# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 69 Fed. Reg. 31056 2004

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Jul 30 14:19:23 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

HUD to contract with the Harvard University Graduate School ofDesign (HarvardGSD) to conduct a study on the
costs incurred in operating well-run public housing. Harvard GSD issued a final report, the Harvard Cost Study, on June 6, 2003. In Section 222 ofthe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub.L. 108-199, approved January 23, 2004), Congress directed the Secretary
to conduct negotiated rulemaking with the publication ofa final ruleby July 1, 2004.

On March 10, 2004, HUD published a document establishing aNegotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee onthe Operating Fund (Committee) to provide advice and recommendations on developing a rule for effectuating changes tothe Public Housing Operating Fund Program in response to the Harvard CostStudy. The Committee has met three times. The first meeting

was held in Washington, DC on March 30, March 31, and April 1, 2004. A second meeting was held, also in Washington, DC, onApril 13-15, 2004. The third Committee meeting was held

onMay 11 and 12, 2004, in Atlanta, Georgia.

II. Committee Meeting

This document announces afourth meeting ofthe Committee. The Committee meeting will take place as described in the DATES and ADDRESSES section ofthis document.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5U.S.C. Appendix) and the implementing regulations issuedby the General Services Administration at41 CFR part 102-3, HUD publishes notices in the Federal Register of an advisory committee meeting at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting. In this case HUD is providing less than 15-days advance notice due to exceptional circumstances. The Committee was originally scheduled to complete its work at the third meeting. Although great progress was made at the previous meeting towards the development of a rule, the Committee determined that a fourth meeting would be necessary to complete its work. The time required to complete hotel reservations and other logistical arrangements prevented publication ofthis meeting notice prior
to today's date.

The agenda planned for the meeting includes discussion ofissues relating to the development ofchanges in response to the Harvard Cost Study. The meeting will be open to the public without advance registration. Public attendance
may be limited tothe space available. Members ofthe public maybe allowed
to make statements during the meeting, to the extenttime permits, and file written statements with the committee for its consideration. Written statements shouldbe submitted to the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section ofthis document.

Dated: May 27, 2004. Deborah Hernandez, Director,OfficeofVoucherPrograms. [FR Doc. 04-12495 Filed 6-1-04; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4210-33-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [NV052-0079; FRL-7669-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Source Review; State of Nevada, Clark County Department of AirQuality Management

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposedrule.

SUMMARY: This action is aproposed partial approval and partial disapproval ofseveral rules that were submitted as

arevision ofthe Clark County portion ofthe Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). We had approved a similar version ofthese rules into the Nevada SIP in 1999. See 64 FR 25210 (May 11, 1999). Our approval was appealed to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, which vacated the 1999 approval andremanded our approval of the rules for further consideration. See Hallv. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9thCir. 2001). This proposed partial approval andpartial disapproval ofthe rules for the reasons discussed more fully below responds to the issues raised in the court's remand.

The rules at issue in this proposed action were adopted bythe Clark County Department ofAir Quality Management for issuing permits for new

ormodified stationary sources in Clark County to comply withthe applicable permitting requirements under parts C andD oftitle Iofthe Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 to prevent significant deterioration in attainment areas and to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in nonattainment areas. EPA is also proposing to approve as a revision to the Nevada SIP a State regulation prohibiting the construction ofmajor new or modified sources under exclusive State jurisdiction in the nonattainment areas within Clark County. The intended effect ofthis proposed action is to ensure that the Clark County Department ofAir Quality Management's permitting rules are consistent with Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hallv.EPA and with the requirements ofthe CleanAir Act, as amended in 1990. EPAis also proposingto amend the appropriate section ofthe Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the successful court challenge to an EPA approval ofprevious versions ofthese local rules. Lastly, under section 110(k)(6) ofthe Act, EPAis proposing
to correct or clarify certain previous final rulemaking actions takenby EPA

on revisions to the Clark County portion ofthe Nevada SIP. EPA is taking
comments onthis proposal and plans to follow with a final action. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
mustbe received in writing by July 2, 2004. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action shouldbe addressed to Gerardo Rios, Chief,Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPARegion IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California, 94105.

You can inspect copies ofthe State's submittals, EPA'stechnical support documents (TSDs), and other supporting documentation relevant to this action, during normalbusiness hours atAir Division,EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, California 94105.

You may also see copies ofthe State's
two submittals at the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138, Carson City, Nevada 89706. The State's submittal ofDAQM's amended rules is available at the Clark County Department ofAir Quality Management, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Kohn, EPA RegionIX, Air Division,Permits Office (AIR-3), at (415) 972-3973 orkohn.roger@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, "we," "us" and "our" refer to EPA.
Table ofContents
I.Evaluation ofClark County New Source Review Rules A.The State's Submittal B.EPA's Evaluation and Action II.Corrections to, orClarification of, the ClarkCounty Portion ofNevada State Implementation Plan III. Proposed Actionand PublicComment IV. Statutory andExecutive OrderReviews

I.Evaluation of ClarkCounty New Source Review Rules

A. The State'sSubmittal

Table 1lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates thatthey

were adopted bythe local air agency, the Clark County Department ofAir Quality Management (DAQM), or were adoptedby the State Environmental 31056

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31056 2004Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

Commission (SEC), and submitted by Division ofEnvironmental Protection Nevada State Implementation Plan

the State air agency, the Nevada (NDEP), to EPA as revisions to the (SIP).

TABLE 

### 1.- SUBMI-TED RULES

Agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted

DAQM

..................... 0

....................... Definitions

.................................................................................. 10/07/03 10/23/03 DAQM

....................................... 11

. ............ Am bientAir Quality Standards

............................................... 10/07/03 10/23/03 DAQM

...................... 12............. Preconstruction Review for New or Modified Stationary 10/07/03 10/23/03 Sources. DAQM

....................................... 52.8

.................. Gasoline Dispensing Facilities- Section 52 Offset Program

.... 10/07/03 10/23/03 DAQM

....................................... 58

............. Emission Reduction Credits

..................................................... 10/07/03 10/23/03 DAQM

....................................... 59

..................... Emission Offsets

........ ................................... 10/07/03 10/23/03 SEC

.......................................... NAC 445B. Construction, major modification or relocation of plants to gen- 03/29/94 11/20/03

22083. erate electricity using steam produced by burning of fossil fuels.

On November 18, 2003, the submittal containing DAQM's rules was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which mustbe
met before formal EPAreview.

DAQM's predecessor agency (the Clark County Health District) adopted earlier versions ofthe Clark County New Source Review (NSR)rules, then numbered section 1 (Definitions), section 11 (AmbientAir Quality Standards), and section 15 (Source Registration), at various times from 1979 through 1981, which we approved into the Clark County portion ofthe Nevada SIP at various times in 1981 and 1982. Specifically, we approved different defined terms ofsection 1 (Definitions) into the applicable SIP on three occasions in 1981 and 1982. See46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981), 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981), and 47 FR 26620 (June 21, 1982). We approved section 11 (AmbientAir Quality Standards) into the applicable SIP on August 27, 1981 (46FR 43141). We approved different subsections of section 15 (Source Registration) into the applicable SIP on two occasions in 1981 and 1982. See46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981) and 47 FR 26620 (June 21, 1982).

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or Act), Clark County revised their NSR rules, then contained in local sections 0, 12, and 58, and in 1995, EPA proposed to approve with a contingency, and disapprove in the alternative, these revised rules into the SIP. See60 FR 38777 (July 28, 1995). Following our 1995 proposed action, Clark County revised their NSR rules (sections 0, 12, and 58) to address the contingency identified by EPA and re-submitted them via NDEP toEPA. In 1999, we found the contingency tohave been satisfied and approved therevised NSR rules into the SIP. See 64 FR 25210 (May 11, 1999). Our 1999 final action

was challenged, and in 2001, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated our approval ofClark County's NSR rules (specifically, sections 0, 12, and 58, as submitted and acted on in 1999). SeeHallv. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9thCir. 2001).

The court vacated our approval onthe grounds that EPA did not have an adequate basis under section 110(1) of the Act to conclude that substitution (i.e.,replacement or supercession) ofthe pre-existing NSR SIP rules (sections 1, 11, and 15) with the new NSR rules (sections 0, 12, and 58) would not interfere with attainment ofthe NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) (i.e.,the two pollutants for which a sub-region of Clark County, Las Vegas Valley, is designated nonattainment)by the applicable attainment deadlines. In recognition ofthis ruling, we are proposing to delete andreserve the paragraphs in section 1470 ("Identification ofplan") of40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada) that codified

our 1999 approval (i.e.,40 CFR 52.1470(c)(37) and (38)) to clarify that, until the effective date ofEPA's final approval ofthe submitted NSR rules into the SIP, sections 1, 11, and 15 (as approved byEPA in 1981 and 1982) represent the applicable SIP NSR rules in Clark County. Subsequently, Clark County adopted revised NSR rules (then contained in local sections 0, 11, 12, 58, and 59) on December 4, 2001. This version ofthe Clark County NSR rules, excluding section 11, was submitted to EPA by NDEP by letter dated February 25, 2003. We did not take action on that submittal, which has been superceded by DAQM's adoption ofadditional revisions to the Clark County NSR rules (nowexpanded to include section 52, subsection 52.8, aswell as sections 0, 11, 12, 58 and 59) on October 7, 2003 andNDEP's re-submittal to EPA dated October 23, 2003. In this notice, we refer to this latest submittal ofthe DAQM NSRrules (sections 0, 11, 12, 52.8, 58, and 59) as the "DAQM NSR submittal." While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. The TSD provides additional background information on the various NSR SIP submittals for Clark County.

EPA revised its federal regulations implementing Parts C and D ofthe CAA

on December 31, 2002, and those revisionsbecame effective onMarch 3, 2003. Because Clark County had submitted aversion ofitsrevised NSR rules to us specifically in response to the court's 2001 ruling in Hallv. EPA, EPAis now evaluating DAQM's NSR submittal based on the federal NSR regulations that were in effect at the time ofthe ruling in Hallv. EPA (prior
to December 31, 2002). Thisproposed rulemaking, therefore, does not establish
any precedent for evaluating whether a proposed NSR SIP fulfills the requirements ofthe revised NSR regulations that were published December 31, 2002. The evaluation in this proposed rulemaking ofDAQM's NSR submittal is limited to whether the submittal meets the requirements ofthe federal NSRregulations as they existed
atthe time ofthe rulingin Hallv. EPA, prior to revision on December 31, 2002.

