The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld signed the following final rule on September 28, 2012 and EPA 

is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of 

this version of the final rule, it is not the official version. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR 

publication appearing on the Government Printing Office website, http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action, 

and on www.regulations.gov in Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047.

1 

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047; FRL-_________] 

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for 

Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the state of 

Nevada pursuant to the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 

2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Section 110(a)(1) 

of the CAA requires that each State adopt and submit a SIP for 

the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, while section 110(k) requires EPA to act 

on such SIPs. Nevada has met most of the applicable requirements 

of section 110(a). Where EPA is disapproving, in part, Nevada’s 

SIP revisions, the majority of the deficiencies have been 

already been addressed by a federal implementation plan (FIP). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2 

For one remaining deficiency, this final rule sets a two-year 

deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves an 

adequate SIP revision prior to that time. EPA remains committed 

to working with Nevada’s environmental agencies to develop such 

a SIP revision. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047. The index 

to the docket for this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). 

To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed 

directly below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 

972–3227, mays.rory@epa.gov. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms 

"we," "us," and "our" refer to EPA. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

A. Summary of Approvals 

B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and Other Materials 

C. Summary of Disapprovals 

D. Consequences of Disapprovals 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit 

to EPA, within three years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary 

or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides 

for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such 

NAAQS. EPA refers to these specific submissions as 

"infrastructure" SIPs because they are intended to address basic 

structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone1 and 

a new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently 

revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2006.3 Each of 

these actions triggered a requirement for states to submit an 

infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of 

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

revised NAAQS. 

On August 3, 2012 (77 FR 46361), EPA proposed to approve in 

part and disapprove in part several SIP revisions and one 

proposed SIP revision submitted by Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) to address the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. NDEP’s submittals include 

SIP revisions submitted to EPA on February 1, 2008 (“2008 Ozone 

Submittal”), February 26, 2008 (“2008 PM2.5 Submittal”), 

September 15, 2009 (“2009 PM2.5 Submittal”), and December 4, 2009 

(“2009 PM2.5 Supplement”), and a proposed SIP revision submitted 

on July 5, 2012. The proposed SIP revision served as a 

 

1 The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, 

and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

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

based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from 

single or multiple community-oriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-

hour PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

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

was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5 

supplement to the prior four infrastructure SIP revisions and 

was submitted under the parallel processing mechanism provided 

by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, Section 2.3. The final version of 

the July 5, 2012 proposed SIP revision was adopted on August 30, 

2012 and submitted to EPA on the same day (“2012 Submittal”). 

We are taking final action on all five submittals since 

they collectively address the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

We refer to them collectively herein as “Nevada’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals.” 

The rationale supporting EPA's action, including the scope 

of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in our August 3, 

2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) and the three 

associated technical support documents (TSDs)4 and will not be 

restated here. The proposed rule and TSDs are available online 

at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR–

2011–0047. 

 

4 The three TSDs are as follows: 1) “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),” July 2012 (“Overarching TSD”); 2) 

“Technical Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Action on the 2009 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (Transport Portion) for the State of 

Nevada,” July 2012 (“2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD”, or “Transport TSD”); and 3) 

“Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions for Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128 Conflict of Interest Requirements,” July 2012 

(“Section 128 TSD”). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period on EPA’s proposed rule opened on 

August 3, 2012, the date of its publication in the Federal

Register, and closed on September 4, 2012. During this period, 

EPA received two comment letters: one from NDEP on September 4, 

2012 (herein “NDEP’s comment(s)”); and one from Washoe County 

Health District Air Quality Management Division (WCHD-AQMD) on 

September 4, 2012 (herein “Washoe County’s comment(s)”). Both 

letters are available in the docket to today’s final rule.5

NDEP’s comment letter numbers its comments 1 through 9. 

NDEP comment numbers 1 through 3 support various aspects of 

EPA’s proposed rule, while numbers 4 through 9 request 

clarification on several points. Washoe County’s comment letter 

generally supports EPA’s proposed rule with two exceptions, 

which it numbers 1 and 2, and requests that EPA make a 

clarification on one additional point. We appreciate NDEP and 

Washoe County’s comments in support for our proposed rule and 

respond to their comments regarding requested clarifications and 

corrections below. Note that we have grouped comments from NDEP 

and Washoe County that are similar in content into single 

comments and responses. 

Comment #1: 

 

5 See document numbers EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047-0135 (NDEP’s comment letter) and 

EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047-0136 (Washoe County’s comment letter) at 

www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7 

NDEP’s comment number 4 and Washoe County comment number 1 

note that EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of the SIP 

related to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit 

programs for NDEP and Washoe County because the programs do not 

completely satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for 

PSD permit programs. NDEP and WCHD-AQMD also note, however, that 

EPA recognizes that the deficiencies related to the PSD programs 

are adequately addressed by the existing federal implementation 

plan (FIP), for which EPA has delegated enforcement authority to 

NDEP and Washoe County. Moreover, NDEP argues that the 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.1485(b), which codify the PSD FIP by 

incorporating EPA's PSD provisions in the Nevada SIP, make EPA's 

PSD FIP a part of the SIP, with the exception of the portion 

applicable to Clark County. As such, NDEP and WCHD-AQMD believe 

that the elements of the Nevada SIP related to PSD programs 

under their jurisdictions should be approved. 

Response #1: 

The CAA requires each State to adopt and submit a plan 

which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 

of the NAAQS. See CAA section 110(a)(1). CAA section 110(a)(2) 

sets forth the content requirements for such plans, including 

the requirement for a permit program as required in part C 

("Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality," or 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8 

"PSD") of title I of the CAA. Such plans are referred to as 

state implementation plans or SIPs. 

EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP derives from EPA's 

determination that a State has failed to submit a complete, 

required SIP submission or from EPA's disapproval of a State 

submission of a SIP or SIP revision. See CAA section 110(c)(1). 

The SIP, viewed broadly, thus includes both portions of the plan 

submitted by the State and approved by EPA as well as any FIP 

promulgated by EPA to substitute for a State plan disapproved by 

EPA or not submitted by a State. See 40 CFR 52.02(b). 

