1

Technical Support Document 

Evaluation of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 

2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

Evaluation of Nevada Infrastructure SIPs for

Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)

U.S. EPA, Region 9

May 2015
i

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 visibility 

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)].................. 40
1

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 (NO2) and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) 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 Requirements 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 letter, dated April 26, 2013, 

containing the Approved Minutes of the February 28, 2013 public hearing and the Certificate of 

Adoption. 

2010 1-hour NO2, 

 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. 

2010 1-hour SO2

 The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of the Nevada State Implementation 

Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary NAAQS, and appendices, June 3, 2013.

 State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements 

of the Clean Air Act § 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 NO2, and 2010 SO2 Infrastructure submittals. Our evaluation is summarized in Table 1: Evaluation 

Summary. As discussed further below, the proposed partial disapprovals will not trigger a deadline for 

EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) because each deficiency is already adequately 

addressed by a pre-existing FIP. 

Table 1: Evaluation Summary

Element Identification 

Meets Requirement?

(clarification or cause of 

disapproval) 

Element

SubElement

Description 

NDEP 

Clark 

County

Washoe 

County

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 SO2)

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 Yes
3

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 contents of the required plan, which generally relate to the information and 

authorities, compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the 
4

"infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program. A SIP submittal 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 NO2 on February 9, 2010,

and 1-hour SO2 on June 22, 2010.

1 These actions correspondingly triggered requirements for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP addressing 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 Summary section of this document

to the requirements or elements of CAA § 110(a)(2) for each NAAQS.2In the following pages, we 

describe the requirements, summarize the State’s submittal, and present our conclusions for the 

infrastructure SIP elements. 

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, marketable permits, and 

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

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

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

Nevada’s submittals note the primary source sectors for each NAAQS. For ozone, which is not emitted 

directly but created by chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), the submittal notes the primary sources of NOx and VOCs. The primary source 

sectors are mobile sources and fuel combustion, for NOx, mobile sources, solvent and industrial 

processes for VOCs, and power plants and other industrial facilities for SO2. NDEP’s submittal for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS also notes smaller sources of emissions such as extracting metal from ore as well as 

burning of high sulfur fuels by locomotives, large ships and nonroad equipment. The emission sources 

in NDEP’s portion of the Infrastructure SIP Submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS also cite the same NOx

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 Revised 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 (June 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 part 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

NO2

SO2

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.22093 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 Emissions 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 SIP
6

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

Regulation 

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

OzoneNO2SO2

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 Limits/Control Measures

Most Recent 

SIP Approval

OzoneNO2SO2

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

030.025 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 X
7

030.110 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 nonattainment 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

040.080 Gasoline Unloading from Tank Trucks and Trailers

into Storage Tanks

46 FR 21758 X X X

040.085 Organic Solvents 46 FR 21758 X X X

040.090 Cut-Back Asphalt 46 FR 21758 X X X

050.001 Emergency Episode Plan 46 FR 21758 X X X

Local rules 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 NOx and VOCs (see EPA’s rule proposing the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS3). NDEP’s submission describes the largest sources of emissions for NOx (fuel combustion and 

mobile sources), VOCs (mobile sources solvents and industrial processes), and SO2 (fuel combustion 

 

3 73 FR 16436 (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 NO2, we have stated that, “EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard uses NO2 as the indicator for the larger group of nitrogen oxides.”

5 So, NDEP’s identification 

of NOx sources, rather than NO2 sources, is appropriate. While mobile sources are a large category of 

emissions for the NAAQS evaluated here, we point out that mobile sources 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 NOx and SOx

emissions 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 within Clark or Washoe Counties, in 

accordance with NAC 445B.500 (5) and (6). NOx and SOx emission limits are set by NRS 445B.22095 

and NRS 445.22096. NAC 445B.22095 identifies factors considered in determining Best Available 

Control Technology for major sources, and NAC 445B.22096 provides numeric emission limits for 

specific sources where a Best Available Control Technology has been established. NAC 445B.2206 

establishes sulfur emissions standards for (fossil fuel) power generating unit Number 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 SO2. Additionally, NDEP controls emissions of NOx and SOx 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 requirements 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 vehicle inspection and 

maintenance. The program helps 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 registration 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 example, provides the definition of sulfur emissions. 

Clark County

 

4 See http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.national_1.sas&polchoice=NOX

for NOx 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 SOx 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 NOx, SOx 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, if 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 NOx 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 

reduces NOx, SOx emissions, and ozone formation. 