There is no previous version of Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445B.22083 (Construction, major modification or relocation ofplantsto generate electricity using steam producedby burning offossil fuels) approved, or submitted for approval, into the Nevada SIP.

Submitted DAQM sections 0, 11, 12, 52.8, 58, and 59 represent a comprehensive revision to Clark County's NSR program and are intended
to satisfy the requirements under both part C (prevention ofsignificant deterioration)(PSD) and part D (nonattainment new source review) of 

### 31057

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31057 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

title I ofthe Act as those parts relate to permitting ofmajor new sources or major modifications as well as provide for aminor source permitting program

asrequired under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Submitted DAQM section 0 (Definitions) consists ofdefinitions of allterms relating tonew sources and modifications to existing sources ofair pollution. As is the case for existing SIP section 1 (Definitions), DAQM section 0 also contains numerous definitions of
terms used in prohibitory rules not related to NSR. Some ofthese prohibitory rules are already approved into the SIP (e.g., SIP section 53 (Oxygenated Gasoline Program)) while others are expected tobe approved into the SIP in the near future (e.g., DAQM section 54 (Cleaner Burning Gasoline) and DAQM sections 90 through 94 (relatedto various fugitive dust sources)). Therefore, with respect to submitted DAQM section 0, we are proposing to approve the entire rule, not just those definitions related toNSR, however, as explained later in this notice, we are proposing to retain in the SIP certain definitions from existing SIP section 1because they are needed for various existing SIP rules unaffectedby this action.

DAQM section 11 setsforth the
current national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). DAQM section 12
setsforth the source permitting requirements, including those related to applicability, control technology (i.e., Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) or Best Available Control Technology (BACT)), offsets, and public notice. DAQM subsection 52.8 contains offsetrequirements for new ormodified gasoline dispensing facilities whose annual through-put is more than 3.6 million gallons ofgasoline per year. DAQM section 58 establishes procedures for the creation, banking, anduse ofemission reduction credits, and DAQM section 59 establishes offset requirements for new ormodified

sources. NAC 445B.22083 is a State regulation prohibiting the construction ofmajor new or modified sources under exclusive State jurisdiction in the nonattainment areas within Clark County. The TSD has more information about these rules.

B. EPA'sEvaluationandAction

SIP Revision Procedural Requirements

The Act requires States to observe certainprocedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission toEPA. Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(1) ofthe Act provide thateach implementation plan

orrevision submitted by a State mustbe adopted afterreasonable notice and public hearing. Section 172(c)(7) ofthe Act provides thatplan provisions for nonattainment areas shall meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2).

DAQM held a public hearing on October 7, 2003 to entertain public
comment onrevisions to the following local airpollution regulations: sections 0, 11, 12, 52.8, 58 and 59. Notice for that hearing was provided by advertisement in anewspaper ofgeneral circulation in the applicable area on three separate days in September 2003. On October 7, 2003, the amended rules were adopted by DAQM and submitted to the State. On October 23, NDEP submitted the amended rules toEPA for approval as a revision to the Nevada SIP. We find that this process satisfies the procedural requirements under sections 110(a)(2), 110(1) and 172(c)(7) ofthe Act.

With respect to NAC 445B.22083, the Nevada SEC held apublic hearing on March 3, 1994 to entertain public
comment onthe submitted rule. Notice for that hearing was provided by advertisement in anewspaper ofgeneral circulation in the applicable area on three separate days in February 1994. OnMarch 3, 1994, the Nevada SEC adopted the submitted rule, which was subsequently renumbered in 2002 to its
current codification as NAC 445B.22083. On November 20, 2003, NDEP submitted NAC 445B.22083 to EPA for approval as a revision tothe Nevada SIP. We find that this process satisfies the procedural requirements under sections 110(a)(2), 110(1), and 172(c)(7) ofthe Act.

General Nonattainment andPSD Requirements

We have evaluated DAQM's NSR SIP submittal described above against the applicable requirements of section 110 andparts C and D of (titleI) ofthe Act andthe implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166 (July 1, 2002). We alsorelied upon the following materials in the review ofthis submittal: General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitle I ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of1990 (see57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), EPA's Emission Offset Interpretive Ruling (40 CFR part 51, appendix S), andEPA's policy document entitled, "Improving Air Quality withEconomic Incentive Programs," that was published in January 2001.

We note that, on December 31, 2002, EPA published a final notice revising regulations governing NSR programs ("Federal NSR regulations") mandated by parts C andD oftitle Iofthe Act. See 67 FR 80186. These revisions include changes in the NSR applicability requirements for modifications to allow sources more flexibility to respond torapidly changing markets andto plan for future investments in pollution control and prevention technologies. We selected March 3, 2003 as the effective date for

ourrevision tothe Federal NSR regulations. Normally, we would be evaluating the Clark County NSR SIP submittal on the basis ofthe current Federal NSR regulations, which would include these most recent revisions, but in light ofthe unusual circumstances surrounding EPA's reviewprocess for the Clark County NSR rules, i.e., court vacature ofa fully-approved set ofNSR rules, we have notevaluated the submitted NSR rules for consistency with the revised Federal NSR regulations but have evaluated them instead against the Federal NSR regulations that were in effect when the rules were being revised to address issues raised by EPAin the wake ofthe Halldecision. Like other State and local agencies, Clark County must adopt and submit revisions to its SIP-approved NSRrules implementing the minimum
program requirements set forth in the revised Federal NSRregulations no later thanJanuary 2, 2006. See 67 FR 80186,
at 80240 (December 31, 2002). Given this approach to our evaluation ofthe DAQM NSR submittal, the reader should refer tothe 2002 version of40 CFR parts 51 and 52 (revised as ofJuly 1, 2002) where citations are made herein
to the those parts ofthe CFR.

Nonattainment NSR Requirements

The Act requires all States with nonattainment areas to submit, by November 15, 1992, nonattainment NSR provisions that comply with part D (of title I)ofthe Act and the related implementing regulations. The Las Vegas Valley (hydrographic area #212),

a sub-region within Clark County, was designated as anonattainment area for both the carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM-10)NAAQS underthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and thus, the nonattainment NSR requirements apply to that area. Las Vegas Valley is currently classified as a "serious" nonattainment area for both the CO and PM-10 NAAQS. See40 CFR 81.329.

First, it should be noted that, pursuant to State law,the State of Nevada, not alocal air orhealth district, hasjurisdiction over plants which generate electricity by using steam producedby the burning offossil fuel within the State ofNevada. The applicable State law, now codified in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 31058

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31058 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

445B.500, was approved byEPA as a SIP revision in 1980 as NRS 445.546(4). See45 FR 46384 (July 10, 1980). Thus, within Clark County, the State, not DAQM, has jurisdiction over such plants that are located, or that will be constructed, in that county (including the nonattainment area). This exclusion is reflected in submitted DAQM section 12, subsection 12.1.3.2.

The Nevada State Environmental Commission (SEC), the administrative body responsible for the air quality regulations implemented by NDEP, has
not adopted a preconstruction permit program that complies withpart D of the Act (i.e.,Nonattainment NSR) for the nonattainment area within Clark County. Normally, because NDEP has jurisdiction over a particular category of stationary sources in a nonattainment

area (i.e.,Las Vegas Valley), the State would be required to adopt and submit

aNonattainment NSR program for new major sources or major modifications within the applicable source category in the nonattainment area. However, EPA is not requiring the State to submit Nonattainment NSR rules for Las Vegas Valley because the Nevada SEC adopted

aregulation (NAC 445B.22083) that prohibits new power plants or major modifications to existing power plants under State jurisdiction within the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area, and NDEP has submitted thatregulation to EPA as a revision to the SIP. We propose to approve this regulation into the Nevada SIP toresolve the regulatory gap that would otherwise exist in connection with NSR for sources under NDEPjurisdiction within the nonattainment area ofClark County.

With respect to the DAQM NSR submittal, we have concluded thatit
meets the applicable Nonattainment NSR requirements onthe basis ofthe following findings: 1.The DAQM NSR submittal provides for calculation ofemissions offsets based onthe same emissions baseline used in the demonstration ofreasonable further progress asrequired by section 173(a)(1)(A) ofthe Act (seeDAQM section 0, "emission reduction credit" and "baseline emissions"), provides for emissions offsets to be obtained when the construction permit for a new or modified source isissued and tobe in effect by the time the new or modified

source commences operation as required by section 173(c)(1) ofthe Act (seeDAQM section 59, subsection 59.4.2.6), provides for emissions increases from new major sources or major modifications to be offset by real reductions in actual emissions as required by section 173(c)(1) ofthe Act (seeDAQM section 0, "emission reduction credit (ERC)," and specifically paragraph (b) ofthat definition: "Section 58 emission reduction credit", and DAQM section 59, subsection 59.1.5), prohibits emissions reductions otherwise required bythe Act from being used for NSR offsetpurposes as required by section 173(c)(2) ofthe Act (seeDAQM section 0, "surplus," and DAQM section 59, subsection 59.4.2.1), andprovides for appropriate limitations

on "prior shutdown" emission reduction credits asrequired in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C) (seeDAQM section 58, subsection 58.3.2.5.3).

2.The DAQM NSR submittal provides for an analysis ofalternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques as a prerequisite to issuing construction permits to new major sources ormajor modifications ofnonattainment pollutants as required by section 173(a)(5) ofthe Act (seeDAQM section 12, subsection 12.1.4.1(k)), provides for

a definition of "stationary source" that includes certain internal combustion engines asrequired by section 302(z) of the Act (seeDAQM section 0, "stationary source"), and provides for a demonstration that all othermajor stationary sources under the same ownership as theproposed source are in compliance with the Act as required by section 173(a)(3) ofthe Act (seeDAQM section 12, subsection 12.8.2(b)).

3.The DAQM NSR submittal provides for opportunities for, and due consideration of,public comment as required by40 CFR 51.161 and provides for substantive requirements for new or modified minor sources asrequired in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164 (see the pollutant-specific requirements in DAQM section 12, subsection 12.2 and the notice and public hearing requirements in DAQM section 12, subsections 12.3.2, 12.3.3, and 12.3.4).