In 1974, EPA disapproved each state's SIP with respect to 

PSD and promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the SIP deficiency 

("PSD FIP"). See 39 FR 42510 (December 5, 1974). In 1975, EPA 

codified the PSD FIP in each state's subpart in 40 CFR part 52. 

See 40 FR 25004 (June 12, 1975)(adding 40 CFR 52.1485 to Subpart 

DD - Nevada). In 1978 and 1980, EPA amended the PSD regulations 

following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and related court 

decisions and amended the codification of the PSD FIP in each 

state's subpart, including 40 CFR 52.1485, accordingly. See 43 

FR 26380 (June 19, 1978) and 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). 

Since then, EPA has approved the PSD SIP for the sources and 

geographic area that lie within the jurisdiction of Clark County 

Department of Air Quality, and has delegated responsibility for 

conducting PSD review, as per the PSD FIP, to NDEP and the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9 

Washoe County District Health Department. Notwithstanding the 

delegation, however, the Nevada SIP remains deficient with 

respect to PSD for the geographic areas and stationary sources 

that lie within NDEP's and Washoe County District Health 

Department's jurisdictions. As such, EPA's disapproval of the 

infrastructure SIP submittals for those elements that require 

states to have a SIP that includes a PSD permit program, 

including CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (J), 

and (K), is appropriate because EPA disapproved the State's 

submitted plan as not adequately addressing PSD program 

requirements. To conclude otherwise would be inconsistent with 

the long-standing and current disapproval of the SIP for PSD for 

the applicable areas, with the statutory foundation upon which 

the PSD FIP is authorized, and with the obligation under section 

110(a) for each State to adopt and submit a plan for 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS that 

includes a PSD program. EPA's delegation of the PSD FIP is not 

the same as State adoption and submittal of state or district 

rules meeting PSD requirements and EPA’s approval thereof. 

Comment #2: 

NDEP’s comment number 6 and Washoe County comment number 2 

state that NDEP and Washoe County Health District AQMD “[do] not 

believe that the PSD program as it relates to greenhouse gases 

renders this SIP deficient with respect to ozone and PM2.5” and 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10 

request that EPA explain why greenhouse gas (GHG) provisions are 

“essential to enforcing the PM2.5 NAAQS.” Both comments refer to 

pages 10, 42, and 43 of EPA’s Overarching TSD for EPA’s proposed 

rule.

Response #2: 

The PSD requirements for the regulation of greenhouse gases 

are relevant to our evaluation of SIPs submitted with respect to 

the ozone and PM2.5 (or any) NAAQS because those PSD requirements 

apply on a source-by-source basis for all federally regulated 

pollutants emitted by that source that meet the PSD 

applicability thresholds, rather than applying on a pollutantby-pollutant basis. For example, the CAA specifies that a new 

source that triggers PSD because of its emissions of ozone 

precursors or PM2.5 is also subject to PSD for any other 

federally regulated pollutant that it emits above the applicable 

significance levels and for GHGs, if it emits those pollutants 

above the thresholds established by the GHG Tailoring Rule.6

Accordingly, for the Nevada Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to be fully approvable, 

 

6 The full title of the GHG Tailoring Rule is “Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.” For 

further explanation of the GHG PSD permitting requirements, see the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010); “Action To Ensure Authority To 

Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to 

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and 

SIP Call; Final Rule,” 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010); “Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11 

the Nevada SIP must include the appropriate PSD requirements for 

all other federally regulated pollutants, including GHGs. 

Because Nevada’s Infrastructure SIPs fail to include those 

requirements for GHGs with respect to the NDEP and Washoe County 

portions of the SIP, the EPA must partially disapprove these SIP 

submittals. Consistent with our proposal, however, we reiterate 

that “[a]lthough the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect 

to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and Washoe County portions 

of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately addressed in both 

areas by the Federal PSD program.” See 77 FR 46361 at 46367. 

Comment #3: 

NDEP's comment number 5 states that “EPA proposes to 

partially disapprove the NDEP’s submittal [with respect to the 

‘good neighbor’ requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)], 

stating that it is not relevant, and to partially approve the 

submittal based on EPA’s independent evaluation of Nevada’s 

impact on receptor states.” NDEP stated its belief that “it 

would be simpler not to do a partial disapproval based on 

information that EPA deemed immaterial to its decision-making, 

but rather to fully approve the SIP based on EPA’s own data 

analysis demonstrating a lack of impacts on receptor states.” 

Response #3: 

We disagree. EPA proposed to partially disapprove Nevada’s 

2009 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement with respect to the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12 

“good neighbor” requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

because the State’s submission “relies on irrelevant factors and 

lacks any technical analysis to support the State’s conclusion 

with respect to interstate transport.” See 77 FR 46361 at 46368. 

We also proposed to partially approve the submission, however, 

based on EPA’s supplemental evaluation of relevant technical 

information, which supports a finding that emissions from Nevada 

do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 

state and that the existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, adequate 

to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. Our proposal to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the submission was based not on 

information that “EPA deemed immaterial to its decision-making,” 

but rather on information submitted by the State in the form of 

a SIP submission which we found inadequate to satisfy the 

applicable CAA requirements. 

Specifically, as discussed in the Transport TSD for this 

proposal, Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement 

(collectively the “2009 SIP Submittals”) appear to conclude that 

the existing Nevada SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

among other requirements of CAA section 110(a). See Transport 

TSD at 1. The only support provided for this conclusion in the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13 

2009 SIP Submittals is a reference to EPA’s previous approval of 

Nevada’s CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport SIP 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 72 FR 41629 

(July 31, 2007). See Transport TSD at 1, 2. The 2009 SIP 

Submittals contains no technical analysis of potential 

interstate transport or any other support for the State’s 

conclusion that the existing Nevada SIP satisfies the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id. Moreover, Nevada submitted nothing to 

address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Clark County. See id. at footnote 

1. 

