Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64737 

1The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 2The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the 

3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

3The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 was published in 

the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144). 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanations 

*******

33–15–15–01.2 .......... Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 

Air Quality, Scope.

10/27/10 [9/27/12, Insert Federal Register page 

number where the document begins.] 

........................

* * * * * * * 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

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

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–25667 Filed 10–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047; FRL–9739–8] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone 

and Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the state of Nevada 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

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

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 

2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). The CAA requires that each 

State adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, and requires 

EPA to act on such SIPs. Nevada has 

met most of the applicable 

requirements. Where EPA is 

disapproving, in part, Nevada’s SIP 

revisions, the majority of the 

deficiencies have been already been 

addressed by a federal implementation 

plan (FIP). For one remaining 

deficiency, this final rule sets a two-year 

deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP, 

unless EPA approves an adequate SIP 

revision prior to that time. EPA remains 

committed to working with Nevada’s 

environmental agencies to develop such 

a SIP revision. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on November 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2011–0047. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI)). To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please schedule 

an appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, 

mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

A. Summary of Approvals 

B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and 

Other Materials 

C. Summary of Disapprovals 

D. Consequences of Disapprovals 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to EPA, within 

three years (or such shorter period as 

the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a primary or 

secondary NAAQS or any revision 

thereof, a SIP that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. EPA 

refers to these specific submissions as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone 1 and a new 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently revised the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 

21, 2006.3 Each of these actions 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years of issuance 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

On August 3, 2012 (77 FR 46361), 

EPA proposed to approve in part and 

disapprove in part several SIP revisions 

and one proposed SIP revision 

submitted by Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) to 

address the infrastructure requirements 

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

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. NDEP’s submittals include SIP 

revisions submitted to EPA on February 

1, 2008 (‘‘2008 Ozone Submittal’’), 

February 26, 2008 (‘‘2008 PM2.5

Submittal’’), September 15, 2009 (‘‘2009 

PM2.5 Submittal’’), and December 4, 

2009 (‘‘2009 PM2.5 Supplement’’), and a 

proposed SIP revision submitted on July 

5, 2012. The proposed SIP revision 

served as a supplement to the prior four 

infrastructure SIP revisions and was 

submitted under the parallel processing 

mechanism provided by 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V, Section 2.3. The final 

version of the July 5, 2012 proposed SIP 

revision was adopted on August 30, 

2012 and submitted to EPA on the same 

day (‘‘2012 Submittal’’). 

We are taking final action on all five 

submittals since they collectively 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4The three TSDs are as follows: (1) ‘‘Technical 

Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Nevada 

Provisions for 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Sections 110(a)(2)(A) thru (C) Sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (D)(ii), Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (E)(iii), Sections 110(a)(2)(F) thru (M),’’ July 

2012 (‘‘Overarching TSD’’); (2) ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for EPA’s Proposed Action on the 2009 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (Transport 

Portion) for the State of Nevada,’’ July 2012 (‘‘2006 

PM2.5 Transport TSD’’, or ‘‘Transport TSD’’); and (3) 

‘‘Technical Support Document: EPA Evaluation of 

Nevada Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/ 

Section 128 Conflict of Interest Requirements,’’ July 

2012 (‘‘Section 128 TSD’’). 

5See document numbers EPA–R09–OAR–2011– 

0047–0135 (NDEP’s comment letter) and EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0047–0136 (Washoe County’s comment 

letter) at www.regulations.gov under docket ID 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047. 

address the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We refer 

to them collectively herein as ‘‘Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals.’’ 

The rationale supporting EPA’s 

action, including the scope of 

infrastructure SIPs in general, is 

explained in our August 3, 2012 Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) 

and the three associated technical 

support documents (TSDs) 4 and will 

not be restated here. The proposed rule 

and TSDs are available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed rule opened on August 3, 

2012, the date of its publication in the 

Federal Register, and closed on 

September 4, 2012. During this period, 

EPA received two comment letters: one 

from NDEP on September 4, 2012 

(herein ‘‘NDEP’s comment(s)’’); and one 

from Washoe County Health District Air 

Quality Management Division (WCHD– 

AQMD) on September 4, 2012 (herein 

‘‘Washoe County’s comment(s)’’). Both 

letters are available in the docket to 

today’s final rule.5

NDEP’s comment letter numbers its 

comments 1 through 9. NDEP comment 

numbers 1 through 3 support various 

aspects of EPA’s proposed rule, while 

numbers 4 through 9 request 

clarification on several points. Washoe 

County’s comment letter generally 

supports EPA’s proposed rule with two 

exceptions, which it numbers 1 and 2, 

and requests that EPA make a 

clarification on one additional point. 