4. The DAQM NSR submittal provides for appropriate stack height limitations

asrequired in 40 CFR 51.118(a) (see DAQM section 12, subsection 12.5.4), provides for appropriate review ofa

source or modification which becomes major dueto a relaxation in a federallyenforceable limit as required in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii) (seeDAQM section 0, "major modification" and "stationary source"), provides for additional requirements for any new major source

ormajor modification thatmay have an impact onvisibility in any mandatory Class I Federal Area as required in 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2) (seeDAQM section 12, subsection 12.12), provides for appropriate consideration offugitive emissions as required in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C) (seeDAQM section 0, paragraph (b)(1) under "stationary source"), andprovides for application of the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) on all new major sources and major modifications ofnonattainment pollutants as required in section 173(a)(2) ofthe Act (seeDAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.2.2, 12.2.4.2, and 12.2.23.2 for PM-10, and subsections 12.2.7.3 and 12.2.9.3 for CO).

5. The DAQM NSR submittal provides for, as required under subpart 3 ofpart D oftitle I ofthe Act, appropriate thresholdsfor major sources and major modifications in "serious" CO nonattainment areas (seeDAQM section 0, "stationary source" and "major modification") in which stationary

sources are not significant contributors
to ambient CO levels (seeEPA's proposed finding related to the impact ofstationary sources on ambient CO levels in Las Vegas Valley in 68 FR 4141, at 4154 (January 28, 2003)), and provides for an appropriate offset ratio (seeDAQM section 59, subsection 59.1.4, table 59.1.2).

6. The DAQM NSR submittal provides for, as required under subpart 4 ofpart D oftitle I ofthe Act, appropriate thresholdsfor major sources and major modifications in "serious" PM-10 nonattainment areas (see DAQM section 0, "stationary source" and "major modification") in which PM-10
precursors (e.g., oxides ofnitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds) do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the standards in the area (see EPA'sproposed finding related tothe impact ofPM-10 precursors in Las Vegas Valley in 68 FR 2954, at 2958 (January 22, 2003)), andprovides for an appropriate offset ratio (seeDAQM section 59, subsection 59.1.4, table 59.1.2).

The TSD provides additional information on our evaluation ofthe DAQM NSR submittal relative to Nonattainment NSR requirements.

PSD NSRRequirements

Part C oftitle I ofthe Act contains the provisions, including preconstruction permit requirements for new major

sources or major modifications, for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) ofair quality in areas designated

as "attainment" or "unclassifiable" for the NAAQS. EPA'sregulations for PSD permit programs are foundin 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21. Except for CO and PM-10 in Las Vegas Valley (hydrographic area #212), Clark County is designated as "attainment" or "unclassifiable" for the NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.329.

EPA offers States (and local air districts)two mechanisms by which to 

### 31059

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31059 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

administer PSD permitting programs. First of all, EPAmay delegate the PSD permitting authority of40 CFR 52.21 to

a State or air district. For instance, EPA has provided a partial delegation of authority toNDEP to administer the Federal PSD program (set forth in 40 CFR 52.21). See 68 FR 52837 (September 8, 2003). Thus, NDEP and EPA now share responsibility for administering the PSD program as it relates tomajor new, or major modifications at, plants which generate electricity by using steam produced by the burning offossil fuel in Clark County (note that, in the nonattainment portion ofClark County (Las Vegas Valley), such new or modified plants are prohibited under NAC 445B.22083).

Alternatively, a State or air district
may develop its own PSD program meeting therequirements of40 CFR 51.166, and submit these rules for inclusion in the applicable SIP. The DAQM NSR submittal has been submitted for EPA approval under 40 CFR 51.166 aswell as the nonattainment NSR provisions discussed in the previous subsection of this notice. With respect tothe DAQM NSR submittal, we have concluded that it meets the applicable PSD NSR requirements on the basis ofthe following findings: 1.The DAQM NSR submittal provides for implementation ofbest available control technology (BACT) for new major sources or major modifications as required in section 40 CFR 51.166(j) (see DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.3.2, 12.2.4.2, and 12.2.5.2 (PM-10); subsections 12.2.8.2, 12.2.9.3, and 12.2.10.2 (CO); subsections 12.2.11.2, 12.2.12.3, and 12.2.13.2 (volatile organic compounds (VOC)); subsections 12.2.14.4 and 12.2.15.2 (oxides of nitrogen (NOx)); and subsections 12.2.16.2 (sulfurdioxide (SO2)), 12.2.17.2 (lead (Pb)), and 12.2.19.7 (noncriteria pollutants subject to PSD)).

2.The DAQM NSR submittal provides for an appropriate air quality analysis, including pre-application air monitoring andpost-construction monitoring, as required in 40 CFR 51.166(m) (see DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.4.4, 12.2.4.5, 12.2.5.4, and 12.2.5.5 (PM-10); subsections 12.2.9.2, 12.2.10.4, and 12.2.10.5 (CO); subsections 12.2.12.2, 12.2.13.4, and 12.2.13.5 (VOC); subsections 12.2.14.3, 12.2.15.4 and 12.2.15.5 (NOx); subsections 12.2.16.4 and 12.2.16.5 (SO 2); subsections 12.2.17.4 and 12.2.17.5 (Lead); subsections 12.2.19.1 and 12.1.19.2 (non-criteriaPSD pollutants; subsections 12.5.5 (PSDmonitoring significance levels), 12.6.1 (preconstruction ambient air monitoring requirements), and 12.6.2 (postconstruction ambient air monitoring requirements)). 3.The DAQM NSR submittal establishes the appropriate maximum allowable ambient air increments (see DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.3.5, 12.2.4.6, and 12.2.5.6 (PM-10); subsections 12.2.14.3 and 12.2.15.6 (NOx); subsection 12.2.16.6 (SO 2)) and ambient air ceilings (see DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.3.5(b), 12.2.4.6(c), and 12.2.5.6(c) (PM-10); subsections 12.2.9.2 and 12.2.10.4(c) (CO); subsections 12.2.12.2 and 12.2.13.4(b) (VOC); subsections 12.2.14.3 and 12.2.15.6(c) (NOx); subsections 12.2.16.6(c) (SO 2) and 12.2.17.4 (Lead))

asrequired in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and (d). DAQM implements the ambient air ceilings byreference to submitted DAQM section 11, which contains the
current NAAQS.

4. The DAQM NSR submittal provides for completion of appropriate additional impact analyses related to visibility, soils, and vegetation and appropriate additional air quality impact analysis related to general land use development

asrequired in 40 CFR 51.166(o) (see DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.4.7 and 12.2.5.7 (PM-10); subsections 12.2.9.2 and 12.2.10.6 (CO); subsections 12.2.12.2 and 12.2.13.6 (VOC); subsections 12.2.14.3 and 12.2.15.7 (NOx); and subsections 12.2.16.7 (SO, 12.2.17.6 (Lead), and 12.2.19.3 (noncriteria PSD pollutants)).

5.The DAQM NSR submittal provides for the appropriate Class II PSD classification for allareas in Clark County based on their adopted maximum allowable ambient air increments discussed above. 6. The DAQM NSR submittal provides for protection ofair quality related values (including visibility)in Class I

areas as required in 40 CFR 51.166(p) (seeDAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.4.6(b), 12.2.4.8, 12.2.5.6(b), and 12.2.5.8 (PM-10); subsections 12.2.9.2 and 12.2.10.7 (CO); subsections 12.2.12.2 and 12.2.13.7 (VOC); subsections 12.2.14.3, 12.2.15.6(b), and 12.2.15.8 (NOx); subsections 12.2.16.6(b) and 12.2.16.8 (SU2); subsection 12.2.17.7 (Lead); subsection 12.3.1.2(b) (notification ofthe Federal Land Manager (FLM) or other appropriate Federal official); subsection 12.3.4.4 (frameworkfor coordination between DAQM and the FLM or other appropriate Federal official concerning potential impacts to Class I areas)). 7.The DAQM NSR submittal provides for agency andpublic participation as required in 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1) and 51.166(q) (seeDAQM section 12, subsections 12.3.1.2(b), 12.3.2, and 12.4.4)).

The TSD provides additional information on our evaluation ofthe DAQM NSR submittal relative to PSD NSRrequirements.

Section 110(1) ofthe Act

Section 110(1) ofthe Act prohibits EPAfrom approving any revision of a SIP ifthe revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment andreasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act. For attainment pollutants in attainment areas, our evaluation considers first whether a submitted SIP revision would be as stringent as the provision in the existing applicable implementation planthat it would supercede. Ifso, then no further analysis is generally required. But, even ifwe cannot conclude that a SIP revision is as stringent as the corresponding provision in the applicable implementation plan, we may still approve the revision so long as itcan be shown that the revision would
notinterfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act.

For nonattainment pollutants in nonattainment areas, one court has ruled that our evaluation must extend beyond the issue ofwhether the submitted SIP revision is as stringent as the existing SIP provision thatitwould supercede and consider the submitted SIP revision in light ofcurrent ambient air quality andnonattainment planning requirements within the applicable nonattainment area. See Hallv.EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). No other
court has yet decided thisissue. In nonattainment areas too, we may approve SIP relaxations under section 110(1) so long as they would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act (such

as section 193 ofthe Act, discussed in the next section ofthis TSD).

Based on the detailed pollutant-bypollutant evaluation we provide in the TSD (and summarize herein), which includes an evaluation ofthe incremental SIP strengthenings and relaxations inthe context ofpollutant emission sources, trends, air quality conditions, and planning requirements,

we conclude that approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal (and thereby replacement

or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules) would notinterfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment andreasonable further 

### 31060

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31060 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

progress, or an other applicable requirement ofthe Act.

Most ofthe significant differences between the two NSR programs (SIPapproved versus the DAQM NSR submittal) are pollutant-specific rather than ofgeneral applicability. There are, however, two differences ofgeneral applicability that warrant discussion here: the emissions test used to define

a stationary source modification and the basis for the minor (referredto as "nonmajor" under the submitted DAQM NSR program) source baseline date.