As explained in the Transport TSD, EPA does not agree with 

NDEP’s suggestion or conclusion in the 2009 SIP Submittals that 

EPA’s previous approval of Nevada’s section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

interstate transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS could support, in any way, the conclusion that 

the SIP adequately addresses the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id. at 

2. The cited 2007 rulemaking addressed CAA requirements for 

different NAAQS and thus could not support a conclusion that the 

requirements have been met with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See id. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14 

Given the absence of any technical demonstration in the 

State’s submission showing that Nevada emission sources do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state, 

we cannot fully approve the 2009 SIP Submittals as satisfying 

the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are, however, partially approving the 

2009 SIP Submittals based on EPA’s independent review of 

relevant technical information, which supports the State’s 

conclusion that Nevada emission sources do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA therefore does not require 

additional controls in Nevada to prohibit such impacts. 

Comment and Response #4: 

NDEP comment number 8 recommends several corrections and 

clarifications to the text of our Transport TSD. We respond to 

each sub-comment following separate comment summaries below. 

First, citing pages 7 and 11 of our Transport TSD, NDEP 

states that “EPA has characterized Idaho as more distant from 

Nevada than Utah, Oregon and California” but notes that Nevada 

and Idaho share a border. 

We agree that our Transport TSD could have better 

characterized the location of Idaho relative to Nevada and the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15 

distance from Nevada to nonattainment receptors in Idaho 

relative to those in “other western states” (i.e., Washington 

and Montana, see pages 7 and 11 of our Transport TSD). EPA 

discussed the nonattainment receptor in Idaho as part of its 

discussion of “other western states with nonattainment receptors 

located farther away” because the receptor in Shoshone County, 

Idaho (Pinehurst), located in northern Idaho, is more distant 

from Nevada compared to the receptors located in Utah, Oregon, 

and California. But NDEP correctly notes that like Utah, Oregon, 

and California, Idaho shares a border with Nevada. 

Second, citing page 16 of the Transport TSD, NDEP 

encourages EPA to expressly state that “EPA’s analysis shows no 

significant contribution by Nevada to nonattainment in the 

Southern California area.” 

In Section IV.B.3. of our Transport TSD (see pages 15-16), 

regarding nonattainment receptors in California, for four of the 

five areas discussed we stated that “we believe it is reasonable 

to conclude that emissions from Nevada sources do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard at these receptor locations.” We inadvertently did 

not make such a statement for the Southern California – Los 

Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino area. In response to this 

comment, we are clarifying our conclusion that emissions from 

Nevada sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard at the Southern California – 

Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino nonattainment receptor 

locations. 

Third, citing pages 20-22 of the Transport TSD, NDEP states 

that “EPA reaches a conclusion that Nevada emissions do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in California 

(Section V.B.1.) or Utah (Section V.B.3.); however, no 

conclusion is stated for Arizona (Section V.B.2).” NDEP believes 

a similar conclusion was implied and encourages EPA to state as 

much for Arizona. 

We agree and are clarifying our conclusion that emissions 

from Nevada sources do not interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at the Arizona maintenance receptor 

locations discussed in Section V.B.2 (page 21) of the Transport 

TSD. 

Fourth, NDEP asserts that EPA’s discussion on pages 20-22 

of the Transport TSD “appears to talk about nonattainment areas 

rather than maintenance areas” while “Table III.A.1 lists 

Arizona as having two maintenance areas for PM2.5 and no 

nonattainment areas.” NDEP perceives a discrepancy therein. 

It appears NDEP has misunderstood a distinction that EPA is 

making between nonattainment or maintenance receptors and 

nonattainment or maintenance areas. Table III.A.1 lists the 

nonattainment and maintenance “receptors” located in western 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17 

counties, which EPA selected based on the criteria discussed in 

Section III.A (“Discussion of Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Receptor Selection Methodology”). These criteria for selection 

of nonattainment and maintenance “receptors” are not related to 

the criteria for designation of nonattainment areas under CAA 

section 107 or for approval of maintenance plans under CAA 

section 175A. Thus, it is possible to have maintenance 

“receptors” in areas that have been designated as nonattainment 

areas, as in Arizona and Utah. 

Fifth, NDEP states that “Table III.A.1 lists Utah as having 

no maintenance areas, so the NDEP is uncertain why Utah is 

discussed in section V of this Appendix” and that “[t]he 

discussion of nonattainment areas in Utah (Section IV.B.1.) 

appears to be repeated in Section V.B.3 for maintenance 

receptors.” NDEP perceives a discrepancy therein. 

We disagree that Table III.A.1 (“List of Western Counties 

with Daily PM2.5 Nonattainment or Maintenance Receptors”, page 8) 

lists Utah as having no maintenance areas. The last three rows 

for Utah in this table include an asterisk in the Receptor Type 

column. The asterisk is defined below the table as follows: 

“This county contains both nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. See Appendix A for more details.” Appendix A (“List 

of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors for 2006-2010”), in 

turn, lists all of the individual receptors that were summarized 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18 

by county in Table III.A.1. There is one maintenance receptor in 

each of Utah and Weber counties, Utah – hence our discussion of 

Utah in Section V (“Transport Assessment for Maintenance 

Receptors”). The discussion of nonattainment receptors in Utah 

(Section IV.B.1.) is similar to the discussion in Section V.B.3 

for maintenance receptors in Utah because the receptors are near 

to each other and the potential for transport from Nevada for 

each is similar. 

Comment #5: 

NDEP comment number 7 addresses EPA’s statements in the 

Overarching TSD (pages 11-13) regarding certain provisions that 

are part of the Nevada SIP, but have been repealed or replaced 

in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). NDEP highlights that 

such regulations “have not been rescinded from the Nevada SIP, 

and EPA considers them to be federally enforceable” and suggests 

that a more accurate characterization would be to say that such 

provisions “have been repealed or replaced in the NAC, but not 

in the SIP.” 

Response #5: 

It is true that the regulations cited in pages 11-13 of our 

Overarching TSD having parenthetical notes about replacement or 

repeal can be accurately characterized as having been repealed 

or replaced in the NAC (i.e., at the state level), but remaining 

in the Nevada SIP (i.e., the set of federally enforceable 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19 

provisions with respect to Nevada air quality). In part, our 

intent was to clarify the status of these provisions so that the 

public could more readily understand which provisions are in 

effect and to identify certain provisions that, as repealed or 

replaced (but not revised in the SIP), did not provide support 

for how Nevada meets the section 110(a)(2)(C) requirement that 

each SIP “include a program to provide for the enforcement of 

the measures described in [section 110(a)(2)(A)].” 