We appreciate NDEP and Washoe 

County’s comments in support for our 

proposed rule and respond to their 

comments regarding requested 

clarifications and corrections below. 

Note that we have grouped comments 

from NDEP and Washoe County that are 

similar in content into single comments 

and responses. 

Comment #1: 

NDEP’s comment number 4 and 

Washoe County comment number 1 

note that EPA proposes to disapprove 

the portion of the SIP related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permit programs for NDEP and 

Washoe County because the programs 

do not completely satisfy the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for PSD 

permit programs. NDEP and WCHD– 

AQMD also note, however, that EPA 

recognizes that the deficiencies related 

to the PSD programs are adequately 

addressed by the existing federal 

implementation plan (FIP), for which 

EPA has delegated enforcement 

authority to NDEP and Washoe County. 

Moreover, NDEP argues that the 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.1485(b), which 

codify the PSD FIP by incorporating 

EPA’s PSD provisions in the Nevada 

SIP, make EPA’s PSD FIP a part of the 

SIP, with the exception of the portion 

applicable to Clark County. As such, 

NDEP and WCHD–AQMD believe that 

the elements of the Nevada SIP related 

to PSD programs under their 

jurisdictions should be approved. 

Response #1: 

The CAA requires each State to adopt 

and submit a plan which provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. See CAA 

section 110(a)(1). CAA section 110(a)(2) 

sets forth the content requirements for 

such plans, including the requirement 

for a permit program as required in part 

C (‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality,’’ or ‘‘PSD’’) 

of title I of the CAA. Such plans are 

referred to as state implementation 

plans or SIPs. 

EPA’s authority to promulgate a FIP 

derives from EPA’s determination that a 

State has failed to submit a complete, 

required SIP submission or from EPA’s 

disapproval of a State submission of a 

SIP or SIP revision. See CAA section 

110(c)(1). The SIP, viewed broadly, thus 

includes both portions of the plan 

submitted by the State and approved by 

EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by 

EPA to substitute for a State plan 

disapproved by EPA or not submitted by 

a State. See 40 CFR 52.02(b). 

In 1974, EPA disapproved each state’s 

SIP with respect to PSD and 

promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the 

SIP deficiency (‘‘PSD FIP’’). See 39 FR 

42510 (December 5, 1974). In 1975, EPA 

codified the PSD FIP in each state’s 

subpart in 40 CFR part 52. See 40 FR 

25004 (June 12, 1975)(adding 40 CFR 

52.1485 to Subpart DD—Nevada). In 

1978 and 1980, EPA amended the PSD 

regulations following the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977 and related court 

decisions and amended the codification 

of the PSD FIP in each state’s subpart, 

including 40 CFR 52.1485, accordingly. 

See 43 FR 26380 (June 19, 1978) and 45 

FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). Since then, 

EPA has approved the PSD SIP for the 

sources and geographic area that lie 

within the jurisdiction of Clark County 

Department of Air Quality, and has 

delegated responsibility for conducting 

PSD review, as per the PSD FIP, to 

NDEP and the Washoe County District 

Health Department. Notwithstanding 

the delegation, however, the Nevada SIP 

remains deficient with respect to PSD 

for the geographic areas and stationary 

sources that lie within NDEP’s and 

Washoe County District Health 

Department’s jurisdictions. As such, 

EPA’s disapproval of the infrastructure 

SIP submittals for those elements that 

require states to have a SIP that includes 

a PSD permit program, including CAA 

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

(J), and (K), is appropriate because EPA 

disapproved the State’s submitted plan 

as not adequately addressing PSD 

program requirements. To conclude 

otherwise would be inconsistent with 

the long-standing and current 

disapproval of the SIP for PSD for the 

applicable areas, with the statutory 

foundation upon which the PSD FIP is 

authorized, and with the obligation 

under section 110(a) for each State to 

adopt and submit a plan for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS that 

includes a PSD program. EPA’s 

delegation of the PSD FIP is not the 

same as State adoption and submittal of 

state or district rules meeting PSD 

requirements and EPA’s approval 

thereof. 