Washoe County

In their submittals, Washoe County identifies the same regulations to meet the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS; however, several regulations in the SIP focus on control of VOC emissions, 

while other control NO2 and SO2. VOC emissions are controlled through Section 040.070 (Storage of 

Petroleum Products), 040.075 (Gasoline Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers), 040.080 (Gasoline 

Unloading from Tank Trucks and Trailers into Storage Tanks), 040.085 (Organic Solvents) and 040.90 

(Cut-back Asphalts). These regulations limit emissions by specifying 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 includes equipment and 

specifications to reduce emissions by 85% for open top degreasers. Section 040.090 limits the cut of cutback 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 NOx and SOx emissions, contained in the Washoe County portion of the SIP include a

0.2% limit on SO2 emissions [040.015], control of emissions from open burning [040.035, 040.040 and 

040.045], incinerators [040.050] and wood stoves [040.051].

7 Washoe County has additional local rules 

that do not appear in the SIP, but can reduce NOx, SOx and VOC emissions. Most importantly, Section 

002.0051 allows the Board of Health to set new air quality 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 

regulations than in the SIP. Section 040.200 reduces emissions of NOx 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 Standards [40 CFR 80 Subpart H].
10

We noted several regulations that are not part of the Nevada SIP were identified in the County’s 

submittal as being included in the 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 rules 

identified in response to this Infrastructure SIP 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 requirements 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 County 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 in 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 

submittal, 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 include 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-AgencyWide+Provisions.
11

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

discussion).9

The infrastructure submittals did not address the 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 of 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 laws (i.e., NRS 445B.100 thru 445B.640). Monitoring is necessary to assess the 

attainment and maintenance status for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, the 

monitoring program falls within the measures and determinations that the State Environmental 

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 and 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 authorities 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 agencies 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, respectively.

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 NO2, because its regulated Core Based Statistical Areas do not exceed the NO2 monitoring 

 

9 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 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 SO2 because its population weighted exposure index does not 

exceed 5000 (million person-tons per year of SO2) [40 CFR Part 58 Appendix 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 SO2 at their National Core monitoring 

(NCore) site, meeting the minimum requirement (they do not trigger source-oriented SO2 monitoring), 

and currently samples NO2 at two area-wide locations, one more than required. Clark County is required 

to establish two near-road NO2¬ 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 this monitoring requirement. In our October 28, 2014 letter we also approved one of Clark 

County’s NO2 locations as one of the monitors meeting the nation-wide requirement for NO2 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 SO2 based on their population weighted exposure index and is not required to monitor 

near-road or area-wide NO2 concentrations. Washoe County does operate the required NO2 and trace 

level SO2 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 operate applicable monitoring networks required 

under the Clean Air Act for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 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 reasons, we 

propose to find that Nevada’s air monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of §

110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 the requirement to regulate 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 (NOx) as ozone precursors consistent with the 

requirements of EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,

11

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

consistent with the requirements of EPA’s NSR implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS,12

(3) PM2.5: Provisions to regulate PSD increments consistent with the requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rule for PM2.5,

13 and

(4) GHGs: Provisions to regulate greenhouse gases (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 permits, 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 

Vehicle 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 effect 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 addressing 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 said 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 consistently 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 significant 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 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 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 Infrastructure SIP for Lead (Pb) NAAQS, we determined that the 

Clark County portion of the state met the permitting requirements for this element though its SIPapproved PSD program and that NDEP and Washoe County did not. NDEP and Washoe County 

implement delegated PSD FIPs. At this time, NDEP and Washoe County continue to rely on FIPs for 

their permitting programs.

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 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS; however, EPA is not evaluating part D nonattainment area requirements (such as the 

nonattainment NSR program) in this proposed action. These 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

14 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 43141 
16

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 Limits/Control Measures Most Recent 

SIP Approval

030.000 Sources – General 46 FR 21758

030.005 Authority to Construct must be issued before any building permit 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

030.025 Registration Application 46 FR 21758

030.030 Limits on effect of acceptance of permit application or issuance 

of Authority to Construct 46 FR 21758

030.110 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 Compliance 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 21758
17

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 

[445B.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 County 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 facilities [020.0051], issue notices of violation [020.030], 

and to charge facilities and individuals with civil 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 injunctive relief [020.045] and sample and test sources of emissions. Washoe 

County has created an appeal 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 section titled Effects of a Federal Implementation 

