain dispersion analyses showing the effect of the source on the quality of

the ambient air, and NAC section 445B.308 prohibits the issuance of a permit or revision for any stationary source if

the Environmental E valuation shows, or NDEP determines, that the stationary source will prevent the attainment and maintenance of the state or national ambient air quality standards, as established in NAC 445B.22097. Permit applicants are required to prepare and submit Envir onmental Evaluations for any new stationary source which emits, or has the potential to emit, greater than 25 tons per year (tpy) of a regulated air pollutant; and, with respect to modifications, the existing stationary source has the potential to emit gre ater than 25 tpy of a regulated air pollutant, and the proposed modification has the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of a regulated air pollutant. See NAC

section 445B.310. 24

Clark County

In EPA’s 201 2 rulema ki ng on Clark County’s stationary source permits program , several portions of the proposed SIP rules were disapproved, contributing to the disapproval for Element C in EPA’s rulemaking on Nevada’s Lead Infrastructure SIP. 25 The disapproval, relevant to Element C, related to minor source NSR pro vis ions that did not adequately ensure protection of the 2006 PM 2.5 and 2008 Pb NAAQS and definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant

. ’’ As EPA indicated in our most recent rule approving Clark County permitting, the ir revisions satisf ied the previously identified deficiencies in PSD and nonattainment NSR permitting. 26

Washoe County

The SIP

- approved Washoe County AQR 030.010 (“General Sources”) states that the Control Officer shall not issue an Authority to Construct if the relevant documen ts show, or if the Control Officer determines, “that the source:... (B) [w]ill prevent the attainment or maintenance of State or National Ambient Air Standards.” In 1983, the Washoe County Health District prepared a Pb SIP and cited AQR 030.010 as requiring the Control Officer to deny any permits to build and /or operate a source, regardless of size, if that source will prevent the attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. The Health District concluded that since there is a NAAQS associated with Pb then all suc h Pb

- emitting sources will

22 79 FR 15697 and see also page 13 Technical Support Document, Evaluation of Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS, U.S. EPA, Region 9, September 2013

. 23 79 FR 62846 ( October 21, 2014 )

. 24 79 FR 62849 ( October 21, 2014 )

. 25 77 FR 64039 ( October 18, 2012 )

. 26 79 FR 62350 ( October 17, 2014 )

.20

come under the purview of section 030.010 and will require review and approval prior to construction. EPA approved the 1983 Pb SIP in 1984 at 49 FR 26736 (June 29, 1984).

We note that Washoe County has updated the local rule since Section 030.010 was adopted into the SIP, but the language remains consistent with regard to preventing the attainment or maintenance of State or National Ambient Air Standards.” Additionally, we have clarified that Washoe County interprets the
reference to “National Ambient Air Standards

, ” in Section 030.010 as a reference to the current NAAQS

. 27

We find the District’s interpretation of its own rule to be reasonable, and thus, we can rely on Was hoe County’s existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of any applicable NAAQS.

Conclusion

We propose to find that Clark County’ s portion of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP meet s the requirements

of § 110(a)(2) (C) . Due to the FIP for Nevada’s PSD permitting program, we propose to find that NDEP

and Washoe County’s portions of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP meet the requirements of § 110(a)(2) (C) . N o further action is necessary to address the incomplete portion of Nevada’s infrastructure

SIP.



### Element D

– Interstate transport [ CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)]

Statutory Requirement

CAA § 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires that each SIP contain adequate provisions for the following (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

— I. contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard,

or II. interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, and (ii) insuring compliance with the app licable requirements of § 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).

CAA § 126(a) of the Act requires notification to affected, nearby states of proposed new or modified major sources. CAA § 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). CAA § 115 of the Act pertains to international transport of air pollution.

27 Phone conversation between Jeff Wehling, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region IX, and Daniel Inouye, Chief of the Monitoring and Planning Branch, Washoe County Health District, Air Quality Management Division, dated Sept ember 13,

2013.21

Nevada’s response to this requirement

NDEP

NDEP drew upon EPA’s Design Value Report for 2011 Nitrogen Dioxide to conclude that the South Coast Air Basin is the only maintenance area listed in the U.S. Furthermore, design values exceed the

2010 1

- hour NO 2 NAAQS at monitors in only a few locations (Marico pa County AZ, 2002, Los Angeles County CA, 2002

- 2005, San Bernardino County CA, 202

- 2003; Cook County IL 2007

- 2009 and Union County N J for 2002) . Given local NO 2 emission sources at these locations and the distances to NDEP jurisdiction, “emissions from so urces within the NDEP’s jurisdiction do not interfere with maintenance

of the 2010 1

- hour NO 2 NAAQS (at these locations).”

The NDEP submittal states that new sources and major modification in Nevada are subject to PSD permitting and therefore meet the requirements of CAA § (a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The submittal also noted NDEP’s full delegation of the federal PSD program, as it existed on July 20, 2011 at 40 CFR 52.21. Additionally, the Nevada SIP provision at 40 CFR 52.1485(b) incorporates the federal PSD pro gram into the Nevada SIP.

Nevada’s submittal states that “US EPA finalized approval of most of the Nevada region al haze SIP on March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17334). US EPA approved in part and disapproved in part the remaining portion of the regional haze SIP on August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50936). In the same action, US EPA promulgated a FIP replacing the disapproved provisions of the State plan. The NDEP is completing work on a revised SIP to replace all portions of the FIP.”

NDEP’s submittal states that the provisions of CAA § 115 and 126 (b) and (c) do not apply, because there are no actions or petitions pending against Nevada. NDEP cited the following regulations as addressing the CAA § 126(a) requirements about notification to affected nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources: NAC 445B.325, 445B.3364, 445B.3395, 445B.3425, 445B.344,

445B.3441 and 445B.3457. The submittal also notes the delegation of the federal PSD program and encouraged reviewers to see Elements J and M.

Clark County’s submittal states that PSD and NSR review provisions in AQR 12.2 and 12.3 require an assessment of visibility impairment as pa rt of the environmental review. It also notes the maximum

allowable NO 2 increase is 2.5 μ g/m3 for Class I are as, 25 μg/m3 for Class II areas and 50 μg/m3 for

class III areas.

Washoe County’s submittal includes a discussion similar to NDEP’s about EPA’s memorandum information Region’s that EPA does not intend to make findings with respect to CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

EPA’s Evaluation

1. Prohibiting Significant Contribution to Nona ttainment or Interfering with Maintenance

CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (a.k.a. significant contribution to nonattainment or p rongs 1 and 2)22

First, we clarify that EPA is taking no action at this time on the effects of ozone and SO 2 transport for significant contribution to nonattainment . The discussion that follow s addresses only NO 2 transport. EPA will take a separate action on ozone and SO 2 transport at a later date.