However, the broader meaning of such clarifications and 

identifications relates to CAA section 110(a)(1), which requires 

the state to adopt and submit “a plan which provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the relevant 

NAAQS (i.e., the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, in 

this case). On its face, if Nevada has repealed or replaced 

certain Nevada Administrative Codes, we would understand this to 

mean that NDEP is not in fact implementing such regulations as 

part of a plan to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. In 

other words, infrastructure SIPs are not merely a measure of 

what is federally enforceable under a state’s SIP; they are a 

collection of the provisions and plans that the state actively 

employs to implement the NAAQS. 

Our Overarching TSD discussed three provisions in 

particular wherein we noted that “it is not clear how Nevada 

intended that these regulations support the enforcement of the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20 

emission limitation regulations.” See Overarching TSD at page 

13. We reiterate our statement from that same page, however, 

that “[n]otwithstanding these three provisions, on the basis of 

the statutory and regulatory provisions, which have been 

approved into the SIP, we find that Nevada has an adequate 

program for enforcement of its provisions for emission limits at 

the state level.” 

Comment and Response #6: 

NDEP comment number 9 recommends several corrections and 

clarifications to the text of our Overarching TSD. We respond to 

each sub-comment following separate comment summaries below. 

First, NDEP notes that on page 6, footnote 9, the second 

sentence should read, “Adele Malone, Supervisor, Planning and 

Modeling Branch,....” We thank NDEP for its clarification 

regarding the Branch title, which we had listed as “Air Planning 

Branch” in footnote 9 of the Overarching TSD. 

Second, NDEP notes that on page 11 EPA listed Nevada Air 

Quality Regulation (NAQR) Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 as 

having been cited in support of CAA 110(a)(2)(C), and requests 

EPA to remove it from the list of submitted regulations. We 

agree that Articles 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 were not cited in 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(C); 

our inclusion of these provisions in the list of regulations 

with respect to 110(a)(2)(C) was an inadvertent addition. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21 

To clarify further, Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 

PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal each cited Article 

16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 listed for section 110(a)(2)(A). See 

Enclosure 1, page 1 of each of these submittals. Given that 

these regulations pertain to opacity emission limits for kilns 

and related clinker coolers, they are appropriate for purposes 

of addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), as 

referenced by these submittals and discussed in our Overarching 

TSD. 

Third, NDEP notes a contradiction in the last sentence of 

the first full paragraph of page 43 regarding the PSD portion of 

the section 110(a)(2)(J) requirements and Clark County. We agree 

that this sentence contradicts our other stated conclusions 

regarding Clark County’s PSD program and the PSD requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We hereby clarify that our intended 

statement, as noted in the conclusion paragraph of that same 

page, was that “the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP meets 

the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), contingent 

upon final approval of the proposed SIP revisions [for 

permitting new or modified stationary sources in Clark County].” 

Furthermore, based on our final approval of those Clark County 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22 

SIP revisions,7 we are finalizing our approval of section 

110(a)(2)(J) for the Clark County portion of the SIP. 

Fourth, NDEP believes that EPA had intended to reference 

NAQR Article 13.3.1.2(b) on page 45, rather than Article 

13.4.1.2(b), and that the latter is not in the applicable Nevada 

SIP. NDEP also refers to 77 FR 14862. We referred to Article 

13.4.1.2(b) with respect to the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(K) because it was included in Enclosure 2 of Nevada’s 

2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5

Submittal and contains requirements for diffusion models for the 

permitting review of new sources. However, NDEP is correct that 

Article 13.4.1.2(b) is not in the Nevada SIP. Rather, Article 

13.3.1.2(b), which is part of the Nevada SIP and contains 

requirements for diffusion modeling, relates most closely to the 

air quality modeling requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K). See 

77 FR 14682 at 14872. 

Fifth, NDEP notes that Footnote 19 states that “... NDEP 

repealed NAC 445.694 and did not submit a replacement for 

inclusion in the SIP.” NDEP states that this footnote was 

inaccurate since the authority to repeal a state regulation lies 

with the Nevada State Environmental Commission. We thank NDEP 

for its clarification. Footnote 19 of the Overarching TSD should 

 

7 We have placed a copy of the signed, pre-publication version of the final 

rule approving the Clark County SIP revisions in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23 

have made clear that the State Environmental Commission is the 

body authorized under state law to adopt regulations to prevent, 

abate and control air pollution (NRS 445B.210), the Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources is designated as the air 

pollution control agency for the State of Nevada for the 

purposes of the CAA (NRS 445B.205), and the Administrator of 

NDEP is the official designee of the Director of the Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources for the purposes of the 

CAA, including, but not limited to, adoption, revision, and 

submittal of SIPs to EPA. 

Comment #7: 

Washoe County notes a “minor correction/clarification that 

should be made” in EPA’s Section 128 TSD on pages 4 and 7. 

Washoe County identifies the District Health Officer of the 

Washoe County Health District, or his designee, as the Control 

Officer, pursuant to Washoe County Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 

010.042, rather than the AQMD Director, as stated in EPA’s 

Section 128 TSD. The comment further states that the AQMD 

Director and Branch Chief are designees of the Control Officer 

and that the applicability of section 128 does not change and 

remains as “not applicable” because it “applies to boards and 

bodies composed of multiple individuals.” 

Response #7: 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24 

EPA agrees that we should have identified the District 

Health Officer of Washoe County Health District as the Control 

Officer in Washoe County. Washoe County Air Quality Regulation 

(AQR) 010.042 defines “Control Officer” as the “District Health 

Officer of the Washoe County Health District or the person 

designated by said District Health Officer to enforce these 

local air pollution control ordinances and regulations as 

approved by said District Board of Health created pursuant to 

the interlocal agreement of the City of Reno, the City of 

Sparks, and the County of Washoe, Nevada.” AQR 020.020 

(“Control Officer – Powers and Duties”) states that the “Control 

Officer, or his designated agent or representative, shall 

enforce the provisions of these [air pollution control] 

regulations.” From the context of Washoe County’s comments and 

conversation with WCHD-AQMD staff, we understand the AQMD 

Director and Branch Chief to be designated agents or 

representatives of the Control Officer (i.e., the District 

Health Officer of the Washoe County Health District), pursuant 

to AQR 020.020. 