Comment #2: 

NDEP’s comment number 6 and 

Washoe County comment number 2 

state that NDEP and Washoe County 

Health District AQMD ‘‘[do] not believe 

that the PSD program as it relates to 

greenhouse gases renders this SIP 

deficient with respect to ozone and 

PM2.5’’ and request that EPA explain 

why greenhouse gas (GHG) provisions 

are ‘‘essential to enforcing the PM2.5

NAAQS.’’ Both comments refer to pages 

10, 42, and 43 of EPA’s Overarching 

TSD for EPA’s proposed rule. 

Response #2: 

The PSD requirements for the 

regulation of greenhouse gases are 

relevant to our evaluation of SIPs 

submitted with respect to the ozone and 

PM2.5 (or any) NAAQS because those 

PSD requirements apply on a source-bysource basis for all federally regulated 

pollutants emitted by that source that 

meet the PSD applicability thresholds, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64739 

6The full title of the GHG Tailoring Rule is 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ For 

further explanation of the GHG PSD permitting 

requirements, see the GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 

31514 (June 3, 2010); ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority 

To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy and SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 77698 

(December 13, 2010); ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). 

rather than applying on a pollutant-bypollutant basis. For example, the CAA 

specifies that a new source that triggers 

PSD because of its emissions of ozone 

precursors or PM2.5 is also subject to 

PSD for any other federally regulated 

pollutant that it emits above the 

applicable significance levels and for 

GHGs, if it emits those pollutants above 

the thresholds established by the GHG 

Tailoring Rule.6 Accordingly, for the 

Nevada Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS to be fully approvable, the 

Nevada SIP must include the 

appropriate PSD requirements for all 

other federally regulated pollutants, 

including GHGs. Because Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIPs fail to include those 

requirements for GHGs with respect to 

the NDEP and Washoe County portions 

of the SIP, the EPA must partially 

disapprove these SIP submittals. 

Consistent with our proposal, however, 

we reiterate that ‘‘[a]lthough the Nevada 

SIP remains deficient with respect to 

PSD requirements in both the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the SIP, 

these deficiencies are adequately 

addressed in both areas by the Federal 

PSD program.’’ See 77 FR 46361 at 

46367. 

Comment #3: 

NDEP’s comment number 5 states that 

‘‘EPA proposes to partially disapprove 

the NDEP’s submittal [with respect to 

the ‘good neighbor’ requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)], stating 

that it is not relevant, and to partially 

approve the submittal based on EPA’s 

independent evaluation of Nevada’s 

impact on receptor states.’’ NDEP stated 

its belief that ‘‘it would be simpler not 

to do a partial disapproval based on 

information that EPA deemed 

immaterial to its decision-making, but 

rather to fully approve the SIP based on 

EPA’s own data analysis demonstrating 

a lack of impacts on receptor states.’’ 

Response #3: 

We disagree. EPA proposed to 

partially disapprove Nevada’s 2009 

PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5

Supplement with respect to the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because the State’s 

submission ‘‘relies on irrelevant factors 

and lacks any technical analysis to 

support the State’s conclusion with 

respect to interstate transport.’’ See 77 

FR 46361 at 46368. We also proposed to 

partially approve the submission, 

however, based on EPA’s supplemental 

evaluation of relevant technical 

information, which supports a finding 

that emissions from Nevada do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. Our 

proposal to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the submission was 

based not on information that ‘‘EPA 

deemed immaterial to its decisionmaking,’’ but rather on information 

submitted by the State in the form of a 

SIP submission which we found 

inadequate to satisfy the applicable 

CAA requirements. 

Specifically, as discussed in the 

Transport TSD for this proposal, 

Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal and 

2009 PM2.5 Supplement (collectively the 

‘‘2009 SIP Submittals’’) appear to 

conclude that the existing Nevada SIP 

satisfies the requirements of CAA 

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

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, among other 

requirements of CAA section 110(a). See 

Transport TSD at 1. The only support 

provided for this conclusion in the 2009 

SIP Submittals is a reference to EPA’s 

previous approval of Nevada’s CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate 

transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 72 FR 41629 

(July 31, 2007). See Transport TSD at 1, 

2. The 2009 SIP Submittals contains no 

technical analysis of potential interstate 

transport or any other support for the 

State’s conclusion that the existing 

Nevada SIP satisfies the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id. 