NDEP has the sole authority to regulate facilities that generate energy from steam generators burning
fossil fu e ls. NDEP establishes NO x emissions limits for these facilities through 445B. 22095 ( Emission
limitation for BART ) and 445B.2209 6 ( Control measures constituting BART; limitations on emissions )

. NDEP, Clark County and Washoe County also have a variety of permit authorities mentioned in Element C. Additionally, NDEP, Clark and Washoe County all limit emissions from m obile sources,
which are federally regulated emission sources

, by restri cti ng the idling of diesel trucks and busses to no more than 15 minutes (NAC 445B.570, AQR 45 and 040.200 )

.

A s stated on EPA’s website, “all areas pr esently meet the current (1971) NO 2 NAAQS, with annual NO 2 concentrations measured at area

- wide monitors well below the level of the standard (53 ppb).” 28 So,
Nevada is not significantly contributing to nonattainment or interferi ng with maintenance of the 201 0 1

- hour NO 2 standard.

No area has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS (100 ppb 1

- hour average ) , but
th is s tandard is intended to show local effects from roadway sources of NO 2 , which typically decrease to ambient concentrations within a few hundred meters downwind of roadways. 29

2. Interference with Measures Preventing Significant Deterioration (a.k.a. interference with maintenance or p rong 3 )

EPA’s 2013 I

- SIP guidance clarified that one method to meet the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) “is through an air agency’s confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications are subject to a comprehensive EPA

- approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that a pplies to all regulated NSR pollutants and satisfies the requirements of the EPA’s PSD implementation rules(s), as discussed above for purposes of Element C.” 30 Clark County has a fully approved PSD permitting program and meets these requirements (as discus sed in Element C of this document). As noted in their submittals

, NDEP and Washoe County implement a delegated FIP for PSD permitting and therefore, they do not have SIP

- approved PSD programs.

EPA guidance also notes that other SIP provisions or physical conditions may be adequate to prohibit interference with other agencies prevention of significant deterioration of air quality , without an EPA

approved major source PSD program and/or nonattainment NSR program . For NDEP and Washoe County, however, we did not find the submittals or the other elements of the SIP sufficient ly comprehensive to meet the interference with maintenance requirements in this manner

. Therefore, we
propose to find that the Clark County portion of the SIP meets the PSD requirements of Element D, CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) , but the Washoe County and NDEP portions of the SIP do not meet the PSD requirements of Element D, CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)

.

28 See http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/basic.html (accessed 1/21/2015)

. 29 75 FR 6479 (February 9, 2010)

. 30 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 2013 (2013 I

- SIP guidance) (see page 31).23

3. Interfering with Measures to Protect Interstate Visibility (a.k.a. Prong 4)

EPA ’s 2013 I

- SIP guidance clarifies that a state can rely upon a fully EPA

- approved Regional Haze SIP to satisfy the requirements of this sub

- element

. 31 As the NDEP portion of the ozone submittal acknowledges, EPA has issued a Regional Haze FIP, which is limited in scope to the Reid Gardner Generating Station. It establish ed a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emissions limit for NO x emissions fro m Unit 3 for the facility and set a method to assess compliance for Units 1

- 3 (a 30

- day averaging period for monitoring data). 32 In an earlier rulemaking as well as the final rule establishing the Regional Haze FIP, EPA approved all other aspects of the Nev ada Regional Haze SIP. 33

, 34

Since the issuance of the FIP, the Nevada Power Company (d.b.a. NV Power) prepared an Emissions Reduction and Capacity Replacement Plan in response to Nevada Senate Bill 123, which was signed into law on Jun 11, 2013. One compo nent of the Plan proposed retirement or elimination of Units 1

- 3 at the Reid Gardner Generating Station on December 31, 2014. 35 The Nevada Public Utilities Commission approved the retirement or elimination component as part of a broader agreement on the Emi ssions Reduction and Capacity Replacement Plan. 36

With the retirement or elimination of Units 1

- 3 at the Reid Gardner Generating Station, the EPA

approved Nevada SIP now serves as the sole means of control for regional haze in the State. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that Nevada Infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of the interstate visibility

sub

- element.

4. CAA § 126

As NDEP noted in its submittal, CAA § 126 (b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the interstate transport provisions of CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and EPA does not have any such pending petitions. CAA § 126 (a), which pertains to notification to affected nearby states of major proposed new or modified sources , is applicable for the Nevada Infrastructure SIP

.

As mentioned in previous sections, we approve d PSD revisions to address deficiencies in the Clar k County NSR permitting rules. Regulation AQR 12.2 include s a requirement for the permitting agency to send a copy of the required public notice to EPA and to “[a]ny state, Federal Land Manager, and Indian governing body whose lands may be affected by emis sions from the source or modification.” 37 This requirement for notice to nearby states is consistent with EPA’s requirements for PSD programs in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). NDEP and Washoe County implement a delegated FIP for PSD permitting and therefore, they do not have a SIP

- approved PSD programs. Thus, the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada SIP does not fulfill the requirements of CAA § 126(a)

. For these reasons, we

31 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), Septem ber 2013 (see pages 32

- 35).

32 77 FR 50936 (August 23.2012).

33 77 FR 17334 (March 26, 2012).

34 77 FR 50936 (August 23.2012).

35 Emissions Reduction and Capacity Replacement Plan Summary (see page 3).

36 Nevada Public Utilities Commission Order, Docket Numb er 14

- 05003 and 14

- 06022, signed on October 2, 2014 ( see page 21).

37 CCR Section 12.2.16.2(d)

.24

propose to find that the Clark County portion of the SIP meets the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement . We propose to find that the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the

SIP d o not meet requirement s in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement.

5. International Air Pollution (CAA § 115 )

CAA section 115 authorizes the Administrator to require a state to revise its SIP when certain criteria are met and the Administrator has reason to believe that any air pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to e ndanger public health or welfare in a foreign country. The Administrator may do so by giving formal notification to the Governor of the State in which the emissions originate. Because no such formal notification has been made with respect to emissions orig inating in Nevada, EPA has no reason to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115. EPA thus concludes that the existing SIP is sufficient to satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance wi th the applicable requirements of section 115.

Conclusion Based on Nevada’s control of emissions and the degree to which NO 2 emissions are regulated from permitted and mobile sources, we propose to find Nevada Infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of interstate transport requirements of Element D, CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)

, (i.e. prongs 1 and 2 of Element D) for NO 2 . We take no action on the Nevada SIP with respect to CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for

ozone and SO 2

. W e propose to find that the Clark County portion of the SIP meets the PSD requirements of Element D

, CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) , and we propose to find that the Washoe County and NDEP portion of the SIP do not meet the PSD requirements of Element D, CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)

. We propose to find that all portions of the Nevada SIP meet the visibility requirements of Element D (prong 4). W e propose to find that the Clark County portion of the SIP meets the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and that the Washoe County and NDEP portions of the SIP do not meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) . As clarified within our review of each section above, existing FIPs are already in place addressing incomplete portions of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP, for ozone, NO 2 and SO 2 , therefore disapprova ls would not trigger the need for new FIPs

.