Plan on an Infrastructure 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 FIP for PSD 

permitting, they do not meet the requirements of this element; however, because a FIP is already in 

place, no additional FIP clock is triggered by our disapproval of this portion of Nevada’s infrastructure 

SIP. We 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) explained that the rules satisfy 

previously identified deficiencies in PSD and nonattainment NSR permitting. 17 This includes the 

deficiencies noted in our technical support document 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 PM2.5 NAAQS18; and (2) revision of the PSD increment provisions so that new and 

major sources of PM2.5 estimate significant deterioration of ambient air quality consistent with the

requirements of EPA’s 2010 PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.19

Prior to that, EPA approved other changes to the Clark County PSD program required for infrastructure 

SIP purposes, including identification of NOx as an ozone precursor; provisions to regulate PM2.5, 

including PM2.5 precursor emissions; and provisions to regulate GHGs.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 steamgenerating 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 (October 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 PM2.5 (see page 64898). In addition, this rule set requirements for significant impact levels (SILs) and 

significant monitoring concentrations (SMCs) for PM2.5. However, as a result of litigation, on January 22, 2013, the D.C. 

Circuit Court 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 Circuit (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 referenced 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 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 Evaluation 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 Environmental 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 greater 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 2012 rulemaking 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 provisions that did not adequately ensure protection of the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 Pb 

NAAQS and definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ As EPA indicated in our most recent rule 

approving Clark County permitting, their revisions satisfied 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 documents 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 such 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 Washoe 

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 meets 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). No 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 applicable 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 September 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 NO2 NAAQS at monitors in only a few locations (Maricopa County AZ, 2002, Los Angeles 

County CA, 2002-2005, San Bernardino County CA, 202-2003; Cook County IL 2007-2009 and Union 

County NJ for 2002). Given local NO2 emission sources at these locations and the distances to NDEP 

jurisdiction, “emissions from sources within the NDEP’s jurisdiction do not interfere with maintenance 

of the 2010 1-hour NO2 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 program 

into the Nevada SIP. 

Nevada’s submittal states that “US EPA finalized approval of most of the Nevada regional 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 part of the environmental review. It also notes the maximum 

allowable NO2 increase is 2.5 μg/m3 for Class I areas, 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 Nonattainment or Interfering with Maintenance 

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

First, we clarify that EPA is taking no action at this time on the effects of ozone and SO2 transport for 

significant contribution to nonattainment. The discussion that follows addresses only NO2 transport. 

EPA will take a separate action on ozone and SO2 transport at a later date.

NDEP has the sole authority to regulate facilities that generate energy from steam generators burning 

fossil fuels. NDEP establishes NOx emissions limits for these facilities through 445B.22095 (Emission 

limitation for BART) and 445B.22096 (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 mobile sources, 

which are federally regulated emission sources, by restricting the idling of diesel trucks and busses to no 

more than 15 minutes (NAC 445B.570, AQR 45 and 040.200). 

As stated on EPA’s website, “all areas presently meet the current (1971) NO2 NAAQS, with annual NO2

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 interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-

hour NO2 standard. 

No area has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS (100 ppb 1-hour average), but 

this standard is intended to show local effects from roadway sources of NO2, 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 prong 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 applies 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 discussed 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 EPAapproved 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 sufficiently 

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 established a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emissions limit for NOx

emissions from 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 Nevada 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 component 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 Emissions 

Reduction and Capacity Replacement Plan.36 

With the retirement or elimination of Units 1-3 at the Reid Gardner Generating Station, the EPAapproved 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 approved PSD revisions to address deficiencies in the Clark 

County NSR permitting rules. Regulation AQR 12.2 includes a requirement for the permitting agency to 

send a copy of the required public notice to EPA and to “[a]ny state, Federal Land Manager, and Indian 

governing body whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification.”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), September 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 Number 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 do not meet requirements 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 endanger 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 originating 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 with the applicable 

requirements of section 115.

Conclusion

Based on Nevada’s control of emissions and the degree to which NO2 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 NO2. We take no action on the Nevada SIP with respect to CAA § 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for 

ozone and SO2. 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), 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).We 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, NO2 and SO2, therefore disapprovals 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 pollution 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 carrying 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 income from persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board 

or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

Related EPA Regulations 

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

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 (“Assignment 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 description of 

the resources available to the State and local agencies at the date of submission of the plan and of any 

additional resources needed to carry out the plan during the five-year period following its submission. 

The description must include projections of the extent to which resources will be acquired at 1-, 3-, and 

5-year intervals. 