Moreover, Nevada submitted nothing to 

address the requirements of CAA 

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

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Clark County. See 

id. at footnote 1. 

As explained in the Transport TSD, 

EPA does not agree with NDEP’s 

suggestion or conclusion in the 2009 SIP 

Submittals that EPA’s previous approval 

of Nevada’s section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

interstate transport SIP for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 p.m.2.5

NAAQS could support, in any way, the 

conclusion that the SIP adequately 

addresses the requirements of CAA 

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

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See id. at 2. The 

cited 2007 rulemaking addressed CAA 

requirements for different NAAQS and 

thus could not support a conclusion that 

the requirements have been met with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See id. 

Given the absence of any technical 

demonstration in the State’s submission 

showing that Nevada emission sources 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state, we cannot 

fully approve the 2009 SIP Submittals as 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are, however, 

partially approving the 2009 SIP 

Submittals based on EPA’s independent 

review of relevant technical 

information, which supports the State’s 

conclusion that Nevada emission 

sources do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that 

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

therefore does not require additional 

controls in Nevada to prohibit such 

impacts. 

Comment and Response #4: 

NDEP comment number 8 

recommends several corrections and 

clarifications to the text of our Transport 

TSD. We respond to each sub-comment 

following separate comment summaries 

below. 

First, citing pages 7 and 11 of our 

Transport TSD, NDEP states that ‘‘EPA 

has characterized Idaho as more distant 

from Nevada than Utah, Oregon and 

California’’ but notes that Nevada and 

Idaho share a border. 

We agree that our Transport TSD 

could have better characterized the 

location of Idaho relative to Nevada and 

the distance from Nevada to 

nonattainment receptors in Idaho 

relative to those in ‘‘other western 

states’’ (i.e., Washington and Montana, 

see pages 7 and 11 of our Transport 

TSD). EPA discussed the nonattainment 

receptor in Idaho as part of its 

discussion of ‘‘other western states with 

nonattainment receptors located farther 

away’’ because the receptor in Shoshone 

County, Idaho (Pinehurst), located in 

northern Idaho, is more distant from 

Nevada compared to the receptors 

located in Utah, Oregon, and California. 

But NDEP correctly notes that like Utah, 

Oregon, and California, Idaho shares a 

border with Nevada. 

Second, citing page 16 of the 

Transport TSD, NDEP encourages EPA 

to expressly state that ‘‘EPA’s analysis 

shows no significant contribution by 

Nevada to nonattainment in the 

Southern California area.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64740 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

In Section IV.B.3. of our Transport 

TSD (see pages 15–16), regarding 

nonattainment receptors in California, 

for four of the five areas discussed we 

stated that ‘‘we believe it is reasonable 

to conclude that emissions from Nevada 

sources do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard at these receptor 

locations.’’ We inadvertently did not 

make such a statement for the Southern 

California—Los Angeles, Riverside, San 

Bernardino area. In response to this 

comment, we are clarifying our 

conclusion that emissions from Nevada 

sources do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard at the Southern 

California—Los Angeles, Riverside, San 

Bernardino nonattainment receptor 

locations. 

Third, citing pages 20–22 of the 

Transport TSD, NDEP states that ‘‘EPA 

reaches a conclusion that Nevada 

emissions do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS 

in California (Section V.B.1.) or Utah 

(Section V.B.3.); however, no 

conclusion is stated for Arizona (Section 

V.B.2).’’ NDEP believes a similar 

conclusion was implied and encourages 

EPA to state as much for Arizona. 

We agree and are clarifying our 

conclusion that emissions from Nevada 

sources do not interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS at the Arizona maintenance 

receptor locations discussed in Section 

V.B.2 (page 21) of the Transport TSD. 

Fourth, NDEP asserts that EPA’s 

discussion on pages 20–22 of the 

Transport TSD ‘‘appears to talk about 

nonattainment areas rather than 

maintenance areas’’ while ‘‘Table III.A.1 

lists Arizona as having two maintenance 

areas for PM2.5 and no nonattainment 

areas.’’ NDEP perceives a discrepancy 

therein. 