We propose to find that the Clark County portion of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP meets the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of

sections 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement , and that the NDEP and Washoe County portions

of the SIP meets the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of Section 126 relating to interstate poll ution abatement.

We propose to find that NDEP, Clark County and Washoe County have adequate authority to revise the SIP to address international air pollution, should EPA make formal request on that matter, per CAA §

115.25 

### Element E

– Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies [ CAA § 110 (a)(2)(E) ]

Statutory Requirement

CAA § 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to provide : (i) necessary assurances that the State ... [or appropriate local agency or government] will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law

from carr ying out such implementation plan or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements respecting State boards under § 128,

and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.”

CAA § 128 requires SIPs to contain requirements that (1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their inco me from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

Related EPA Regulations

S ubpart L (“Legal Authority”) of 40 CFR Part 51 specifies SIP requirements related to CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). Subpart L includes three rules: 40 CFR 51.230 (“Requirements for all plans”), 51.231 (“Identification of legal authority”), and 51.232 (“A ssignment of legal authority to local agencies”).

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

CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and it specifies that, with respect to resources, a SIP must include a descript ion of the resources available to the State and local agencies at the date of submission of the plan and of any additional resources needed to carry out the plan during the five

- year period following its submission. The description must include projections of the extent to which resources will be acquired at 1

- , 3

- , and

5

- year intervals.

Section 51.240 (“General Plan Requirements”) states that “Each State implementation plan must identify organizations, by official title, that will participate in develop ing, implementing, and enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations. The plan shall include any related agreements or memoranda of understanding among the organizations.”

Nevada’s response to this requirement NDEP cites many rules in the Nevada applicable SIP that cover personnel, funding, and authority to support SIP requirements ; CAA § 128 requirements; and state responsibility for implementing the SIP

, which includes

 D esignation of NDEP as the Stat e Air Pollution Control Agency (NRS 445B.205)

.26

 E ligibility and conduct requirements for employee s and board members ( NRS 232A.020, 281A.400, 281A.410, 281A.420)

.

 Additional information on funding and personnel support for all three agencies overseeing air quality in Nevada (Section 12 of the SIP)

.

 P owers and duties of the Commission, Department , and the Department’s representatives (445B. 210, 445B.220, 445B.225, 445B.. 230

, 445B.235 , 445B.240, 445B.245 )

. NDEP, Clark and Washoe Counties all refer to the authorization provided in NRS 445B.500. For Clark and Washoe Counties, t his rule authorizes both organizations to administer air quality management programs within their county boundaries and describes the powers and duties of the local air pollution

c ontrol board

.

Submittals for each agenc y include specific and, for the most part, consistent info rmation on budgets and staffing. The Nevada legislature approves NDEP funding every two years. NDEP had a 2012 budget of $7 million and 54 full

- time equival ent staff in the air program. The Clark County Department of Air Quality submittals note a budget of 28.7 million and 97 full time equivalent staff (Ozone and Sulfur

Dioxide Infrastructure SIP submittal s dated February and May 2013

, respectively ) and 105 full time equivalent staff (Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure SIP submittal , December 12, 2012 )

. Washoe County’s submittals do not include a specific budget amount, but do state that the Air Quality Management

District consist ed of 19 full time staff, in fis cal year 2011

- 2012, funded by operating permit fees, EPA
grants, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicle funds and by an agreement the City of Reno and Sparks and the County of Washoe, during their 2011

- 2012 fiscal year.

EPA Analysis

Legal Authority and Oversight As part of our action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for Pb (79 FR 15697) , EPA determined that NDEP

SIP provisions provided the necessary assurance that Nevada had adequate legal authority to carry out
its SIP under State law

. Additionally, we determined that the applicable Nevada SIP provides the

necessary responsibility and authority for oversight to ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP as required under CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and 40 CFR 51.232(b)(2). Since the provisi ons have not changed and are not specific to l ead or any other pollutant, w e refer reviewers to the TSD for our action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 38 for our determination that NDEP has the legal authority to meet the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(i)

.

The previous technical support document also discusses the delegation of authority from NDEP to Clark and Washoe Counties. We note that Nevada has updated the regulation that allows local control of air pollution

– NRS 445B.500; 39 however the changes to this rule have not substantially altered the

38 Pb Infrastructure SIP, Technical Support Document, Evaluation of Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS U.S. EPA, Region 9, September 2013.

39 N RS 445B.500 is titled: Establishment and administration of program; contents of program; designation of air pollution control agency of county for purposes of federal act; powers and duties of local air pollution control board; notice of publi c hearings; d elegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative penalties; cities and smaller counties; regulation of certain electric plants prohibited (see 71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006), (see 77 FR 64737, 10/23/12 ).27

delegation of authority. 40 Additionally, t he rules delegated for local implementation ( 445B.210, 445B.240 to 445B.470, inclusive, 445B.560, 445B.570, 445B.580, a nd 445B.640 ) have not changed.

Personnel and Funding The applicable Nevada SIP includes a section titled “Resources” (i.e., Section 12), which was submitted as part of the state’s August 30, 2012 submittal and approved by EPA on October 23, 2012. 41 Section 12 of that submittal identifies the entities throughout the state that are responsible for air pollution control programs and describes the funding mechanisms, funding level, and personnel for NDEP, Clark County DAQ, and Washoe County AQMD as the primary agencies for implementing such air pollution control programs. At the state level, Section 12 describes various funding mechanisms established by the state, including the state’s “Account for the Management of Air Quality...,” and state’s Air Pollu tion Control Account, and those provided by U.S. EPA, including grants pursuant to CAA § 103 and 105. It also describes the roles of NDEP’s two bureaus, the Bureau of Air Quality Planning and the Bureau of Air Pollution Control, and the typical and current funding levels and current personnel level for NDEP.

For Clark County and Washoe County, Section 12 reaffirms the legal authorities of each county, as
discussed below in the subsection entitled “Legal Authority,” and describes the funding mechanisms in use by each county including fees charged for permits and technical services, federal grants under CAA § 103 and 105, state grants from the Pollution Control Account, transportation funds (either through regional transportation commission taxes or state De partment of Motor Vehicle fees), and funds from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (for Clark County) or funds from the three local entities participating in the “Interlocal Agreement Concerning the Washoe County District Health Depa rtment.” Furthermore, Section 12 asserts that NDEP, Clark County DAQ, and Washoe County AQMD have been implementing programs to meet the CAA SIP requirements for 40 years and that they have “adequate funding and personnel... to meet the needs of these progra ms.” Lastly, with respect to projections of resource needs, it asserts that “[o]ver the next five years, current funding and personnel levels are expected to remain stable via the funding mechanisms described.”

We conclude that such description provides the necessary assurances of adequate funding and personnel with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS for all three jurisdictions in Nevada (NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County) . Therefore, we p ropos e to find that the Nevada

Infrastructure Submittal s meets the resources

- related requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40

CFR 51.280.