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

organizations, by official title, that will participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the plan 

and the responsibilities of such organizations. The plan shall include any related agreements or 

memoranda of understanding among the organizations.”

Nevada’s response to this requirement 

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 

 Designation of NDEP as the State Air Pollution Control Agency (NRS 445B.205).
26

 Eligibility and conduct requirements for employees 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).

 Powers 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, this 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 

control board. 

Submittals for each agency include specific and, for the most part, consistent information 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 equivalent 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 submittals 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 consisted of 19 full time staff, in fiscal 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 provisions have not 

changed and are not specific to lead or any other pollutant, we refer reviewers to the TSD for our action 

on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS38 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 NRS 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 public 

hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative penalties; cities and smaller counties; 

regulation of certain electric plants prohibited (see 71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006), (see 77 FR 64737, 10/23/12).
27

delegation of authority.40 Additionally, the rules delegated for local implementation (445B.210, 

445B.240 to 445B.470, inclusive, 445B.560, 445B.570, 445B.580, and 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 Pollution 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 Department of Motor Vehicle fees), and funds from 

the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (for Clark County) or funds from the three 

local entities participating in the “Interlocal Agreement Concerning the Washoe County District Health 

Department.” Furthermore, 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 programs.” Lastly, with respect to 

projections of resource needs, it asserts that “[o]ver the next five years, current funding and personnel 

levels are expected to remain stable via the funding mechanisms described.” 

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

with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS for all three jurisdictions in Nevada 

(NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County). Therefore, we propose to find that the Nevada 

Infrastructure Submittals meets the resources-related requirements of CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 

CFR 51.280.

Conflict of Interest

As part of our actions on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIPs for 2008 Pb and 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 

2006 PM2.5 , 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 included (1) changing the population size for counties eligible to use Section 445B.508 authority 

(Reduction or mitigation of increases in emissions; air pollution 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 penalties (from violations) deposited in the county school district fund (see the changes to 

445B.500 at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/74th/Stats200703.html#Stats200703page319).

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 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 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 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 Infrastructure SIP 

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

Control Officer45. 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 Branch 

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 SO2, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Thus, based on our review of the applicable Nevada 

SIP and Nevada’s various Infrastructure Submittals 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 Technical Support Document for Nevada’s Infrastructure 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 July 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 submittals.

47

These referenced sections contain a summary of each state and local regulation that supports the 

requirements of this element for NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County. One change in Nevada’s 

response 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 difference is that the older technical support document (for 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006

PM2.5 NAAQS) proposed approval on the condition that EPA received 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 Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Pb and 1997 Ozone, 

1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5, 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 

requirement, 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 permitting 

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 action 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 the § 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) deficiency, was approved on October 17, 2014.

52

Conclusion 

Based upon our prior analyses, discussed above, and changes to the Clark County portion of the Nevada 

SIP, we 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 Provisions for 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sections 110(a)(2)(A) thru (C), Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (D)(ii), Sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii), Sections 110(a)(2)(F) thru (M), Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, July 2012.

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 requirements 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 SO2 [40 CFR 

52.1471]. Las Vegas Intrastate is also classified Priority I for ozone. All other regions are Priority III for 

NO2, SO2, 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 PM2.5 and 2008 PM2.5,

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 2008 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 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS than 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 NO2 submittals state that emergency 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 SO2 Infrastructure SIP submittal contains a discussion of emergency powers and explains 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 SO2 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 copper 

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 SO2 submittal continues on to make two requests of the EPA:

1. Because the SO2 source responsible for the priority IA classification no longer exists and because 

the single nonattainment area in the Nevada Intrastate Region 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 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5, which is in the docket for today’s action.

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

NDEP has requested that the EPA change the classification of the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality 

Control Region 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 Region from the 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 SO2 at the Kennecott Copper 

Corporation Smelter, McGill, Nevada . . .” because Nevada’s SIP to control emissions of sulfur 

oxides from the Kennecott smelter was disapproved (40 CFR 5508). NDEP asserts that section

1475 no longer applies because the Kennecott smelter is nonexistent and the area was 

redesignated attainment.

Clark County’s portion of the NO2 submittal discussed its authority to promulgate rules, pursuant to 

NRS 445B.500(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 County’s portion of the NO2 submittal discussed the county’s emergency powers authorized 

under Regulation 050.001 (Emergency Episode Plan, see 72 FR 33397). The county also cited general 

emergency powers provided in Nevada’s SIP through NRS 445B.560.