We cited AQR 020.020 in our Section 128 TSD because it 

authorizes the Control Officer and his designated agents or 

representatives to issue corrective action orders (a kind of 

enforcement order). Thus, the Control Officer and his designated 

agents or representatives are subject to the requirements of 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25 

section 128(a)(2). This reflects a point of distinction with 

respect to Washoe County’s comment that the requirements of CAA 

section 128 are “not applicable” to the Control Officer or his 

agents or representatives. While we agree that section 128(a)(1) 

regarding board membership requirements does not apply to 

individual decision-makers, such as the Control Officer, we 

reaffirm that the disclosure requirement of section 128(a)(2) 

applies both to board members and to heads of executive agencies 

and their delegates as is clear on the face of the statute. See 

page 2 of our Section 128 TSD. 

As a result, we have assessed whether the Washoe County 

District Health Officer is covered by Nevada’s statutes 

concerning disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. As per 

NRS 281A.160.1, a public officer in Nevada is defined by two 

criteria: (a) that the person is appointed or elected to a 

position established by a charter or ordinance of any county, 

and (b) that his or her position “[i]nvolves the exercise of a 

public power, trust, or duty.” The District Health Officer is a 

public officer under these criteria because he or she is a 

person appointed to a position established by the Washoe County 

Code and because approval of permits or enforcement orders under 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26 

state or county law involves an exercise of a public power, 

trust or duty.8

Our determinations regarding disclosure as it relates to 

the AQMD Director and Branch Chief remain unchanged. The AQMD 

Director is a public officer, pursuant to NRS 281A.160, and the 

AQMD Branch Chief of the Permitting and Compliance Branch is a 

public employee, pursuant to NRS 281A.150, (see pages 8-9 of our 

Section 128 TSD) and they are both subject to adequate 

disclosure requirements under CAA section 128(a)(2), as codified 

at NRS 281A.410 and NRS 281A.420 (see pages 11-13 of our Section 

128 TSD). 

Thus, our overall conclusion remains that the conflict of 

interest provisions9 submitted in Nevada’s 2012 Submittal meet 

the requirements of CAA section 128 and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We are therefore finalizing our proposed 

approval of Nevada’s conflict of interest provisions into the 

SIP and our proposed approval of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

 

8 For clarity’s sake, we note that NRS 281A.160(2) contains several exemptions 

for the definition of “public officer.” In particular, NRS 281A.160(2)(d) 

exempts county health officers appointed pursuant to NRS 439.290. It is 

important to note that while a county health officer is appointed by the 

relevant board of county commissioners, pursuant to NRS 439.290, a district

health officer in a county whose population is less than 700,000 (e.g., 

Washoe County) is appointed by the relevant district board of health, 

pursuant to NRS 439.400. Thus, the exemption under NRS 281A.160 does not 

apply to the Washoe County District Health Officer. 

9 i.e., NRS 232A.020, NRS 281A.150, NRS 281A.160, NRS 281A.400, NRS 281A.410, 

and NRS 281A.420. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27 

Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation 

and rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSDs, 

and this final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving 

in part Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In the following 

subsections, we list the elements for which we are finalizing 

approval or disapproval and provide a summary of the basis for 

those elements that are partially approved and partially 

disapproved. We also describe the statutory provisions and other 

materials submitted by NDEP that we are approving herein, and 

describe the consequences of our disapprovals. 

A. Summary of Approvals 

EPA is approving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

with respect to the following requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 

measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C)(in part): Program for enforcement of 

control measures and regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(in part): Interstate pollution 

transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)(in part): Interstate pollution 

abatement and international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, 

conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional 

government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source monitoring 

and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part): Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air quality modeling and 

submission of modeling data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29 

We are approving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for 

the Clark County portions of the SIP with respect to the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD 

based upon our final approval of certain SIP revisions for the 

review of new or modified stationary sources for the Clark 

County portion of the SIP.10

For section 110(a)(2)(C), we are approving Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for all three jurisdictions (NDEP, 

Clark County, and Washoe County) with respect to the requirement 

that the SIP include a program to provide for enforcement of the 

emissions limitations described in section 110(a)(2)(A). 

With respect to the requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (regarding interference with other states’ 

required measures to protect visibility), EPA previously 

approved Nevada’s interstate transport SIP as satisfying this 

requirement for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of 

EPA’s action on Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 17334 at 

17339 (March 26, 2012). For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, in 

today’s final rule we are approving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as meeting the visibility requirement of CAA section 

 

10 EPA’s final rule on the Clark County NSR SIP revisions is included in the 

docket of today’s final rule. While the Clark County NSR final rule is a 

limited approval and limited disapproval, the permitting elements necessary 

for infrastructure SIP approval for the Clark County portion of the SIP were 

all among those that were approved. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by virtue of 

Nevada’s SIP-approved Regional Haze Plan (77 FR 17334, March 26, 

2012), which contains adequate provisions to protect visibility 

in other states. 

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), for the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the SIP, we are approving Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for all three subsections of 

section 110(a)(2)(F). We note that EPA has approved three Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) sections cited by NDEP in its 2012 

Submittal, NAC sections 445B.315(3), 445B.3368, and 445B.346, in 

a separate rulemaking (see the pre-publication version signed 

August 30, 2012 and included in the docket of today’s final 

rule). These provisions provide additional support for the NDEP 

portion of the SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). For the Washoe County 

portion of the SIP, our approval of subsections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) 

and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) is based on our approval of four Washoe 

County rules, AQR 030.218, 030.230, 030.235, and 030.970, which 

were included in the 2012 Submittal, in a separate rulemaking 

(see the pre-publication version signed September 14, 2012 and 

included in the docket of today’s final rule). With respect to 

the Clark County portion of the SIP, we are approving the SIP 

for sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) based upon our final 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31 

approval of certain SIP revisions for the review of new or 

modified stationary sources in Clark County.11

B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and Other Materials 

In connection with our approval, or partial approval, of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for these requirements as 

listed above, we are approving into the Nevada SIP certain 

statutes and other materials, which were included in the 2009 

PM2.5 Supplement and the 2012 Submittal. 

First, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (i.e., 

necessary assurances for adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority), EPA is approving an interlocal agreement among the 

Washoe County District Board of Health, Washoe County and the 

cities of Reno and Sparks concerning the Washoe County District 

Health Department, and a comprehensive revision to Section 12 

(“Resources”) of the Nevada SIP. The interlocal agreement was 

submitted as Attachment D of Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Supplement and 

the revision to Section 12 was submitted as Attachment A to 

Nevada's 2012 Submittal. NDEP's 2012 revision to Section 12 

hereby replaces, in its entirety, the former SIP version of 

Section 12, approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the 

Nevada SIP. 

 

11 As noted previously, we have placed a copy of the signed, pre-publication 

version of the final rule approving the Clark County SIP revisions in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32 

Second, in connection with our approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii)(i.e., State board conflict of interest 

requirements under CAA section 128), EPA is approving Nevada 

Revised Statutes (NRS) sections 232A.020, 281A.150, 281A.160, 

281A.400, 281A.410, and 281A.420, as provided in Attachment B of 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, into the Nevada SIP. 

Third and last, in connection with our approval of Nevada's 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(J)(in part) and (M), EPA is approving a comprehensive 

revision to Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Consultation”) of the 

Nevada SIP, which is included as Attachment D to Nevada's 2012 

Submittal. NDEP's 2012 revision to Section 11 hereby replaces, 

in its entirety, the former SIP version of Section 11, approved 

on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP. 

Nevada's 2012 revision to Section 11 ("Intergovernmental 

Consultation") cites a number of statutes. Two of these, NRS 

section 445B.503 and NRS section 439.390, are included as 

exhibits to Section 11 and are new to the SIP.12 Another statute, 

NRS 445B.500, is included in Attachment B to the 2012 Submittal 

 

12 In our proposed rule, we requested clarification as to whether NDEP intends 

NRS 439.390 to be included in the Nevada SIP. See 77 FR 46361 at 46367, 

footnote 26. NDEP’s submittal on August 30, 2012 included NRS 439.390 in 

Attachment B (“Statutes for Inclusion in the Nevada [Applicable SIP]”). As 

such we are finalizing approval of NRS 439.390 into the Nevada SIP. 

 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33 

as an update to the former version of NRS 445B.500, which EPA 

had approved into the Nevada SIP (71 FR 51766, August 31, 2006). 

We are approving NRS 445B.503, NRS 439.390, and the updated 

version of NRS 445B.500 into the Nevada SIP in connection with 

our approval of the 2012 revision to Section 11 of the Nevada 

SIP. The updated version of NRS 445B.500 hereby replaces, in its 

entirety, the former SIP version of NRS 445B.500 in the Nevada 

SIP. 

C. Summary of Disapprovals 

EPA is disapproving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect 

to the following infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C)(in part): Program for enforcement of 

control measures and regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(in part): Interstate pollution 

transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)(in part): Interstate pollution 

abatement and international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source monitoring 

and reporting. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part): Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air quality modeling and 

submission of modeling data. 

As explained in our proposed rule and Overarching TSD, we 

are disapproving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP with respect to the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD 

because the Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under part C of 

title I of the Act. Both NDEP and WCHD-AQMD currently implement 

the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA. See 40 

CFR 52.1485.13 Accordingly, although the Nevada SIP remains 

deficient with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are 

adequately addressed in both areas by the Federal PSD program. 

 

13 EPA fully delegated the implementation of the federal PSD programs to NDEP 

on October 19, 2004 (“Agreement for Delegation of the Federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection”), as updated on September 15, 2011, and to Washoe County on March 

13, 2008 (“Agreement for Delegation of the Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9 to the Washoe County District Health Department”). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35 

With respect to the requirements regarding interstate 

transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA previously approved an interstate 

transport SIP submitted by Nevada as satisfying the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i)(I). See 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). 

For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, in today’s final rule we are 

partially approving and partially disapproving Nevada’s 2009 

PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement. We are partially 

disapproving the submissions because they rely on irrelevant 

factors and lack any technical analysis to support the State’s 

conclusion with respect to interstate transport. We are also 

partially approving the submission, however, based on EPA’s 

supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information, which 

supports a finding that emissions from Nevada do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state 

and that the existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet 

the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See our 2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD.14

 

14 The recent opinion vacating the Transport Rule, EME Homer City Generation 

v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir., August 21, 2012), does not alter our 

conclusion that the existing Nevada SIP adequately addresses this 

requirement. Nothing in the Homer City opinion disturbs or calls into 

question that conclusion or the validity of the technical information on 

which our August 3, 2012 proposal relied – e.g., ambient PM2.5 levels at 

monitoring sites representative of regional background in nearby states and 

relevant meteorological and topographical information. In addition, nothing 

in that opinion undermines our proposed conclusion, based on our review of 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

36 

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), we are disapproving 

the Clark County portion of the SIP for subsection 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark County has repealed its 

regulation, Section 24, that formerly addressed the correlation 

requirement of this subsection, without submitting a SIP 

revision to replace it. 

D. Consequences of Disapprovals 

EPA takes a disapproval of a state plan very seriously. 

Rather than implement a FIP, we believe that it is preferable, 

and preferred in the provisions of the Clean Air Act, for states 

to implement the CAA requirements through state provisions that 

are developed and adopted by the state and approved into the SIP 

by EPA. A state plan need not contain exactly the same 

provisions that EPA might require, but EPA must be able to find 

that the state plan is consistent with the requirements of the 

Act in accordance with its obligations under section 110(k). 

Further, EPA’s oversight role requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act requirements by states across 

the country, even while acknowledging that individual decisions 

from source to source or state to state may not have identical 

outcomes. EPA believes these disapprovals are the only path that 

is consistent with the Act at this time. 

 

the available technical information, that emissions from Nevada do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

37 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a 

submittal that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of 

the CAA (CAA sections 171-193) or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 

110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals were not submitted to meet either 

of these requirements. Therefore, our partial disapproval of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals does not trigger 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 

promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years 

after finding that a State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a State implementation plan 

submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP 

revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year 

period. 