Conflict of Interest As part of our action s on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP s for 2008 Pb and 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and

2006 PM 2.5 , EPA determined that state and local rules met the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the NAAQS addressed by those actions. 42

, 43 We are again proposing that the state and local rules on conflict of interest meet our requirements. For a more complete discussion of this topic, we refer

40 Revisions to 445B.500 include d (1) changing the population size for counties eligible to use Section 445B.508 authority ( Reduction or mitigation of increases in emissions; air pol lution credits) from 400,000 to 700,000 (see the changes to

445B.500 at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/76th2011/Stats201110.html#Stats201110page1262 ) and (2) changes in accounting and spending of penalt ies (from violatio ns) deposited in the county school district fund (see the changes to

445B.500 at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/74th/Stats200703.html#Stats200703page31 9 )

. 41 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012)

42 79 FR 15697 (March 21, 2014)

. 43 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012)

.28

reviewers to the evaluation in the special Section 128 Technical Support Document for EPA’s Nevada’s
1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 Infrastructure SIP submittal

. 44 The state and local rules relied upon for our earlier decision have not changed. Furthermore, the rules are not limited in their applicability to specific NAAQS.

In making our final decision on Nevada’s 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 Infrastruct ure SIP

submittal , we responded to a comment from Washoe County clarifying who serves as the district’s

Control Officer 45 . The technical support document for that decision identified the Washoe County District Health Officer of the Washoe County Health District as the Control Officer, rather than the Air Quality Management District Director. We direct readers to the additional discussion contained in our response to comments, as it further discusses the conflict of interest requirements for both the Bran ch Chief and Division Chief for the Air Quality Management District (77 FR 64741).

Conclusion None of the state or local laws cited above is pollutant specific, and thus, to the extent we find that they meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) and the applicable EPA regulations, they do so for

the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO 2 , and 2010 NO 2 NAAQS. Thus, based on our review of the applicable Nevada
SIP and Nevada’s various Infrastructure Submittal s for these NAAQS , EPA proposes to find that

Nevada meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) for the entire state.



### Element F

– Stationary source monitoring and reporting [ CAA § 110(a)(2)(F) ]

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

— (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports
on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions

- related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this CAA, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.”

Regulatory Requirement The SIP must provide citations to regulations with source monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements applicable to ozone and related precursors. See 40 CFR part 51, subpart K (“Source Surveillance”).

Referencing Prior Approvals In evaluating Nevada’s submission for this element, we refer readers to the discussion of CAA § 110(a)(2)(F) in EPA’s T echnical S upport D ocument for Nevada’s I nfrastructure SIP submittal for Pb. 46

44 EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128, Conflict of Interest Requirements , Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9 Ju ly 2012.

45 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012).

46 Pb Infrastructure SIP, Technical Support Document, Evaluation of Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS, U.S. EPA, Region 9, September 2013

.29

This document in turn references the technical support document for Nevada’s previous infrastructure
SIP submittal s

. 47

These referenced sections contain a summary of each state and local regulation that support s the requirements of this element for NDEP

, Clark County

, and Washoe County

. One change in Nevada’s

respons e to this element is that NDEP and Washoe County now cite each of the regulations previously identified only in the section titled “EPA’s evaluation” within the discussion of CAA § 110(a)(2)(F).

Another differen ce is that the older technical support document (for 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 and 200 6

PM 2.5 NAAQS) pro posed ap proval o n the condition that EPA receive d four fully adopted Washoe County rules : 030.218, 030.230, 030.235 and 030.970 . These rules were subsequently incorporated in the SIP in EPA’s final rulemaking

. 48

In reviewing the Clark County Portion of Nevada’s I nfrastructure SIP for 2008 Pb and 1997 Ozone,

1997 PM 2.5 and 2006 PM 2.5 , EPA determined it met the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(F) (i) and (ii) but not (iii). 49

, 50 To meet this requirement, state and local air agencies must correlate facility emissions data with emissions limits or standards, and make the report publicly available. As our past actions explained, Clark County had rescinded a SIP approved rule, AQR 24.5, which had fulfilled this requir ement, without replacing the rule.

New Information about Clark County’s Portion of the Nevada SIP As EPA clarified in our proposed rulemaking to adopt proposed changes to the Clark County pe rmitting

rules into the SIP:
EPA notes that in 2012 it partially disapproved Nevada's infrastructure SIP (I

- SIP) submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for several elements ... This included a partial disapproval for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), which requires the correlation of emissions reports and data collected under section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) with any applicable emission limits or standards, and that such reports be made available for public inspection...If finalized, today's a ction on Clark County rule Section 12.0 would cure the partial disapproval from

EPA's 2012 and 2014 I

- SIP actions and turn off the two

- year FIP clock for CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), which expires on November 23, 2014. 51

The final rule, which addressed t he § 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) deficiency, was approved on October 17, 2014

. 52

Conclusion Based upon our prior analys e s , discussed above, and changes to the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP, w e propose to find that the Nevada SIP adequately addresses CAA § 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii), and (iii)

.



### Element G

– Emergency episodes
, [ CAA § 110(a)(2)(G) ]

Statutory Requirement

47 Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada Pr ovisions 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 2012

. 48 77 FR 64742 ( October 23, 2012 ).

49 79 FR 15697 (March 21, 2014)

. 50 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012)

. 51 79 FR 42754 ( July 23, 2014 ).

52 79 FR 62350 ( October 17, 2014 ).30

CAA § 110(a)( 2)(G) requires SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in section 303 and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.” The EPA promulgated rules for emergency episodes in 1971 and revised those rules in 1986 to clarify state requireme nts related to emergency episodes found in CAA § 110(a)(2)(G). These rules are found at 40 CFR 51.150 through 153, inclusive.

Prior EPA Actions and Current Analysis Nevada has three Air Quality Control Regions: Las Vegas Intrastate, Northwest Nevada Intrastate, and Nevada Intrastate. The Las Vegas Intrastate and Nevada Intrastate are Priority IA for SO 2 [40 CFR 52.1471]. Las Vegas Intrastate is also classified Priority I for ozone. All other regions are Priority III for

NO 2 , SO 2 , and ozone and have no requirement for contingency plans for emergency episodes, per 40

CFR 51. 152(c)

.

As part of our actions on previous Infrastructure SIP submissions satisfying provisions for implementing the NAAQS for 2008 Pb and 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 and 2008 PM 2.5 , 53

, 54 EPA determined that the

Nevada SIP met the requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)( G ) , including emergency powers comparable to CAA § 303 and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority for the relevant NAAQS

. 55 For this element, the requirements for contingency plans relative to the 1997 ozone standard and the 2008 ozone standard are found at 40 CFR 51.150 through 153, inclusive. The requirements were not altered by the change from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 200 8 ozone NAAQS. Therefore we will not be doing an additional analysis for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The requirements of a contingency plan, required by 40 CFR 51.152, are different for the 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS t han for recently analyzed 2008 Pb, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, and 1997 ozone NAAQS and will be discussed in turn below

.