First, the DAQM NSR submittal would replace a "potential-to-potential"
test with an "actual-to-potential" test for evaluating proposed stationary source modifications (see existing SIP section 1, "modification" (1.52)). As a result, the existing SIP rule fails to require NSR review for modifications atmajor
sources, which involve asignificant net emissions increase in actual emissions, but no increase in the potential to emit. In contrast, the DAQM NSR submittal provides for the more protective "actual-to-potential" test for evaluating proposed modifications at major

sources. This would represent a general strengthening ofthe NSR program compared to the existing SIP NSR
program. For additional Agency discussion on therelative stringency of these two different tests for determining applicability ofrequirements for modifications, see our final rule on recent NSR revisions at 67 FR 80186 at 80204-80206 (December 31, 2002).

Second, through the definition of "baseline concentration" in SIP section 1,the existing SIP established a uniform minor source baseline date ofAugust 7, 1977 in the various PSD baseline areas (whichderive from the areas designated

as attainment or unclassifiable byEPA under section 107(d) ofthe Act) within Clark County. This definition is consistent with EPA's 1978 final PSD regulations. However, the court in the AlabamaPowerdecision set aside EPA's definition (from the 1978 PSD regulations) in favor ofthe statutory definition ofthe term (seesection 169(4) ofthe Act), which links the baseline concentration to the ambient concentration that exists atthe time of the first PSD application in a given area. SeeAlabamaPowerCo.v. Costle,636 F.2d 323, at 375-376 (D.C. Cir. 1979). EPA's PSD regulations have long since been revised to reflect the court's holding (see40 CFR 51.166(b)(13)).

While the definition of"baseline concentration" in DAQM section 0 is consistent with the current EPA definition, EPA approval ofthis definition to supercede the SIP definition would have the effect of untriggering (completely) the minor

source baseline dates for PM and SO2in those section 107(d) attainment or unclassifiable areas in which no source

ormodification has submitted a complete PSD application orwould have a significant impact. Examples of such areas include Frenchman Flat (hydrographic area (HA) 160), Indian Springs Valley (HA 161), and Pahrump Valley (HA 162).

For those areas in which asource or modification has submitted a complete PSD application or would have a significant impact, EPA approval would have the effect ofestablishing anew minor source baseline date for PM or SO2 or both,i.e., from August 7, 1977 to various different (more recent) dates in the applicable areas. Examples include Las Vegas Valley (HA 212), which would have anew minor source baseline date for SO2 ofApril 25, 1996 (triggeredby a complete PSD application submitted byTIMET) and Black Mountains (HA 215), which would have anew minor source baseline date for PM ofDecember 14, 1990 (triggered by acomplete PSD application submitted byNCA #2).

Arguably, untriggering (orreestablishing new, more recent) minor

source baseline dates represents a relaxation because agreater level of air quality degradation would be allowed compared to aregulatory scheme in which thebaseline date and concentration is setuniformily for all

areas at August 7, 1977. However, this particular type ofchange aligns the Clark County NSR program with the
statute (seesection 169(4) ofthe Act) andthus, can alsobe viewed as a correction rather than as a relaxation. We conclude, therefore, that approval of the DAQM NSR submittal would serve the Congressional purposes described in the AlabamaPowerdecision, and that the untriggering (or re-setting) ofPSD minor source baseline dates in Clark County under these circumstances would be consistent with section 110(1) ofthe Act. Section 110(1) prohibits interference with any applicable requirement ofthe Act, and in this case the SIP revision will bring the Clark County program in line with the requirements ofthe Act asinterpreted by the court. Thus, EPA concludes that approval is consistent with section 110(1). We also note thatour approval of the DAQM NSR submittal would have little practical effect on the PSD
program asit isbeing administered currently byDAQM since DAQM has
not been administering the program under the assumption that there is a uniform county-wide minor source baseline date (i.e., asprovided for in the existing SIP NSR program) but rather underthe assumption that the minor

source baseline date is triggered on an area-by-area basis bythe submittal of the first complete PSD application in a given area.

CarbonMonoxide(CO). Asnoted previously, a sub-region within Clark County, the Las Vegas Valley (hydrographic area #212), is designated

as a "serious" nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS. Clark County has developed and adopted a "serious area" attainment plan which relies primarily

on the Federal motorvehicle control program, and State and local wintertime gasoline specifications (such as DAQM sections 53 (Oxygenated Gasoline Program) and 54 (Cleaner Burning Gasoline), and an "enhanced" motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
program to demonstrate attainment of the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (year 2000). We have proposed approval ofthis plan. See 68 FR 4141 (January 28, 2003) for our proposed approval ofthe Las Vegas Valley "serious area" CO attainment plan. The rest ofthe county is designated unclassifiable/attainment for the CO NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.329.

Approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal (andthereby replacement or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules) would represent an incremental relaxation in the control technology requirement for new or modified nonmajorCO sources within Las Vegas Valley (i.e.,from LAER to BACT), but would also represent an incremental strengthening by imposing more stringent offsetrequirements. The offset requirements would be strengthened in
two respects: the threshold for the offset requirement wouldbe lowered to 70
tons peryear (tpy)from 100 tpy and the offset ratio would be increased to 2:1 from 1:1. Given (1)thatthe more inclusive "actual-to-potential test" would replace the "potential-topotential" test for evaluating source modifications; (2)thatthe incremental relaxation in the control technology requirement wouldreplace the highest level ofcontrol (LAER) with the next highest (BACT) level ofcontrol andthis incremental difference is offset by an incremental strengthening in the offset requirement; (3)that DAQM section 12 prohibits new ormodified CO stationary

sources with potentials to emit (PTEs) greater than 50 tpy inthe downtown CO "hot spot" area; (4) thatthe Las Vegas Valley "serious area" CO attainment plan assumes growth in non-major stationary CO sources (i.e., does not

assume that the CO emissions from nonmajor sources would be offset), concludes that stationary sources are 

### 31061

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31061 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

not a significant contributor to CO levels in the valley, and does not rely on stationary source controls to demonstrate attainment; and (5)that EPA has proposed approval ofthe CO attainment demonstration based on onroad motor vehicle controls, we have concluded that the supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR program bythe submitted NSR program would not interfere with the CO attainment strategy or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act.

Particulate Matter(PM-10). As noted previously, Las Vegas Valley (hydrographic area #212), is designated

as a "serious" nonattainment area for the PM-10 NAAQS. Clark County has developed and adopted a "serious area" attainment plan which relies primarily

onprohibitory rules regulating fugitive dust sources, including vehicle travel

over paved andunpaved roads and construction activity, to demonstrate attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS by
year 2006. We have proposed approval ofthis plan. See 68 FR 2954 (January 22, 2003) for ourproposed approval ofthe Las Vegas Valley "serious area" PM-10 attainment plan. The rest ofthe county is designated on a hydrographic area basis as "unclassifiable" for the PM-10 NAAQS, see 40 CFR 81.329, but PM-10 NAAQS violations havebeen recorded in Apex Valley, which borders Las Vegas Valley to the north.

In general, approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal would strengthen the SIP by updating the PM increments in terms ofPM-10 (ratherthan total suspended particulate (TSP)). EPA replaced the PM NAAQS, measured as TSP, with new PM NAAQS, measured as PM-10, in 1987. See 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987). With respect to Las Vegas Valley, approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal (andthereby replacement or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules) would represent an incremental relaxation in the control technology requirement for new or modified nonmajor PM-10 sources (i.e.,from the
most stringent level ofcontrol, LAER to the nexthighest level ofcontrol, BACT), and in the offset requirement (from "federal" to "local" offsets) for new or modified sources with PTEs from 15 tpy (as adjusted from 25 tons TSP) to 70 tpy, but it would also represent an incremental strengthening by establishing a more stringent offset ratio (2:1) to replace the current ratio (1:1). Given (1)thatthe more inclusive "actual-to-potential test" would replace the "potential-to-potential test" for evaluating source modifications; (2)that the offsetting effects ofthese changes to the NSR program would ensure a negligible effect onPM-10 emissions; (3)thatthe submitted NSR program conforms to that PM-10 attainment plan in that theplan assumes BACT- rather than LAER-level ofcontrol for new or modified non-major sources in Las Vegas; (4) thatthe Las Vegas Valley "serious area" PM-10 attainment plan concludes that stationary sources are not a significant contributor to PM-10 NAAQS violations in the valley, and does not rely on stationary source controls to demonstrate attainment; and (5)thatEPA has proposed approval of the demonstration based onfugitive dust controls, we have concluded that the supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR program by the submitted NSR program would not interfere with the PM-10 attainment strategy or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act.

With respect to Apex Valley, the incremental relaxation in the control technology requirement (fromLAER to BACT) and the elimination of any offset requirement, when viewed in isolation, could appear to potentially interfere with attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS in that area given the monitored incidence ofPM-10 NAAQS violations in the area. However, EPArecognizes that Clark County isin the process of extending additional regulatory controls
to existing PM-10 sources in the Apex Valley andto developing aNatural Events Action plan to address those PM-10 NAAQS violations that result from high wind events that occur there, and in that context, EPAbelieves that the incremental relaxation in requirements for new ormodified stationary sources would not interfere with attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS in Apex Valley since the attainment strategy, by necessity, will focus on existing sources and high-wind-driven fugitive dust. Ozone.Las Vegas Valley (hydrographic area #212) was designated as anonattainment area for the ozone NAAQS in 1978. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Clark County developed and adopted the Las Vegas Valley Air Quality Implementation Plan in 1978 as an attainment plan for the ozone NAAQS. This plan was revised in 1980 and then again in 1984. The attainment strategy relied primarily onthe Federal motor vehicle emission control program, the NSR program (i.e.,existing SIP sections 1, 11, and 15), and various stationary

source prohibitory rules (including SIP sections 33, 50, 51, 52, and 60), which relate to sources ofchlorine (foundto be

a significant ozone precursor in Las Vegas Valley) and VOC sources, such as petroleum product storage and handling. We approved these plan submittals at various times (see, e.g., 51 FR 29923, August 21, 1986). Based on monitoring data documenting the
necessary decrease in peak ozone concentrations, we redesignated Las Vegas Valley as "attainment" for the (one-hour) ozone NAAQS in 1986. See 51 FR 41788 (November 19, 1986). Since then, peak ozone levels have remained relatively constant at 0.09 partsper million (ppm)to 0.10 ppm,but peak levels in recent years have approached the one-hour standard of0.12 ppm. The
current (one-hour) ozone NAAQS designation for Clark County is unclassifiable/attainment. See 40 CFR 81.329.

Approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal (andthereby replacement or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules) would represent an incremental relaxation in the control technology requirement for new or modified nonmajor VOC sources within Las Vegas Valley (i.e., from LAER to BACT), however, the DAQM NSR submittal extends LAERlevel ofcontrolto new or modified major VOC sources proposed for certain locations adjacent to, and generally upwind ofLas Vegas Valley (i.e., Eldorado Valley and Ivanpah Valley. In these adjacent areas, the applicable control technology requirement under the existing SIP NSR rules is BACT. Given thatthe 1980's-era

ozone attainment strategy relies on several important VOC regulatory elements thatwould not be affected by

our action on the NSRprogram, e.g., stationary source prohibitory SIP rules (i.e., SIP sections 33, 50, 51, 52, and 60) and motorvehicle tailpipe andfuel regulations promulgated by EPAunder title II ofthe Act, andthat the incremental relaxation inthe control technology requirement for new or modified sources ofVOCin Las Vegas Valley wouldreplace the highest level ofcontrol (LAER)with the next highest level ofcontrol (BACT) and would be partially offset by an incremental strengthening inthat requirement in upwind areas, we have concluded that the approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal (andthereby replacement or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules) would notinterfere with continued attainment ofthe one-hour

ozone NAAQS or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act.We note that Clark County has been designated as nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone NAAQS, which EPA established in 1997 (62 FR 38856, July 19, 1997) andwhich will in timereplace the existing (onehour) ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 23858, 23919-23920 (April 30, 2004). Additional changes to the DAQM NSR
program willbe required on a schedule 

### 31062

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31062 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

to be established by EPA in a final rule implementing the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23951, 23985-23986 (April 30, 2004).

NitrogenDioxide(NO2). Clark County is designated on a hydrographic area basis as unclassifiable/attainment for the NO2NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.329. Ambient NO2 concentrations are well below (approximately 50%) the applicable NAAQS.

As a general matter, approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal would strengthen the SIP by establishing NO2PSD increments and requiring the related NO2PSD increment consumption analysis for new major sources or major modifications in Clark County. Within Las Vegas Valley, approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal (andthereby replacement or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules) would relax the control technology requirement for new

ormodified sources ofNOx (from LAER
to BACT), but this relaxation wouldbe offsetby the special restrictions established in DAQM section 12 for new

ormodified NOx sources in the urbanized core ofLas Vegas. From the standpoint ofcontinued attainment of the NO2NAAQS, while the neteffect (negativeor positive) ofthese offsetting regulatory changes is difficult topredict, it would notbe expected to be significant given that therelaxed control technology requirement is from the highest level ofcontrol (LAER) to the
next highest level ofcontrol (BACT) rather than an elimination ofthe control technology requirement completely and given that, as noted above, ambient NO2 concentrations are well below the applicable NAAQS. Thus, we have concluded that the supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR program bythe submitted NSR program would not interfere with continued attainment of the NO2NAAQS or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act. SulfurDioxide(SO 2). Clark County is designated on a hydrographic area basis

asunclassifiable/attainment for the SO 2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.329. SO2 monitoring data collected in Las Vegas Valley in the early 1980's indicate that the highest ambient concentrations were between 5% and 22% oftherespective NAAQS depending upon the averaging period. Monitoring data from year 2002 show little change in ambient SO 2 concentrations relative to conditions in the early 1980's.

Approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal (andthereby replacement or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules) would represent an incremental relaxation in the control technology requirement for new or modified SO 2
sources within Las Vegas Valley (i.e., from LAER to BACT) and an incremental relaxation in the ambient SO2 standards used in the impact analyses conducted as part ofthe permit application process for new ormodified

sources (comparing the SO2 ambient standards in existing SIP section 11 with submitted DAQM section 11). From the standpoint ofcontinued attainment ofthe SO2NAAQS, EPA concludes thatthe incremental relaxation ofthe controltechnology requirement inLas Vegas Valley for new

ormodified sources of S0 2isnot significant given that therelaxed requirement is from the highest level of control (LAER) tothe nexthighest level ofcontrol (BACT) rather than an elimination ofthe control technology requirement completely and given that ambient S0 2 concentrations continue to be well belowthe applicable NAAQS. Also, NDEP has jurisdiction over one of the principal sources ofS0 2 (coalburning power plants) in Clark County, andthe control technology requirements for S0 2 emissions from those sources

are unaffected by this action. Finally, the incremental relaxation in S02 ambient air quality standards used in the permit application evaluation
process is consistent with continued attainment ofthe NAAQS since the revised ambient standards in submitted DAQM section 11 accurately reflect the
current NAAQS for SO2. Thus, we have concluded that supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR program bythe submitted NSR program would not interfere with continued attainment of the SO2NAAQS or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act.

Lead.EPA promulgated the NAAQS for lead (Pb) in 1978. See43 FR 46246 (October 5, 1978). Ambient lead levels collected in Las Vegas Valley duringthe late 1970's were found to violate the NAAQS. To provide for the attainment and maintenance ofthe lead NAAQS in the valley, Clark County adopted the StateImplementationPlanRevisionfor AmbientLeadinLas Vegas Valley, ClarkCounty,Nevada (dated February 11, 1980). EPA approved this plan as a SIP revision in 1982. See 47 FR 28374 (June 30, 1982). This lead (Pb) attainment plan predicted attainment of the lead NAAQS prior to 1982 primarily based onthe declining lead content of
motor vehicle gasoline, and indeed, maximum quarterly concentrations were much less than the NAAQS bythe mid1980's.

In general, the DAQM NSR submittal represents a strengthening ofthe SIP with respect to lead in those portions of Clark County that lie outside ofLas Vegas Valley but an incremental relaxation ofthe SIP within Las Vegas Valley. However, from the standpoint of continued attainment ofthe lead NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley, the relaxation ofcertain NSR requirements for new ormodified stationary sources oflead (deminimisexemptions, a BACT control technology requirement rather thanLAER, elimination ofoffsets) would notinterfere with continued attainment ofthe leadNAAQS nor any other requirement ofthe Actbecause the incremental relaxation ofthe control technology requirement is from the highest level ofcontrol (LAER)to the
next highest level ofcontrol (BACT) ratherthan an elimination ofthe control technology requirement completely and because the DAQM NSR submittal continues to ensure thatpermits are not issued to new or modified sources that would cause a violation ofthe lead NAAQS (seeDAQM section 12, subsection 12.2.17.4(c)). Moreover, the overwhelming influence ofmobile

sources to the historical lead NAAQS violations, which would be unaffected by approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal, and the low background lead concentrations further ensure that supercession ofthe existingNSR SIP
program with the submitted NSR SIP
program would notinterfere with continued attainment ofthe lead NAAQS or any other requirement ofthe Act.

Section 193 ofthe Act

Section 193 ofthe Act, which was added by Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments of1990, includes a savings clause which provides, in pertinent part: "No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by

an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in
any area which is anonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent orgreater emission reductions of such air pollutant." This section ofthe Act does not clearly apply
to revisions in NSR programs, but we have evaluated the DAQM NSR submittal on the assumption that section 193 does apply. NSR program revisions are inherently difficult to evaluate with respect to changes in emissions reductions because NSR

covers all types of stationary sources and provides for case-by-case evaluations ofcontrol technology requirements whether the applicable requirement is BACT orLAER (see40 CFR 51.166(b)(12) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii)). Inthe context ofthe DAQM NSR submittal, a determination ofwhether the submitted NSR program would provide for equivalent or greater 

### 31063

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31063 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

emission reductions relative tothe existing SIP NSR program is further complicated bythe comprehensive
nature ofthe changes. The DAQM NSR submittal represents a wholesale revision affecting the substance, procedure, and format ofthe Clark County NSR program. Nevertheless, we

canidentify three parameters thatmost closely link to relative changes in emissions reductions from new or modified stationary sources: the test for evaluating source modifications, the control technology review, and the requirements for offsets, including offset thresholds, offset ratios, and the other specifications for creation and use of offsets. As explained below, relaxation in some ofthese parameters is offset by countervailing strengthenings in other parameters with the net result that we

can conclude thatthe submitted NSR program will provide for equivalent or greater emissions reductions as the existing SIP NSR program (whichpredates the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) for the two applicable nonattainment pollutants, CO and PM10.

Test for SourceModifications.As noted previously, the submitted DAQM NSR program would establish the more inclusive test ("actual to potential") for evaluating source modifications and thereby replace the existing SIP NSR program's "potential-to-potential" test, with theresult that a greater number of

source modifications would be subject
to new source review and therelated requirements ofBACT or LAER. ControlTechnologyRequirements. Under the existing SIP NSR program, the highest level ofcontrol (LAER) applies to allnew or modified sources ofCO orPM in the nonattainment area. In contrast, under the submitted DAQM NSR program, the next highest level of control, BACT, applies to new or modified sources ofCO and PM with PTEs less than 70 tpy. Under the submitted NSR program, LAER applies
at 70 tpy or greater for CO and PM-10.

OffsetsRequirements.Offsets requirements refer to applicable thresholds, ratios, and specifications such as whether offsets are surplus, permanent, quantifiable and federally enforceable. With respect to offset thresholds, for CO, offsets under the existing SIP NSR program apply to

sources or modifications with PTEs greater than 100 tpy, whereas, under the submitted NSR program, offsets apply at 70 tpy.For PM, offsets under the existing SIP NSR program apply to

sources or modifications with PTEs greater than 25 tpy (basedon TSP, which isroughly equivalent to 15 tpy PM-10). The corresponding threshold under the submitted NSR program is 70 tpy ofPM-10. With respect to offset ratios, for both CO and PM, the existing SIP NSR program establishes a 1:1 ratio whereas the submitted NSR program establishes a more stringent a 2:1 ratio. With respect to specific characteristics ofoffsets, DAQM section 59 requires that offsets be surplus, permanent, quantifiable andfederally enforceable as defined in DAQM section 0. See DAQM section 59, subsection 59.4.2.1, andthe related definitions in DAQM section 0. Section 15 does not have any similar requirements for offsets.