With respect to our partial approval and partial 

disapproval of Nevada’s submissions related to interstate 

transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), we conclude that 

any FIP obligation resulting from our final, partial disapproval 

is satisfied by our determination that there is no deficiency in 

the SIP to correct. Such disapproval also does not require any 

further action on Nevada’s part given EPA’s conclusion that the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

38 

SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to our final disapproval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for 

the Clark County portion of the SIP, today’s action establishes 

a deadline two years from the effective date of this action for 

EPA to promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves a SIP revision 

correcting the deficiency within that two-year period.15 We 

encourage the state to submit a SIP revision to address the 

deficiencies identified in this final rule and we stand ready to 

work with the state to develop a revised plan. 

For all other final disapprovals of today’s action (i.e., 

for the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 

110(a)(2)(K) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the 

SIP), we conclude that although the Nevada SIP remains deficient 

 

15 In our proposed rule, we did not explicitly state how EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark County portion of the 

SIP would trigger a new FIP obligation for EPA. However, our proposed rule 

made clear that “CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after finding that a State 

has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a State 

implementation plan submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP 

revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period.” (77 FR 

46361 at 46370). By contrast, for our other proposed disapprovals, we made 

clear that EPA’s FIP obligation would be satisfied “by our determination that 

there is no deficiency in the SIP to correct” (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; see 77 FR 46361 at 46370) and that the “deficiencies 

are adequately addressed in both areas by the Federal PSD program” (for the 

PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) for the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the SIP; see 77 FR 46361 at 46367). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

39 

with respect to PSD requirements in both the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately 

addressed in each jurisdiction by the Federal PSD program, and 

therefore no further FIP obligation is triggered by today’s 

action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 

This action is not a "significant regulatory action" under 

the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this partial approval and partial 

disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 will not inand-of itself create any new information collection burdens but 

simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves 

certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

40 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 

of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by 

the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on 

small entities. This partial SIP approval and partial SIP 

disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but simply approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 

opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

41 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this action 

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal mandates under the 

provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the 

partial approval and partial disapproval action does not include 

a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action approves 

certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves certain other 

pre-existing requirements, under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result 

from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 

federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism 

implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

42 

regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

among the various levels of government.” 

This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132, because it merely approves certain State requirements, 

and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 

because the SIP on which EPA is proposing action would not apply 

in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it 

will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments 

or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

43 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-

501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This partial approval and partial disapproval 

under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and 

disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into 

the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

44 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 

to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to 

requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this rulemaking. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

45 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., 

as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 

EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This rule will be 

effective on [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 30 days from 

date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of 

this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

46 

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see 

section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides 

of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 

 

___September 28, 2012___ _____/signed/________________ 

Date Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, 

Region IX 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

47 

Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows: 

PART 52--[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart DD—Nevada 

2. Section 52.1470 in paragraph (e), the table is amended by: 

a. Revising the entries for “Section 11 - Intergovernmental 

Consultation,” “Section 12 - Resources,” and "445B.500"; 

b. Adding an entry for "Attachment D - Inter-Local Agreement 

Supporting CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements" after the entry 

for "Section 11 - Intergovernmental Consultation"; 

c. Adding entries for "Enclosure 1 - CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone," "Enclosure 1 - CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for PM2.5," "Enclosure 1 -CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for PM2.5," "Attachment A - Current CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 

Requirements in the Washoe County Portion of the Nevada PM2.5

SIP," and "Revisions to Nevada's Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2) Plan Submittals as of July 2012 (August 2012), 

excluding attachments A through D" after the entry for 

"Adopted Lead Implementation Plan for the Truckee Meadows 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

48 

Basin, 4/26/84"; 

d. Adding new table entry titled "Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 

18, State Executive Department, Chapter 232A, Boards, 

Commissions and Similar Bodies" after the entry for "0.039," 

and under the new heading, adding an entry for "232A.020"; 

e. Adding new table entry titled "Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 

23, Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 281A, Ethics in 

Government" after the new entry for "232A.020," and under the 

new heading, adding entries in numerical order for "281A.150," 

"281A.160," "282A.400," "281A.410," and "281A.420"; 

f. Adding new table entry titled "Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 

40, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 439, Administration of 

Public Health" after the entry for "366.060," and under the 

new heading, adding an entry for "439.390"; and 

g. Adding an entry for "445B.503" after the entry for 

"445B.500." 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures 

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic 

or 

nonattainmen

t area 

State 

submitt

al date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Explanation 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

49 

Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 

* * * * * * * 

Section 11-

Intergovernmen

tal 

Consultation 

State-wide 8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted as 

attachment D 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

Attachment D - 

Inter-Local 

Agreement 

Supporting CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-

(M) 

Requirements. 

Washoe 

County 

12/4/09 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted as 

attachment D 

to NDEP's 

December 4, 

2009 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

Section 12-

Resources 

State-wide 8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted as 

attachment A 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

50 

* * * * * * * 

Enclosure 1 - 

CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-

(M) 

Requirements 

in the Current 

Nevada State 

Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for 

8-Hour Ozone. 

State-wide, 

within NDEP 

jurisdiction

2/1/08 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

"Infrastructur

e" SIP for the 

1997 8-Hour 

ozone 

standard. 

Enclosures (2) 

and (3) 

include copies 

of the 

regulatory and 

statutory 

provisions 

previously 

approved in 

the Nevada 

SIP. 

Enclosure 1 - 

CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-

(M) 

Requirements 

in the Current 

Nevada State 

Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for 

PM2.5. 

State-wide, 

within NDEP 

jurisdiction

2/26/08 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

"Infrastructur

e" SIP for the 

1997 PM2.5

standard. 

Enclosures (2) 

and (3) 

include copies 

of the 

regulatory and 

statutory 

provisions 

previously 

approved in 

the Nevada 

SIP. 

Enclosure 1 -

CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-

(M) 

Requirements 

in the Current 

Nevada State 

Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for 

PM2.5. 