Nevada’s Response to this Requirement

NDEP ’s 2008 Ozone and 2010 NO 2 s ubmittal s state that em ergency powers are provided in Nevada’s

current SIP in NRS 445B.560 (Plan or procedure for emergency) , NAC 445. 229 (Hazardous emissions: Order for reduction or discontinuance) , and NAC 445B.230 (Plan for reduction of emission)

.

NDEP’s SO 2 Infrastructure SIP submittal contains a discussion of emergency powers and explain s the extent of NDEP authority relative to Air Quality Control Regions listed in 40 CFR 52.1471. It clarifies that NDEP has jurisdiction of four of the five counties in the “Northwest Nevada Intrastate Region,” classified as Priority III for SO 2 emergency episode planning, and jurisdiction over all of the Nevada Intrastate Region, classified as a Priority IA area. With respect to the Nevada Intrastate Region, the submittal states that “the single point source that caused the exceedances was the Kennecott co pper smelter in McGill, Nevada.” Additionally, the submittal explains that the Kennecott facility ceased operation in 1983, was demolished in 1993, and the area redesignated as attainment for the 1971 primary NAAQS for SO2 on April 12, 2002. 56 The SO 2 submi ttal continues on to make two requests of the EPA:

1. Because the SO 2 source responsible for the priority IA classification no longer exists and b ecause the single nonattainment area in the Nevada Intrastate R egion was redesignated attainment, the

53 79 FR 15697 (3/21/2014)

. 54 77 FR64737 (October 23, 2012).

55 For a complete discussion of this topic, we refer reviewers to the evaluation in the Technical Support Document for Nevada’s 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 and 2006 PM 2.5 , which is in the docket for today’s action

. 56 67 FR 17939 (April 12, 2002).31

NDEP has r equest ed that the EPA change the classification of the Nevada Intrastate A ir Q uality

C ontrol R egion to priority III. If EPA decides not to take that action, the NDEP requests pursuant to 40 CFR 51.152(d) that EPA exempt the Nevada Intrastate R egion from th e requirement to develop an emergency episode plan.

2. The NDEP further request that the EPA remove paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1475 of 40 CFR 52, “Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur oxides.” Section 1475 was added to the CFR “. . . to promulgate substitute regulations for the control of SO 2 at the Kennecott Copper Corporation Smelter, McGill, Nevada . . .” because Nevada’s SIP to control emissions of sulfur

oxides from the Ken necott smelter was disapproved (40 CFR 5508)

. NDEP asserts that s ection 1475 no longer applies because the Kennecott smelter is nonexistent and the area was redesignated attainment.

Clark County’s portion of the NO 2 submittal discussed it s authority to promulgate rules, pursuant to

NRS 445B. 5 00(1)(d) for emergency planning, pursuant to NRS 445B.560. AQR 70 addressed the county’s emergency procedures. Clark County also mentioned AQR Section 6, which allows the county to apply to a court to enforce compliance with or restrain violations of any provisions of the AQRs.

Washoe Co unty’s portion of the NO 2 submittal discussed the county’s e mergency powers authorized under Regulation 050.001 (Emergency Episode Plan , s ee 72 FR 33397). The county also cited general emergency powers provided in Nevada’s SIP through NRS 445B.560.

EPA’s Evaluation

T he test for re

- classifying an air quality control region is prescribed in 40 CFR 51.15 3, which directs

states to consider the three most recent years of air quality data . Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.150, SO 2 concentrations determine the Priority classification as follows:

 Priority I region means any area with an ambient air concentration greater than 100 μg/m3 (0.04 ppm) annual arithmetic mean; 455 μg/m3 (0.17 ppm) 24

- hour maximum;

 Priority II means any are a that is not a Priority I region and has ambient air concentrations

between 60

- 100 μg/m3 (0.02

- 0.04 ppm) annual arithmetic mean; 260

- 445 μg/m3 (0.10

- 0.17 ppm) 24

- hour maximum; any concentration above 1,300 μg/m3 (0.50 ppm) three

- hour average is Priority I I; and

 areas that are below these concentrations are classified as Priority III.

The regulatory requirements for Priority I areas include procedures for communicating status and emission control actions to the public officials, major emission sources, public health, safety, and emergency agencies and news media [40 CFR 51.152(b)(3)] and provide for taking action necessary to prevent ambient pollutant concentrations from reaching the significant harm levels of 40 CFR 51.151 [40 CFR 51.151(a)]. Priority I and Priority II areas are both required to specify two or more stages of episode criteria, provide for public announcements and specify adequate emissions control actions at each emergency stage [40 CFR 51.152(a)]. Priority I and II areas are also require d to promptly acquire forecasts of atmospheric stagnation conditions issued by the National Weather Service [40 CFR 51.152(b)(1)] and inspect sources [40 CFR 51.152(b)(2)]. Priority III areas are not required to develop a contingency (or emergency episode) plan [40 CFR 51.152(c)].32

Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region

In reviewing the requirements of this element, we have noted that the Nevada Intrastate Region has not been defined in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 8 1, even though the priority classifica tions for the R egion are provided by 40 CFR 52.1471 for many NAAQS. EPA identified the counties of the Nevada Intrastate Region in a 1972 EPA report titled: Federal Air Quality Control Regions

. 57 To rectify the apparent federal register omission, we are proposing to define the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 81, consistent with Federal Air Quality Control Regions , as comprised of the following counties: Elk o, Humboldt, Pershing, Lander, Eureka, White Pine, Lincoln, Nye, Esmeralda, Mineral, and Churchill. On its own, this proposed change does not alter the priority classification of the Region for emergency episode purposes.

As stated in 40 CFR 51.150 (c) “ Priority IA Region means any area which is Priority I primarily because of emissions from a single point source.” We could not locate records identifying the specific facility

that was the basis of the Priority IA classification for the Nevada Intrastate a rea

. The EPA’s rulemaking

that redesignate d the Steptoe Valley

- Central area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1971 primary

SO 2 NAAQS , however, identifies a smelter owned and operated by the Kennecott Copper Company as
“the source whose emissions cau sed the SO 2 violations monitored in the area” and continues on to state that the facility ceased all operations on June 16, 1983, allowed its permit to expire, dismantled the building that held smelter operations, and demolished the 750 foot stack. 58 Furth ermore, in a disapproval of Nevada’s SO 2 SIP in 1975, the EPA stated of the Kennecott facility, “this smelter is the only major source of sulfur oxides in the Region.” 59 Therefore, the Kennecott facility, now demolished,

appear s to have been the basis of the Priority IA classification. With the closing of the Kennecott facility

that served as the basis for the Region’s priority IA classification , we are proposing to reclassify the area as priority III. Since Priority III areas ar e not required to prepare emergency episode plans, we will not consider NDEP’s request to waive emergency episode requirements.