Evaluation forCarbonMonoxide. First, as noted above, the submitted
program would establish the more inclusive "actual-to-potential" test for evaluating source modifications. Second, the submittedprogram would establish alower threshold for triggering offsetrequirements (70 tpy under the submitted NSR program versus 100 tpy under the existing SIP NSR program), would establish ahigher offsetratio (2:1

versus 1:1), and would establish the requirements for creation anduse of offsets (surplus,permanent, quantifiable and federally enforceable) that ensure that emissions increases are truly offset. Thus, two ofthe three parameters strongly support a conclusion thatthe submittedprogram would provide equivalent orgreater CO emissions reductions relative to the existing SIP NSR program. One ofthe three parameters, the control technology requirement, ismore stringent for non-major sources under the existing SIP NSR program than under the submitted program. The existing SIP NSR program requires LAER-level ofcontrol for non-major CO

sources whereas the submitted DAQM NSR program requires BACT-level of control for such sources. The emissions reductions associated with application ofLAER-level ofcontrol relative to those associated with application of BACT-level ofcontrol depend upon the type and size ofproposed sources or modifications. In some instances, due to the "top-down" approach used in BACT analyses, which requires justification for
not selecting LAER-level ofcontrol before evaluating less stringent levels of control, BACT is equivalent toLAER. This "top-down" approach for determining BACT is described in detail in Chapter B ofEPA's DraftNew Source Review WorkshopManual(October 1990). In most other instances, the differences in emissions limitations between the two levels ofcontrol are relatively small, particularly in relation
to emissions that would otherwise result from an uncontrolled source. Thus, we have concluded thatthe CO emissions increase associated with the incremental relaxation associated with the control technology requirement for non-major sources, which should be relatively minor given the small difference between emissions limitations under BACT versus LAER in
mostcircumstances, would be more than compensated forby the more inclusive test for source modifications, the lower CO offsetthreshold, the higher CO offset ratio, and the establishment ofother requirements for offsets that ensure thatthey truly offset emissions from applicable new sources

or modifications.

Evaluation forParticulate Matter.As noted above, the submitted DAQM NSR program would establish the more inclusive "actual-to-potential" test for evaluating source modifications.

The second parameter, the control technology requirement (LAER), is more stringent for non-major sources under the existing SIP NSRprogram than underthe submitted program (BACT). As described above for CO, however, the difference between the emissions reductions associated with application ofLAER-level ofcontrol relative to those associated with application of BACT-level ofcontrol typically ranges fromminor to none at all.

With respectto requirements for PM offsets, the differences between the existing SIP and submitted NSR
programs are particularly difficultto evaluate. On one hand, the existing SIP NSRprogram has established a lower offset threshold at 25 tpy ofTSP (which isroughly equivalent to 15 tpy ofPM10), compared to 70 tpy ofPM-10 under the submitted program. On the other hand, the existing program has established a lower offsetratio (1:1

versus 2:1).

Moreover, the "quality" ofthe offsets underthe existing program is lower thanthat required under the submitted
program in two respects. First, unlike the submitted program, the existing SIP NSRprogram does not require that offsets be surplus,permanent, quantifiable andfederally enforceable and thus does not ensure that increases in emissions are truly offset. Second, the existing SIP NSR program allows TSP offsets to be used to offsetincreases in PM emissions. Depending upon the particle size distribution ofthose TSP offsets, itis possible thatincreases in PM-10 emissions under the existing SIP NSRprogram would not be offsetby PM-10 offsets at all. In otherwords, a

new source that generates particulate
matter thatis largely or entirely ofthe particle size constituting PM-10 could be "offset" under the existing program 

### 31064

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31064 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

by another source whose PM emissions

are largely or entirely ofa particle size
not constituting PM-10 but still constituting TSP (TSPincludes particles roughly 30 microns in diameter or less). In such circumstances, the PM-10 emissions increase atthe new source would be at most only partially offset since the "offsets" do not,or only partially, constitute PM-10. In contrast, the submitted program, while it does
not require offsets for as many new

sources as the existing program (dueto the higher offset threshold), does require that PM-10 emissions increases be offsetby PM-10 offsets, i.e., where offsets are required.

In conclusion, while we recognize the significant trade-offs in emission reduction potential between the two NSR programs with respect to PM-10,

we have concluded thatthe PM-10 emissions increase associated with the incremental relaxation associated with the control technology requirement for non-major sources and the higher offset threshold would be more than compensated for by the more inclusive
test for source modifications, the higher PM-10 offset ratio, the establishment of otherrequirements for offsets that

ensure that they truly offset emissions from applicable new sources or modifications, andthe requirement to

use PM-10 offsets rather than TSP offsets, only some fraction ofwhich constitutes PM-10.

Conclusion.For the reasons setforth above, we propose to find that the submitted DAQM NSR program insures equivalent or greater emissions reductions ofCO and PM-10 as compared to the existing SIP NSR program in compliance with section 193 ofthe Act. Proposed Partial Approval

Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) ofthe Act, we propose a partial approval of the submitted NSR rules. With the exceptions listed in the following subsection ofthis notice, we propose approval ofthe submitted NSR rules, including DAQM sections 0, 11, 12, 58, and 59 and NAC 445B.22083, based on

our determination thatthe rules comply with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions requiring regulation of stationary sources in general and requiring permit programs for major stationary sources in particular, including section 110(a)(2)(C) and parts C and D oftitle I ofthe Act. In support ofthis recommendation, we have concluded that our approval ofthe submitted NSR rules (andthereby replacement or supercession ofthe existing SIP NSR rules), i.e., with the partial exception for certain definitions in existing SIP section 1, complies with section 110(l) ofthe Act because the untriggering (orre-setting) ofthe minor

source baseline dates for PM and SO2 would be consistent with the statutory purpose oflinking such dates with collection of actual air quality data and because the relaxation ofcertain control technology and offsetrequirements would not interfere with the strategy for attainment ofthe CO and PM-10 NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley orthe continued attainment ofthe other NAAQS in Clark County. Proposed Partial Disapproval

We are alsoproposing apartial disapproval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal. A discussion ofthe individual subsections ofthe submittal that we are proposing to disapprove is provided in the following paragraphs. 1.We propose to disapprove submitted DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.18 (HAP sources in Clark County) and 12.2.20 (Additional Requirements for Stationary Sources with Beryllium, Mercury, Vinyl Chloride, orAsbestos Emissions in Clark County)to avoid potential confusion or conflict with the Federal NESHAPS/MACT regulatory program. Regulations governing hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions are generally
not appropriate for incorporation into SIPs, which are intended under the Act
to assure attainment and maintenance of the criteria airpollutants. 2.We propose to disapprove DAQM section 52, subsection 52.8 (Section 52 Offset Program), because it cannot be evaluated properly in the absence ofa SIP submittal ofthe entire rule (section 52). DAQM revised subsection 52.8 to clarify the date when the emission reduction credit program will expire, but the emission reduction credit
program is not a part ofexisting SIP section 52, different portions ofwhich

were approved by EPAin 1981 (see46 FR 21758, April 14, 1981) and in 1982 (see47 FR 26386, June 18, 1982). Thus, consideration ofthis latest revision shouldbe conducted only aspart ofan evaluation ofthe entire rule (i.e., DAQM section 52).

A partial disapproval is appropriate in this instance given the explanation provided above and given thatthese three subsections (i.e., DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.18 and 12.2.20, and DAQM section 52, subsection 52.8) are easily severable from the overall NSR submittal.

Recommendations for Improvements to DAQM NSR Rules

The TSD describes rule deficiencies that do not preclude full approval ofthe DAQM NSR submittal but are recommended for the next time DAQM modifies the rules. These recommendations relate to such topics

as use ofconsistent terms, greater coordination with NDEP concerning increment consumption, and consideration ofany analysis ofthe impact ofa major source ormajor modification on air quality related values inClass I areas provided by a Federal Land Manager or otherFederal official during the permit application review period and provision ofan explanation in the public notice in those instances which DAQM disagrees with

a finding of suchFederal official.

II. Correctionsto, orClarification of, the ClarkCounty Portion ofNevada State Implementation Plan

In pertinent part, section 110(k)(6) of the Act provides that whenever EPA determines that the EPA action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or partthereof) was in error, EPA may in the same manner asthe approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis thereofshall be provided to the State andpublic. The EPA interprets this provision to authorize the Agency
to make corrections to an approval, disapproval, or promulgation ofa SIP revision when itis shown to EPA's satisfaction that an error occurred in failing to consider or inappropriately considering information available to EPA at the time ofthe approval, disapproval, or promulgation, orthe information made available at the time ofapproval, disapproval, or promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to have been clearly inadequate.

Over the years, EPAhas taken

numerous actions onrevisions to the Clark County portion ofthe Nevada SIP. In the process, EPAhas made certain

errors, ortook certain actions that
warrant clarification, which are the subject ofthisproposed action. Each proposed correction or clarification is summarized below. The TSD for this proposed action provides additional discussion ofthese rules.

SIPsection 1,subsections 1.79, SignificantSourceofTotalChlorides, and 1.94, Total Chlorides.In the preamble to our final rule approving these defined terms into the SIP (46FR 43141; August 27, 1981), we said that

we were takingno action onthese two subsections, but then we proceeded to codify them in the "Identification of plan" section of40 CFR part 52, subpart 31065

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31065 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

DD (Nevada). As a result, we inadvertently approved these two subsections oflocal rule, SIP section 1 (Definitions), into the Clark County portion ofthe Nevada SIP. We are proposing now to delete these terms from the SIP and to codify this deletion by revising the appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada), section 1470 (Identification of plan).