State-wide, 

within NDEP 

jurisdiction

9/15/09 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

"Infrastructur

e" SIP for the 

2006 PM2.5

standard. 

Enclosures (2) 

and (3) 

include copies 

of the 

regulatory and 

statutory 

provisions 

previously 

approved in 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

51 

on date] the Nevada SIP 

Attachment A - 

Current CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-

(M) 

Requirements 

in the Washoe 

County Portion 

of the Nevada 

PM2.5 SIP. 

Washoe 

County 

12/04/0

9 

[Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Attachment B 

includes 

Washoe County 

regulations, 

that are 

addressed in 

separate 

rulemakings. 

Attachment C 

is the PSD 

delegation 

agreement 

between Washoe 

County 

District 

Health 

Department and 

EPA Region IX. 

Attachment D 

("Inter-Local 

Agreement 

Supporting CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-

(M) 

Requirements") 

is approved 

into the SIP 

and listed 

separately in 

this table. 

Revisions to 

Nevada's Clean 

Air Act 

Section 

110(a)(2) Plan 

Submittals as 

of July 2012 

(August 2012), 

excluding 

attachments A 

through D. 

State-wide 8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Attachment A 

("Section 12-

Resources"), 

the individual 

statutory 

provisions in 

attachment B 

("Statutes for 

Inclusion in 

Nevada's 

ASIP"), and 

attachment D 

("Section 11 - 

Intergovernmen

tal 

Consultation") 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

52 

are listed 

separately in 

this table. 

Attachment C 

was submitted 

for 

information 

only and not 

for 

incorporation 

into Nevada's 

SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 18, State Executive Department, 

Boards, Chapter 232A, Commissions and Similar Bodies 

232A.020 Residency 

requirement 

for 

appointment; 

terms of 

members; 

vacancies; 

qualificatio

n of member 

appointed as 

representati

ve of 

general 

public; 

gubernatoria

l appointee 

prohibited 

from serving 

on more than 

one board, 

commission 

or similar 

body. 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted in 

attachment B 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

(Nevada 

Revised 

Statutes, 

Volume 14, 

2011, as 

published by 

the 

Legislative 

Counsel, State 

of Nevada, 

section 

232A.020). 

Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 23, Public Officers and 

Employees, Chapter 281A, Ethics in Government 

281A.150 “Public 8/30/12 [Insert Submitted in 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

53 

employee” 

defined. 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

attachment B 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

Nev. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 

281A.150 

(Michie’s, 

Volume 8, 2009 

Cumulative 

Supplement). 

281A.160 “Public 

officer” 

defined. 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted in 

attachment B 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

Nev. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 

281A.160 

(Michie’s, 

Volume 8, 2009 

Cumulative 

Supplement). 

281A.400 General 

requirements

; 

exceptions. 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted in 

attachment B 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

Nev. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 

281A.400 

(Michie’s, 

Volume 8, 2009 

Cumulative 

Supplement). 

281A.410 Limitations 

on 

representing 

or 

counseling 

private 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

Submitted in 

attachment B 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

54 

persons 

before 

public 

agencies; 

disclosure 

required by 

certain 

public 

officers. 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

submittal. 

Nev. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 

281A.410 

(Michie’s, 

Volume 8, 2009 

Cumulative 

Supplement). 

281A.420 Requirements 

regarding 

disclosure 

of conflicts 

of interest 

and 

abstention 

from voting 

because of 

certain 

types of 

conflicts; 

effect of 

abstention 

on quorum 

and voting 

requirements

; 

exceptions. 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted in 

attachment B 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

Nev. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 

281A.420 

(Michie’s, 

Volume 8, 2009 

Cumulative 

Supplement). 

* * * * * * * 

Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 40, Public Health and Safety, 

Chapter 439, Administration of Public Health 

439.390 District 

board of 

health: 

Composition; 

qualificatio

ns of 

members. 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

Submitted in 

attachment B, 

and as an 

exhibit to 

attachment D, 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

Nev. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

55 

publicati

on date] 

439.390 

(Michie’s, 

Volume 12, 

2009 

Replacement 

Volume). 

* * * * * * * 

445B.500 Establishmen

t and 

administrati

on 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 

administrati

ve 

penalties; 

cities and 

smaller 

counties; 

regulation 

of certain 

electric 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted in 

attachment B 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

(Nevada 

Revised 

Statutes, 

Volume 28, 

2011, as 

published by 

the 

Legislative 

Counsel, State 

of Nevada, 

section 

445B.500). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

56 

plants 

prohibited. 

445B.503 Local air 

pollution 

control 

board in 

county whose 

population 

is 700,000 

or more: 

Cooperation 

with 

regional 

planning 

coalition 

and regional 

transportati

on 

commission; 

prerequisite

s to 

adoption or 

amendment of 

plan, policy 

or program. 

8/30/12 [Insert 

Federal

Register

page 

number 

where the 

document 

begins 

and 

insert 

date of 

FR

publicati

on date] 

Submitted in 

attachment B, 

and as an 

exhibit to 

attachment D, 

to NDEP's 

August 30, 

2012 SIP 

revision 

submittal. 

(Nevada 

Revised 

Statutes, 

Volume 28, 

2011, as 

published by 

the 

Legislative 

Counsel, State 

of Nevada, 

section 

445B.503). 

* * * * * * * 

3. Section 52.1472 is amended by adding paragraphs (d), (e), and 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1472 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(d) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on February 1, 

2008 and August 30, 2012 are partially disapproved for Clean Air 

Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II)(interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on September 

28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

57 

of air quality), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Quality (NDEP) and Washoe County portions of the 

Nevada SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark 

County portion of the Nevada SIP. 

(e) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on February 26, 2008 

and August 30, 2012 are partially disapproved for CAA elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II)(interfere with measures in any other 

state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality), 

(D)(ii), (J) and (K) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of 

the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark 

County portion of the Nevada SIP. 

(f) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on September 15, 2009, 

December 4, 2009, and August 30, 2012 are partially disapproved 

for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II)(interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) for the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the Nevada SIP; for CAA element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the NDEP, Washoe County, and Clark County 

portions of the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element 110(a)(2)(F) for 

the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.