EPA’s Evaluation 

The test for re-classifying an air quality control region is prescribed in 40 CFR 51.153, which directs 

states to consider the three most recent years of air quality data. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.150, SO2

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 area 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 II; 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 required 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 81, even though the priority classifications for the Region 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: Elko, 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 area. The EPA’s rulemaking 

that redesignated the Steptoe Valley-Central area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1971 primary 

SO2 NAAQS, however, identifies a smelter owned and operated by the Kennecott Copper Company as 

“the source whose emissions caused the SO2 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 Furthermore, in a 

disapproval of Nevada’s SO2 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, 

appears 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 are 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 existing 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 EPA 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 emergency 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 NO2, and Priority IA for SO2. Based on the three most 

recent years of data available, the Las Vegas Intrastate Region is eligible to be reclassified to Priority III 

 

57 Federal Air Quality 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 (April 12, 2002).

59 40 FR 5508 (February 6, 1975).

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

for SO2, but is not eligible for ozone reclassification. For the Las Vegas Intrastate Area from 2011 to 

2013, the highest annual maximum SO2 concentration was 0.0015 ppm and the highest 24-hour 

maximum 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 concentration, 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 Priority III for SO2, NO2, and ozone. Therefore no 

emergency episode plan is required for these NAAQS in this AQCR. 

Conclusion

EPA proposes to reclassify the Las Vegas Intrastate Region from Priority IA to Priority III for SO2, 

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 SO2. If finalized as proposed, no 

contingency plans would be required for NO2 or SO2. As discussed 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 

Intrastate 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 

quality 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 NO2 and 2010 SO2 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 of 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 attaining 

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 program; contents of program; 

designation of air pollution control agency of county for purposes of federal act; powers and 

duties of local air pollution control board; notice of public hearings; delegation of authority 

to determine violations and levy administrative penalties; cities and smaller counties; 

regulation of certain electric plants prohibited. (see 71 FR 51766, 8/31/2006)

Clark County’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2012 NO2 and 2012 SO2 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 for 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 County’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2012 NO2 and 2012 SO2 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 achieve and 

maintain levels of air quality to protect human health”. 

EPA Evaluation
35

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 letter 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 

“responsibility 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 procedures 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 federal 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 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 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 (relating 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 attainment/nonclassifiable or attainment for 

ozone and annual NO2 standards. EPA has yet to make attainment designations for the 1-hour NO2 or 

the SO2 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 ozone, NO2 and SO2 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 SIP, 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, regarding 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 submittal 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 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). This fact results in the proposed disapproval for Element 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 CAA § 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 50936 (August 23, 2012).
37

Element C, Clark County has made several recent revisions to its permitting 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 NO2 or 2010 SO2 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 modeling 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 quality of any emissions of any 

air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality 

standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator.

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 explanation of how the provisions meet the 

requirements of this element: (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 2013at 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 requirements 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 meet the requirements of (40 CFR part 51, subpart I)” and require that all such applications of air 

quality modeling be “based on the applicable models, data bases, and other requirements specified in 

appendix W of (part 51)” [40 CFR 51.160(f)]. Both of these provisions state that where an air quality 

model specified in Appendix 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 submitted, and to notify EPA 

(among others) of the public comment period on any proposed PSD permit [40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(ii), 

(iv)].

EPA’s Evaluation

As part of our action on Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP for Pb, EPA determined that state and local rules 

met the requirements 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 refer 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 submittals for 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2010 NO2, 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 emissions 

of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and (2) provide such modeling data to 

the EPA Administrator upon request. 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, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze,” EPA-454/B-07-002 (April 2007). These provisions address requirements under part D, title I of the Act and do not 

apply to this evaluation of an infrastructure SIP under CAA section 110(a).

71 79 FR 15697.
39

submittals meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2010 NO2

NAAQS statewide.

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 such a permit, and 

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing 

and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or 

other costs associated with any enforcement action), 

until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator’s approval 

of a fee program under title V of the Act. 

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 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5, 

The Washoe submittals all state, “permitting fees are authorized under WCDBOH Regulation Sections 

030.210 (See 46 FR 21758) and 030.310 (See 46 FR 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 the 

Nevada SIP on October 23, 201272, 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, revocation, 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 the 

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 laws establishing local air pollution control agencies also provided authority for Clark and 

Washoe Counties to create environmental regulations, per NRS 445B.500(1)(d), including regulations 

to charge appropriate permit fees. These counties 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 AQR 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.

 Washoe 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 permits 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 § 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 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 

understanding 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 SO2 NAAQS, and 2010 NO2 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.