FormerSIPsection 12, Upset, Breakdown,orScheduledMaintenance. EPA originally approved this rule into the SIP in 1973. See 38 FR 12702 (May 14, 1973). In 1981, we reversed course and disapproved it and codified this disapproval by amending 40 CFR part 52, section 1478 (then entitled "Rules and Regulations"). See 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981). Subsequently, Clark County renumbered its air pollution regulations and submitted a local rule (section) 25 also entitled "Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance," which we disapproved in 1984. See 49 FR 10259 (March 20, 1984). In that 1984 final rule, we codified our disapproval ofsubmitted section 25 byamending 40 CFR 52.1483, but we also removed and reserved 40 CFR 52.1478 which had included the 1981 disapproval language related to section 12 (Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance). (Notethat 40 CFR 52.1478 has subsequently been renamed "Extensions.") The endresult ofthis sequence ofrulemaking is that, while section 12 (Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance), originally approved byEPA in 1973, is no longer approved into the Nevada SIP (ever since disapproval action in 1981), the
current codification ofthe Nevada SIP in subpart DD (Nevada) of40 CFR part 52 is not clear on this point. Therefore,

we are proposing to clarify the status of former SIP (nowdisapproved) section 12 (Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance), as submitted onJanuary 19, 1973, by revising the appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada), section 1470 (Identification ofplan).

SIPSection 15, Prohibition of NuisanceConditions.EPA approved this rule into the Nevada SIP in 1973. See 38 FR 12702 (May 14, 1973). Clark County later renumbered its air quality regulations, and we subsequently approved a new local rule (section) 15 (Source Registration) into the SIP. That

new SIP section 15 (Source Registration) had nothing to do with general nuisance conditions and thus did not supercede the old SIP rule 15 (Prohibition of Nuisance Conditions) in the Nevada SIP. However, general nuisance rules, such as SIP section 15 (Prohibition of Nuisance Conditions) are not appropriate for inclusion in SIPs, because they are not specifically directed at the attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS, and therefore, we are proposing to delete section 15 (Prohibition ofNuisance Conditions) from the SIP andto codify this deletion byrevising the appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada), section 1470 (Identification ofplan).

Disapprovedsection25, subsection 25.1, untitled,butrelatedto upset, breakdownorscheduledmaintenance. In 1981, we disapproved this rule, which had been submitted tous onJuly 24, 1979. See46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981). Through that 1981 action, we listed this rule in the "Identification of plan" section of40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada) but canceled outthe apparent approval by codifying the corresponding disapproval in 40 CFR 52.1478. In 1984, we disapproved an amended version oflocal Clark County rule, section 25 (Upset,Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance), which had been submitted to us on November 17, 1981. See49 FR 10259 (March 20, 1984). In the 1984 action, we codified

our disapproval ofsection 25 (Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance), submitted on November 17, 1981, by amending 40 CFR 52.1483, but we also removed andreserved 40 CFR 52.1478 (then entitled "Rules and Regulations"), which had included the 1981 disapproval language related to section 25, subsection 25.2, as submitted onJuly 24, 1979. By removing the disapproval language but retaining the listing of section 25, subsection 25.1, in the "Identification of plan" section of40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada), we have inadvertently causedpotential confusion as to the
status ofthis particular rule with respect to the Nevada SIP. To eliminate this confusion, we are proposing to delete the listing ofsection 25, subsection 25.1 (untitled,but related to upset, breakdown or scheduled maintenance), by revising the appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada), section 1470 (Identification of plan). SIPsection29 (Odorsin theAmbient Air). EPA originally approved this rule into the SIP in 1973. See 38 FR 12702 (May 14, 1973). Clark County later renumbered its airpollution regulations, and we subsequently approved anew local rule (section) 29 (Sulfur Content in Fuel Oil) into the SIP. See46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981). The new SIP section 29 (Sulfur Content in Fuel Oil) was completely different than the oldSIP section 29 (Odors in the Ambient Air) and thus did not supercede it, norhave

we taken specific action to delete the old SIP section 29 (Odors in the Ambient Air) from the Nevada SIP. Thus, section 29 (Odors in the Ambient Air), submitted on January 19, 1973, remains in the Nevada SIP. Odor nuisance rules are generally not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP, because they are not specifically directed at the attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. Therefore,

we are proposing to delete section 29 (Odors in the Ambient Air), submitted

onJanuary 19, 1973, from the Nevada SIP and to codify the deletion by revising the appropriate paragraph under40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada), section 1470 (Identification of plan).

SIPsection33, Chlorinein Chemical Processes. This local rule was adopted

on May 18, 1984, and was included in the Las Vegas ValleyAir Quality ImplementationPlan,Post1982 Update forOzone,which was adopted byClark County on October 16, 1984, submitted by NDEP on January 11, 1985, and approved by EPA as a SIP revision on August 21, 1986 (51 FR 29923). The codification ofour approval ofthe post1982 ozone plan, however, does not provide a separate listing of section 33, which could result in confusion as to the status ofthatrule with respect to the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(33). To clarify its status as an approved part of the Nevada SIP, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(33) to provide for a specific listing for section 33 (Chlorinein Chemical Processes).

SIPsection40, subsection40.1, Prohibition of

NuisanceConditions;SIP section42, subsection42.2, untitledbut relatedtonuisance from openburning; andSIPsection43,subsection43.1, Odorsin theAmbientAir.These three rules were submitted toEPA on July 24, 1979. In 1981, we tookfinal action on the portion ofthe July 24, 1979 submittal that included these three rules. See46 FR43141 (August27, 1981). In that rulemaking, we indicated that we were taking no action on the three rules, but we inadvertently listed them as approved into the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(16)(viii). Therefore, we

are proposing to revise 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(16)(viii) to delete SIP section 40, subsection 40.1 (Prohibition of Nuisance Conditions), SIP section42, subsection 42.2 (untitledbut related to nuisance from open burning), and SIP section 43, subsection 43.1 (Odors in the Ambient Air), submitted onJuly 24, 1979, from the Nevada SIP.

Conclusion.EPA has reviewed the rules described above and determined thatthey were previously approved in 

### 31066

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31066 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

error into the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP (SIP sections 1.79, 1.94, 15, 29, 40.1, 42.2, and 43.1), or were previously disapproved but not clearly identified as such in the CFR (former SIP section 12 and disapproved submitted section 25.1), or were not clearly listed as approved (SIP section 33). Deletion ofthose rules approved in

error into the SIP will not relax the applicable SIP and is consistent with the Act. Therefore, EPA isproposing to delete them and to clarify the status of the other listed rules under section 110(k)(6) ofthe Act, which provides EPA with the authority to take these actions without additional State submission.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

As authorized under section 110(k)(3) ofthe Act, EPAis proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval ofthe revised Clark County NSR rules into the Nevada SIP. We are proposing to approve submitted DAQM sections 0, 11, 12 (except subsections 12.2.18 and 12.2.20), 58, and 59 and submitted State regulation NAC 445B.22083. We are proposing to disapprove submitted DAQM section 12, subsections 12.2.18 and 12.2.20, and submitted DAQM section 52, subsection 52.8.

Iffinalized, this action would incorporate those provisions ofthe submittedrules that we are approving into the SIP and would not incorporate those provisions that we are disapproving. Also, iffinalized as proposed, the submitted rules will supercede the existing SIP rules that provide for permitting ofnew or modified stationary sources in Clark County, including all ofexisting SIP sections 11 and 15, as well as most of the defined terms in existing SIP section 1,and will withdraw EPA's nonattainment area visibility FIP authority as itrelates tonew source review byDAQM in Clark County (see 40 CFR 52.1488(b)). Ifthis partial disapproval isfinalized, sanctions will
not be imposed under section 179 ofthe Act because the provisions that we are proposing to disapprove are not required SIP submissions.

With respect to the two local rules entitled "Definitions," ifwe finalize this action as proposed, we would approve submitted DAQM section 0 (Definitions) in its entirety, including those terms not directly related toNSR,but we would retain 33 defined terms from SIP section 1 (Definitions) because there are no equivalent, corresponding terms and definitions in DAQM section 0, and thus, these terms may be needed for existing SIP rules unaffected by this action. The 33 defined terms from SIP section 1tobe retained include: Affected Facility (1.1), Air Contaminant (1.3), Air Pollution Control Committee (1.6), Area Source (1.11), Atmosphere (1.12), Board (1.16), Commercial OffRoad Vehicle Racing (1.23), Dust (1.26), Existing Facility (1.28), Existing Gasoline Station (1.29), Fixed Capital Cost (1.30), Fumes (1.36), Health District (1.40), Hearing Board (1.41), Integrated Sampling (1.44), Minor Source (1.50), Mist (1.51), New Gasoline Station (1.57), New Source (1.58), NIC (1.60), Point Source (1.70), Shutdown (1.78), Significant (unnumbered), Single Source (1.81), Smoke (1.83), Source of Air Contaminant (1.84), Special Mobile Equipment (1.85), Standard Commercial Equipment (1.87), Standard Conditions (1.88), Start Up (1.89), Stop Order (1.91), Uncombined Water (1.95), and Vapor Disposal System (1.97). The TSD provides additional information onthe proposed partial supercession of existing SIP section 1.

Second, in recognition ofthe vacature ofour approval ofprevious versions of the Clark County NSR rules in Hallv. EPA,we propose to delete 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(36) and (37).

Third, under section 110(k)(6), we are proposing to correct certain provisions ofthe Clark County portion ofthe Nevada SIP that were incorporated into the SIP in error and torevise certain provisions ofthe Clark County portion ofthe Nevada SIP that warrant clarification. Specifically, we are proposing to delete SIP section 1, subsections 1.79 (Significant source of total chlorides") and 1.94 (Total Chlorides); SIP section 15 (Prohibition ofNuisance Conditions); SIP section 29 (Odors in the Ambient Air); SIP section 40, subsection 40.1 (Prohibition of Nuisance Conditions); SIP section42, subsection 42.2 (untitledbut related to nuisance from open burning); and SIP section43, subsection 43.1 (Odors in the Ambient Air), from the appropriate paragraphs ofsection 1470 ("Identification ofplan") of40 CFR part 52, subpart DD (Nevada). Iffinalized as proposed, this action will delete these rules from the federally enforceable SIP. We are alsoproposing to revise the appropriate paragraphs in 40 CFR 52.1470 to clarify that former SIP section 12 (Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance) and submitted section 25.1 (untitled,but related to upset, breakdown, or scheduled maintenance) have been disapproved and are not approved into the Nevada SIP, andto clarify that SIP section 33 (Chlorinein Chemical Processes) was, and continues to be, approved into the Nevada SIP aspart ofour approval of the overall post-1982 ozone plan for Las Vegas Valley.