In response to NDEP’s request to rescind 40 CFR 52.1475 (a) and (b), which primarily explains that Nevada’s regulation of exi sting copper smelters has not been incorporated into the SIP, we acknowledge that these provisions serve no purpose in the SIP except to provide a measure of historic information. Therefore we propose to remove these provisions from our regulations. The EP A previously removed 40 CFR 1475 (c), (d) and (e) in response to a rescission request from NDEP. 60 These regulations comprised the FIP to control emissions from the Kennecott Copper Company smelter.

Las Vegas Intrastate Air Quality Control Region

For e mergency episode planning, the Las Vegas Intrastate Region (i.e. Clark County per 40 CFR 81.80) is classified Priority I for ozone, Priority III for NO 2 , and Priority IA for SO 2 . Based on the three most recent years of data available, the Las Vegas Intrast ate Region is eligible to be reclassified to Priority III

57 Federal Air Qu ality Control Regions, U.S. EPA, January 1972 < http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P10053PA.PDF?Dockey=P10053PA.PDF > (last visited April 1, 2015).

58 67 FR 17939, 17940 (Ap ril 12, 2002).

59 40 FR 5508 (February 6, 1975).

60 72 FR 32531 (June 13, 2007).33

for SO 2 , but is not eligible for ozone reclassification. For the Las Vegas Intrastate Area from 2011 to 2013, the highest annual maximum SO 2 concentration was 0.0015 ppm and the highest 24

- hour

maxi mum was 0.0091 ppm, well below the respective Priority II concentrations of 0.02 and 0.1 ppm. 61

The EPA’s Air Quality System no longer calculates 3

- hour concentrations, but no 1

- hour maximum

measurements exceeded the EPA’s 3

- hour priority II 3

- hour standard , 0.50 ppm , so it is not physically possible that any 3

- hour concentration could be above 0.50 ppm

. Additionally, no measurements for the current (incomplete) year have exceeded the Priority II concentrations classification. Clark County

ozone concentratio n, on the other hand, have exceeded the Priority I concentration of 40 CFR 51.150(b)(5) as recently as 2012 (0.105 ppm compared to 0.10 ppm Priority I concentration).

Northwest Nevada Intrastate Region

The Northwest Nevada Intrastate Region is Priorit y III for SO 2 , NO 2 , and ozone. Therefore no emergency episode plan is required for these NAAQS in this AQCR.

Conclusion EPA proposes to reclassify the Las Vegas Intrastate R egion from Priority IA to Priority II I for SO 2 , based on the three most recent years of monitoring data. Additionally, EPA proposes to reclassify the

Nevada Intrastate Region from Priority IA to Priority III for SO 2 . If finalized as proposed, no contingency plans would be required for NO 2 or SO 2 . As d iscussed above, Nevada already has adequate contingency plans for ozone. For these reasons EPA is proposing to find that the Nevada’s Infrastructure

SIP meets the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)( G ) . We are also proposing to define the Nevada

Intrasta te Air Quality Control Region and remove obsolete language at 40 CFR 52.1475 for a facility that no longer exists

.



### Element H

– SIP revisions [CAA § 110(a)(2)(H)]

Statutory Requirement

CAA § 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to “provide for revision of such plan

— (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air

qu ality standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements
established under this Act.”

Nevada’s response to this requirement NDEP’s infrastructure SIP submittals for 2008 ozone, 2010 NO 2 and 2010 SO 2 infrastructure submittals

states:

61 EPA Air Quality System (AQS) , Maximum Observed Concentrations submitted by Nevada Agencies for 2011, 2012, 2013 ( data available as of 9/24/2014 ). This document is available in the docket for today’s action. ( AQS is the EPA's repository of ambient air quality data collected by State, Local and Tribal agencies. )34

NRS 445B.205, “Department designated as State Air Pollution Control Agency,” designates the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as the air pollution control agency for the State of Nevada for the purposes o f the CAA insofar as it pertains to state programs. Within the Department, pursuant to NAC 445B.053 (“Director” defined), the Director has assigned the NDEP Administrator responsibility to manage air quality planning and air pollution control programs for the State and to act on his behalf for the purposes of adoption, revision and submittal of state plans (see Appendix E). The NDEP commits to submit appropriate SIP revisions in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attainin g the NAAQS, or in response to a US EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

Other NRS that may provide support for this element include:

• NRS 445B.135 “Federal Act” defined. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006)

• NRS 445B.205 Department designated as State Air Pollution Control Agency. (see 72 FR 11, 1/3/2007)

• NRS 445B.210 Powers of Commission. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006)

• NRS 445B.220 Additional powers of Commission. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006)

• NRS 445B.500 Establishment and administration of pro gram; contents of program; designation of air pollution control agency of county for purposes of federal act; powers and duties of local air pollution control board; notice of public hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy admini strative penalties; cities and smaller counties; regulation of certain electric plants prohibited. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006)

Clark County’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2012 NO 2 and 2012 SO 2 infrastructure submittals states:

Clark County must provide a method for revision of SIPs when air quality standards are revised, new attainment methods become available, or EPA informs states that current SIPs are inadequate for attaining standards or complying with additional CAA requirements.

AQR 2

- Procedures f

or Adoption and Revision of Regulations and for Inclusion of those Regulations in the State Implementation Plan of the Clark County AQR set forth the general procedural requirements for adoption of regulations and other materials to be incorporated in

the SIP. These procedures apply to submission of:

(a) Any revision to the SIP described by 40 C.F.R. § 51.104(a); (b) Any individual compliance schedule under 40 C.F.R. § 51.260; (c) Any other SIP revision submitted to NDEP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.104(d).

Washoe Cou nty’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2012 NO 2 and 2012 SO 2 infrastructure submittals states:

WCDBOH [Washoe County Air District Board of Health] Regulation Section 020.005 (See 38 FR 12702) authorizes the Control Officer to enforce Section 020.0051 (Board of Health

- Powers and Duties) which provides the WCDBOH the authority to revise a SIP “to ac hieve and maintain levels of air quality to protect human health”.

EPA Evaluation35

EPA’s Infrastructure SIP Guidance provides best practices for responding to various elements of CAA 110(a). For Element H ( § 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions), the best practice includes

Submit[ing] for inclusion into the SIP (if not already part of the SIP), the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide the air agency or official with the authority to [revise the SIP].

The language provided by NDEP is consistent with l etter contained in the appendices of the NDEP portion of the SIP for all three NAAQS. It states that NRS 445B.205 designates the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as the air pollution control agency for the state. Furthermore, the “responsib ility to manage the air quality planning and air pollution control” have been further delegated within that Department to NDEP, as well as the authority to adopt and revise the Nevada SIP.

In responding to this element, Clark County’s AQR 2.3 provides p rocedures for submission of SIP elements to NDEP in the event of revisions to 40 CFR 51.104(a) or (d) and 51.260. Washoe County cites regulation, 020.0051A. (Board of Health

– Powers and Duties), that provides broad authority for

the Board “to achieve and maintain levels of air quality to protect human health.” This regulation is also supported by regulation 020.0051(G) that provides the Board with the power and responsibility “to cooperate and contract with other governmental agencies including . . . the f ederal government.” EPA’s guidance on this element clarifies that some states and local agencies may have broad authority that implicitly provides authority for SIP revision. 62

We acknowledge the commitment of NDEP to “submit appropriate SIP revisions in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to a US EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.”