We are solicitingpublic comment on all aspects ofthis proposal. These
comments will be considered before takingfinal action. To comment on today's proposal,you should submit
comments by mail (intriplicate if possible) as described in the ADDRESSES section listed in the front ofthis document. EPA will consider any written comments received by July 2, 2004.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" andtherefore is not subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget.For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Thisproposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does
notimpose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, itdoes not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (PublicLaw 104-4).

This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because itwill not have a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, onthe relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government andIndian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 

### 31067

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31067 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State touse voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPAhas no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure touse VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compound.

Dated: May24, 2004. Laura Yoshii, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIX. [FRDoc. 04-12412 Filed6-1-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141 [OW-2003-0067; FRL-7669-1]
RIN2040-AE62

National Primary DrinkingWater Regulations: Analytical Method for Uranium

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the use ofthree additional analytical methods for compliance determinations ofuranium in drinking water. Each of these methods use an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)technology that has gained wide acceptance in the analytical community. EPAbelieves that ICP-MS analytical methods couldbe more costeffective, less labor-intensive or more sensitive than some ofthe technologies previously approved in the December 2000 Radionuclides Rule. (65 FR 76708) This proposed rule does not withdraw approval ofany previously approved monitoring methods for uranium.

In the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthe Federal Register, we are approving National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Analytical Method for Uranium as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as anoncontroversial rulemaking and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approval in the preamble tothe direct final rule. Ifwe receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action onthis proposed rule. Ifwe receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule andit will
not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based onthis proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Through thisproposal, EPA requests comment onwhether approval ofthe ICP-MS methods published by EPA, American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), andthe Standard Methods Committee (EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673-03, and SM 3125), is appropriate for compliance determinations ofuranium in drinking
water only. Readers shouldplease note that EPAis not requesting comment on any other use ofthese three ICP-MS methods, use ofany otherICP-MS method, or any issue associated with the uranium standard or its implementation, andEPA will not respond to any comments otherthan those concerning the approval ofthese specific methods (as cited) for compliance determinations ofuranium in drinking water. Today's action does
not affect approval ofthe 15 methods currently approved for compliance monitoring ofuranium.
DATES: Comments must be received on

orbefore July 2, 2004. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OW-2003- 0067, by one ofthe following methods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. * Agency Website: http:// www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA'spreferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

* E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov. * Mail: OW Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of4 copies.

* Hand Delivery: OW Docket, EPA Docket Center,EPA/DC, EPAWest, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC. Such deliveries

are only accepted duringthe Docket's normal hours ofoperation, and special arrangements shouldbe made for deliveries ofboxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OW-2003-0067. EPA's policy is that all comments received willbe included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov! edocket,including any personal information provided, unless the
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submitinformation thatyou consider tobe CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov Web sites are "anonymous access" systems, which

means EPA will not know your identity

or contact information unless you provide it inthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address willbe automatically captured andincluded as part ofthe
comment thatisplaced in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPArecommends thatyou include your name and other contact information in thebody ofyour comment and with any disk orCD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPAmay not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free of any defects

orviruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register ofMay 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).

Docket:All documents in the docket

are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.Although listed in the index, some information is
notpublicly available, i.e., CBIor other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 31068

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31068 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the OW Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566-2426. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information-Lisa Christ, Office ofGround Water and Drinking Water, Mailcode: 4606M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8354; email address: christ.lisa@epa.gov, Technical information-David Huber, Office ofGround Water andDrinking Water, Mailcode: 4606M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4878; email address: huber.david@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.Does ThisAction Apply to Me?

Entities potentially regulated by this regulation are public water systems that

are classified as community water systems (CWSs). A community water system (CWS) means apublic water system which serves at least 15 service connections used byyear-round residents orregularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include the following:

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS1

Industry

........................................................................................... Privately-owned community w ater systems

................................... 221310 State, Tribal, Local, and Federal Government

............................... Publicly-owned community water systems

..................................... 924110

1National American Industry Classification System.

This table isnot intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types ofentities thatEPA isnow

aware could potentially be regulatedby this action. Other types ofentities not listed in the table could alsobe regulated. To determine whether your facility isregulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in §141.66 oftitle 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations. Ifyou have questions regarding the applicability ofthis action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in thepreceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. What Is EPA's Statutory Authority andBackground for ThisProposed Rule?

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),

as amended in 1996, requires EPAto promulgate national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWRs) which specify maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques for drinking water contaminants (SDWA section 1412 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1)). NPDWRs apply to public water systems pursuant to SDWA section 1401 (42 U.S.C. 300f(1)(A)). According to SDWA section 1401(1)(D), NPDWRs include "criteria andprocedures to assure a supply ofdrinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted methods for quality control andtesting procedures." In addition, SDWA section 1445(a) authorizes the Administrator to establish regulations for monitoring to assistin determining whether persons are acting in compliance with the requirements ofthe SDWA. EPA's promulgation of analytical methods is authorized under these sections ofthe SDWA, aswell as the general rulemaking authority in SDWA section 1450(a), (42 U.S.C. 300j9(a)). As discussed earlier in part L.A of this preamble, the actionproposed herein would affect CWSs. CWSs are a subset ofpublic water systems. (40 CFR 141.2).

OnDecember 7,2000 (65 FR 76708), EPA published a final Radionuclides Rule in the Federal Register that included monitoring requirements and a MCL of 30 micrograms per liter (30 gg/ L) for uranium that tookeffect in December 2003. In the preamble to the December 2000 rule, EPAnoted that several commenters asked EPAto consider the approval ofcompliance monitoring methods thatuse an inductively coupledplasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) technology. (65 FR 76724) These commenters suggested that ICP-MS analytical methods could be more cost-effective, less laborintensive or more sensitive than some of the technologies approved in the December 2000 rule. In response to these comments, EPA statedthat the Agency was reviewing ICP-MS technology for possible proposal in a future rulemaking. EPAhas completed this review and in today's proposed rule is proposing approval ofthree methods that use ICP-MS technology. The methods are equivalent andpublished by EPA, ASTMInternational, and the Standard Methods (SM) Committee. The methods are EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673- 03, and SM 3125. III.Whatis EPADoing Today?

EPA isproposing to approve the use ofthe ICP-MS methodspublished by EPA, ASTM International, andthe Standard Methods Committee (EPA 200.8, ASTMD5673-03, and SM 3125) for compliance determinations of uranium in drinking water. For further information regarding these methods, please see the information provided in the direct final action located in the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register publication.

For the various statutes and executive orders thatrequire findings for rule making, EPA incorporates the findings fromthe direct final rule into this companion proposal for the purpose of providing public notice and opportunity for comment.

IV. Summary ofICP-MS Technology

EPA reviewed ICP-MS methods publishedby EPA, ASTM International, and the Standard Methods Committee. In each ofthese methods, sample material in solution is introduced by pneumatic nebulization into a radiofrequency plasma where energy transferprocesses cause desolvation, atomization and ionization. The ions are extracted from the plasma through a differentially pumped vacuum interface and separated on the basis oftheir massto-charge ratio by a quadrupole mass spectrometer having a minimum resolution capability ofone atomic mass unitpeak width at five percent peak height. The ions transmitted through the quadrupole are detected by an electron multiplier or Faraday detector and the ioninformation processed by a data handling system. The sensitivity ofeach ICP-MS method for compliance 

### 31069

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31069 2004

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 106/Wednesday, June 2, 2004/Proposed Rules

determinations ofuranium in drinking
water is acceptable and is sensitive enough to detect at less than one part per billion (1ug/L). The uranium MCL is 30 ug/L.

EPA reviewed each ofthese methods for performance and applicability to compliance determinations ofuranium in drinking water. Three ofthese methods, EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673-03, and SM 3125, have acceptable performance and are otherwise suitable for compliance determinations of uranium in drinking water. Method EPA 200.8 was publishedby EPA in 1994; method ASTM D5673-03 was published by ASTM International in 2003; and SM 3125 was published by the Standard Methods Committee in 1998. In today's proposed rule, EPAis proposing the use ofthese ICP-MS methods for compliance determinations ofuranium in drinking water.

EPA is not, in today's proposed rule, proposing the use ofthese methods for any other purposes. EPA notes that EPA 200.8 was approved for compliance determinations of several regulated metals in drinking water onDecember 5, 1994. (59 FR 62456) EPA also recognizes that the other two ICP-MS methods proposed through today's action for determination ofother uranium may alsobe applicable tomonitoring for other drinking water contaminants. Although the analytical scope ofASTM D5673-03 and SM 3125 extends beyond uranium, these two methods were not published until 2003 and 1998, respectively. In a later rulemaking, EPA may consider extending the use of ASTM D5673-03 and SM 3125 to compliance determinations ofother regulated metals.

Like flourometric and laser phosphorimetry methods, ICP-MS

measures uranium mass only; therefore all caveats discussed in the December 2000 Radionuclides Rule on using mass methods to determine contributions to gross alpha also apply. (65 FR 76724)

Today's proposed rule does not affect approval ofthe 15 methods currently specified at 40 CFR 141.25(a) for compliance determinations ofuranium.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

For the Statutory and Executive Order reviews see the parallel direct final rule found elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

List of Subjects for40 CFRPart 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Water supply. Dated: May 24, 2004. Michael 0. Leavitt,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as found in the parallel direct final rule found elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 04-12300 Filed 6-1-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA-D-7592]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department ofHomeland Security.
ACTION: Proposedrule.

SUMMARY: Technical information or comments arerequested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt orto show evidence ofbeing already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication ofthis proposed rule in a newspaper oflocal circulation in each community.

ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection
atthe office ofthe ChiefExecutive Officer ofeach community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes tomake determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 ofthe Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed base flood and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that

are required. They should not be construed to mean thatthe community
must change any existing ordinances that are more stringentin their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements ofits own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements ofthe NFIP and are also usedto calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and forthe contents inthese buildings.

NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct. Thisproposed ruleis categorically excluded from the requirements of44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment hasbeen prepared.

RegulatoryFlexibility Act. The Mitigation Division Director ofthe Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that thisproposed rule is exempt from therequirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Actbecause proposed ormodified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required
to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

RegulatoryClassification.This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f)ofExecutive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order12612,Federalism. Thisproposed ruleinvolves no policies thathave federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order12778, CivilJustice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards ofsection 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

List ofSubjects in 44 CFR Part67

Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: 

### 31070

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 31070 2004