Conclusion NDEP and Clark County have explicit authority to revise SIP as specified in CAA 110(a)(2)(H). Washoe County has broad authority to “achieve and maintain air quality to protect public health” and cooperate with EPA, which appears consistent with the implicit authority to revise the SIP (consistent with CAA 110(a)(2)(H)) discussed in EPA’s guidance. Therefore, we propose to find that the Nevada’s

Infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of § 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO 2 , and 2010

SO 2 NAAQS.



### Element I

– Plan revisions for nonattainment areas [CAA § 110(a)(2)(I)]

CAA § 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 (relat ing to nonattainment areas).” EPA has concluded, however, that this requirement is not governed by the three

- year submission deadline identified in CAA § 110(a)(1). Instead, SIP revisions for nonattainment areas are due and evaluated under the requirements for nonattainment areas described in part D. Therefore, this element is therefore not applicable to this action. We also note that no SIP revisions are currently required for nonattainment

62 See footnote 62, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 13.36

areas within Nevada. All areas within the state are classified att ainment/nonclassifiable or attainment for

ozone and annual NO 2 standards. EPA has yet to make attainment designations for the 1

- hour NO 2 or the SO 2 2010 standards.



### Element J

– Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection [CAA § 110(a)(2)(J)]

Consultation and Public Notification As part of our actions on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for Pb (79 FR 15697), EPA determined Nevada SIP and Infrastructure Submittal met the requirements for consultation with government officials [CAA § 121] and public notification of exceedances [CAA § 127]. 63 We are again proposing that the Nevada
SIP and Infrastructure SIP submittals for ozon e, NO 2 and SO 2 meets these two requirements. For a thorough analysis, we refer reviewers to the evaluation in the Technical Support Document for Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for Pb

.

PSD and Visibility Protection
CAA § 110(a)( 2)(J) requires SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of part C, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection. For a discussion of the CAA title I, part C requirements, see our evaluation for § 110(a)(2)(C) above.

Nevada’s Response to this Requirement Nevada’s Infrastructure Submittal states that NDEP has full delegation of the federal PSD program, including coverage for greenhouse gases. The submittal also mentions EPA approval of Nevada’s Regional Haze SI P, with the exception of requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology at the Reid Gardner Generating Station. 64 And, EPA’s promulgation of a FIP for disapproved parts of the

SIP. 65 The Clark County portion of the submittal lists Clark County AQR 25, r egarding excess emissions during malfunction, and several sub

- sections of Clark County AQR 12, regarding preconstruction permit requirements, as containing the relevant provisions for PSD and visibility protection. The Washoe County portion of the submitta l states that it has full delegation of the federal PSD program, and that the Nevada AQR Article 13 (“General Provisions for the Review of New Sources”) requires an environmental evaluation before a registration certificate is issued.

EPA Analysis
The ND EP and Washoe County submittals acknowledge promulgation of a FIP for PSD permitting for their jurisdictions, and that implementation of the program has been delegated to them (NDEP and Washoe County). This fact results in the proposed disapproval for Elem ent C in this document, as a FIP cannot serve to satisfy a state’s obligation to submit a SIP. EPA’s guidance states, “the approvability of an air agency’s PSD program is essential to the approvability of an infrastructure SIP submission with respect to CA A § 110(a)(2)(J).” In this case, because NDEP and Washoe County did not meet the PSD requirements, they do not meet the requirements of the PSD portion of Element J. As explained in

63 79 FR 15697 (3/21/2014).

64 77 FR 17334 (June 22, 2011) and 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012)

65 77 FR 50 936 (August 23, 2012 ).37

Element C, Clark County has made several recent revisions to its permittin g program. The permitting program now fully complies with the PSD permitting requirement of this element. 66

EPA’s 2013 I

- SIP Guidance provides our interpretation of the visibility protection requirements of
Element J. 67 Even though we recognize that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under Part C of the Act, the visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change with the establishment of a new primary NAAQS. Therefore,

EPA concludes there are no new applicable visibility protection obligations under § 110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO 2 or 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. 68

Conclusion We propose that Nevada has met the consultation, public notification, and visibility requirements of § 110(a)(2)(J) for the entire state for each of the relevant NAAQS in this TSD. We also propose that the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada SIP do not meet the PSD

- related requirements of this element, because their programs rely on a FIP for PSD permitting. Because NDEP and Washoe County already implement a delegated FIP, this disapproval does not trigger any new FIP deadlines. We
propose to find that the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP meets the the same PSD

- related requirements because of the recent changes in Clark County’s permit program incorporated into the SIP
and discussed in element C of this document.



### Element K

– Air quality mode ling and submission of modeling data [ CAA § 110(a)(2)(K)]

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to:

provide for

— (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air qualit y of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to

the Administrator.

To meet Element K, EPA recommends that states submit, for inclusion in the SIP (if not already part of the SIP), the statutory or regulatory provisions that provide state and local air agencies with the authority to perform the following actions along with a narrative explanatio n of how the provisions meet the requirements of this elemen t : (1) conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, and (2) provide such modeling data to the EPA Administrator upon request. 69

66 79 FR 62350 ( October 17, 2014 )

67 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 2013

. 68 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plans (SIP ) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), U.S. EPA, September 2013 (see page 54 and 55).

69 See Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 2013 at p. 55.38

Additionally, EPA requires air quality impacts analyses for purposes of the regulation of new sources and modifications and has prescribed guidelines on air quality models, see 40 CFR 51.160(f), 51.166(l),
and Appendix W (“Guideline on Air Quality Models”). 70 Specifically, EPA’s PSD regulations in 40 CFR 51.166 require that SIPs specify that all applications of air quality modeling for PSD purposes must be “based on the applicable models, data bases, and other re quirements specified in appendix W of (part 51)” [40 CFR 51.166(l)]. Likewise, EPA’s general NSR regulations in section 51.160 require that SIPs contain procedures to “discuss the air quality data and the dispersion or other air quality modeling used

to me et the requirements of (40 CFR part 51, subpart I)” and require that all such applications of air quality modeling be “based on the applicable models, data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of (part 51)” [40 CFR 51.160(f)]. Both of thes e provisions state that where an air quality model specified in Appendix W is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model substituted with EPA’s written approval, following notice and opportunity for public comment [40 CFR 51.160(f)(2) and 51 .166(l)(2)]. EPA’s PSD regulations also provide that SIPs must require the permitting authority to make available in at least one location in the region where a proposed source would be constructed a copy of all materials that the permit applicant submitte d, and to notify EPA (among others) of the public comment period on any proposed PSD permit [40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(ii), (iv)].

EPA’s Evaluation

As part of our action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for Pb, EPA determined that state and local rules
met the r equirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(K) for the Pb NAAQS. 71 We are again proposing that the state and local rules on air quality modeling and submission of modeling data meet section 110(a)(2)(K) requirements. For a more complete discussion of this topic, we refe r reviewers to the evaluation in the Technical Support Document for Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for Pb , which is included in the docket for this rulemaking. While EPA has approved changes to Clark County’s SIP approved stationary source permitting program, and EPA has proposed to approve a revision to the NDEP SIP approved program, the rules relied upon for our earlier decision have not changed and remain in the SIP. Furthermore, the rules are not limited in their applicability to specific NAAQS.

Conclusion

Based on our previous review of the Nevada Pb Infrastructure Submittal, including the SIP

- approved regulations referenced therein, and several general statutory provisions in the applicable Nevada SIP, as

well as the infrastructure SIP submitta ls for 2008 ozone, 2010 SO 2 , and 2010 NO 2 , we propose to
conclude that the Nevada SIP provides NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County air agencies with the authority to (1) conduct air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emi ssions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and (2) provide such modeling data to

the EPA Administrator upon reques t. Accordingly, we propose to find that the Nevada’s infrastructure

70 EPA also requires that each SIP identify and describe the air quality model(s) used to demonstrate the adequacy of a control strategy to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS ( see 40 CFR 51.112 and 51.115(b)) and has issued guidance for such purposes. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze,” EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002 (April 2007). These provisions address requirements under part D, title I of the Act and do not apply to this evaluation of an infrastructure SIP under CAA section 110(a).

71 79 FR 15697

.39

submittals meet s the requirements of section 110(a )(2)(K) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO 2 , and 2010 NO 2 NAAQS state wide

.



### Element L

-- CAA § 110(a)(2)(L)

– Permitting fees

Statutory Requirement § 110(a)(2)(L) requires that each SIP:

require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the Act, a fee sufficient to cover

--

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for suc h a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action ),

until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator’s approval of a fee program under title V of the Act.

Nevada’s response to this requirement The NDEP portion of Nevada’s Infrastructure Submittals quotes EPA ’s Technical Support Document for Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , and 2006 PM 2.5 ,

The Washoe submittals all state, “permitting fees are authorized under WCDBOH Regulation Sections 030.210 (See 46 FR 21758) and 030.310 (See 46 F R 43141).”

All three Clark County submittals say:

Permit and technical service fees are authorized under AQR 18

- Permit and Technical Service Fees. AQR 18 includes fees for sources subject to the Title V (Part 70) permit requirements.

Clark County will continue to implement and update major stationary source permit fee regulations to comply with the requirements of CAA § 501

- 507.

EPA’s Evaluation For NDEP, NAC 445B.327 contains a schedule of fees for various activities including fees for operating permits and permits to construct for both non

- PSD sources [e.g., NAC 445B.327(1)] and PSD sources [e.g., NAC 445B.327(2)]. In addition, Section 12 “Resources”, which was approved into t he Nevada SIP on October 23, 2012 72 , describes a variety of ways that the PSD program is funded. Section 12 points to NRS section 445B.300(2)(a), which requires the State Environmental Commission to provide for the issuance, renewal, modification, revocatio n, and suspension of operating permits, and to charge appropriate fees sufficient to pay the expenses of the permitting program. Section 12 also points to state and general funds as a source of funding for its PSD program. Finally, Section 12 notes that th e Nevada Legislature approves funding for the air program as a whole every two years. Between 2008

72 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012 ).40

and 2012, allocated funding was between $6 and $7 million a year, which Nevada has found sufficient for operating its air program, including its PSD program. 73

Nevada state law s establishing local air pollution control agencies also provide d authority for Clark and Washoe Counties to create environmental regulations, per NRS 445B.500(1)(d), including regulations

to charge appropriate permit fees. T hese counti es have implemented this authority by adopting local regulations, which have been incorporated into the Nevada SIP, including the following: 74

 Clark County AQR 12.1 and 12.4, relating to permits to construct: requires that minor source applications (per AQ R 12.1.3.3) and major source applications (per AQR 12.4.3.1(e)(17) include applicable fees established or assessed pursuant to AQR 18.95

 Clark County AQR 18 (“Permit and Technical Service Fees”), relating to permits to construct and operation permits.

 Wash oe County AQR 030.210, relating to operating permits: “The Permit to Operate will be issued when the Control Officer determines... (d) the proper fees, as established by the District Board of Health, have been paid”

 Washoe County AQR 030.305, relating to per mits to construct: “Plan review fees shall be charged for review of Authority to construct applications. Fees for new, existing or modified sources shall be set by the District Board of Health....” 75

 Washoe County AQR 030.310, relating to operating permits: “ ...Permit to Operate fees are as set by the District Board of Health. The District Board of Health shall increase the permit fee rate each year by an amount equal to or greater than the Federal Consumer Price Index....” 76

Conclusion As stated above, the NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County portions of the SIP contain regulations providing for collection of the necessary permitting fees. Therefore, we propose to find that the Nevada Infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA § 1 10(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO 2 and
2010 SO 2 NAAQS.



### Element M

– Consultation/Participation be Affected Local Entities [CAA § 110(a)(2)(M)]

Statutory Requirement

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to “ provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the plan.”

73 Conversation among Robert Bamford, NDEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control, Jasmine Mehta, NDEP Bureau of Air Quality Planning, Noah Smith, EPA Region 9 Office of Regional Counsel and Tom Kelly, EPA Air Planning Office, March 18, 2015.

74 Tables 3, 4, 6 and 7 cite the federal register incorporating these rules, or incorporating the most recent revision of these rules into the Nevada SIP, except Clark County AQR 18 ( 47 FR 26386 (AQR 18.1 to 18.5.2) and 46 FR 43141 (18.6 to 18.12) ) and Washoe County 030. 210 ( 46 FR 21758 ).

75 Washoe County AQR 030.305 was incorporated into the SIP at 46 FR 21758, April 14, 1981. However, the local version of this regulation was revised on October 20, 1993 and its text was wholly revised.

76 46 FR 21758

.41

EPA interprets this requirement as meaning more than just allowing for public input. The SIP must identify policies or procedures requiring consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the relevant implementation plan. The SIP must also identify the organizations responsible for implementing and enforcing air quality regulations, and any related agreements or memoranda of

underst anding among these organizations. See 40 CFR 51.240 (“General plan requirements”).

EPA’s Evaluation

As part of our actions on Nevada’s Lead (Pb) Infrastructure SIP (79 FR 15697), EPA determined that Section 11 of the SIP met the requirements of CAA § 110 (a)(2)(M) for the Pb NAAQS. We are again proposing that Section 11 meets our requirements under section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, and 2010 NO 2 NAAQS. For a thorough discussion of this topic, we refer
reviewers to the evaluation in the Technical Support Document for Nevada Infrastructure SIP for Pb.