It appears NDEP has misunderstood a 

distinction that EPA is making between 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

and nonattainment or maintenance 

areas. Table III.A.1 lists the 

nonattainment and maintenance 

‘‘receptors’’ located in western counties, 

which EPA selected based on the 

criteria discussed in Section III.A 

(‘‘Discussion of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptor Selection 

Methodology’’). These criteria for 

selection of nonattainment and 

maintenance ‘‘receptors’’ are not related 

to the criteria for designation of 

nonattainment areas under CAA section 

107 or for approval of maintenance 

plans under CAA section 175A. Thus, it 

is possible to have maintenance 

‘‘receptors’’ in areas that have been 

designated as nonattainment areas, as in 

Arizona and Utah. 

Fifth, NDEP states that ‘‘Table III.A.1 

lists Utah as having no maintenance 

areas, so the NDEP is uncertain why 

Utah is discussed in section V of this 

Appendix’’ and that ‘‘[t]he discussion of 

nonattainment areas in Utah (Section 

IV.B.1.) appears to be repeated in 

Section V.B.3 for maintenance 

receptors.’’ NDEP perceives a 

discrepancy therein. 

We disagree that Table III.A.1 (‘‘List of 

Western Counties with Daily PM2.5

Nonattainment or Maintenance 

Receptors’’, page 8) lists Utah as having 

no maintenance areas. The last three 

rows for Utah in this table include an 

asterisk in the Receptor Type column. 

The asterisk is defined below the table 

as follows: ‘‘This county contains both 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. See Appendix A for more 

details.’’ Appendix A (‘‘List of 

Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Receptors for 2006–2010’’), in turn, lists 

all of the individual receptors that were 

summarized by county in Table III.A.1. 

There is one maintenance receptor in 

each of Utah and Weber counties, 

Utah—hence our discussion of Utah in 

Section V (‘‘Transport Assessment for 

Maintenance Receptors’’). The 

discussion of nonattainment receptors 

in Utah (Section IV.B.1.) is similar to the 

discussion in Section V.B.3 for 

maintenance receptors in Utah because 

the receptors are near to each other and 

the potential for transport from Nevada 

for each is similar. 

Comment #5: 

NDEP comment number 7 addresses 

EPA’s statements in the Overarching 

TSD (pages 11–13) regarding certain 

provisions that are part of the Nevada 

SIP, but have been repealed or replaced 

in the Nevada Administrative Code 

(NAC). NDEP highlights that such 

regulations ‘‘have not been rescinded 

from the Nevada SIP, and EPA considers 

them to be federally enforceable’’ and 

suggests that a more accurate 

characterization would be to say that 

such provisions ‘‘have been repealed or 

replaced in the NAC, but not in the 

SIP.’’ 

Response #5: 

It is true that the regulations cited in 

pages 11–13 of our Overarching TSD 

having parenthetical notes about 

replacement or repeal can be accurately 

characterized as having been repealed or 

replaced in the NAC (i.e., at the state 

level), but remaining in the Nevada SIP 

(i.e., the set of federally enforceable 

provisions with respect to Nevada air 

quality). In part, our intent was to 

clarify the status of these provisions so 

that the public could more readily 

understand which provisions are in 

effect and to identify certain provisions 

that, as repealed or replaced (but not 

revised in the SIP), did not provide 

support for how Nevada meets the 

section 110(a)(2)(C) requirement that 

each SIP ‘‘include a program to provide 

for the enforcement of the measures 

described in [section 110(a)(2)(A)].’’ 

However, the broader meaning of 

such clarifications and identifications 

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

requires the state to adopt and submit ‘‘a 

plan which provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of the relevant NAAQS 

(i.e., the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, in this case). On its 

face, if Nevada has repealed or replaced 

certain Nevada Administrative Codes, 

we would understand this to mean that 

NDEP is not in fact implementing such 

regulations as part of a plan to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. In other words, infrastructure 

SIPs are not merely a measure of what 

is federally enforceable under a state’s 

SIP; they are a collection of the 

provisions and plans that the state 

actively employs to implement the 

NAAQS. 

Our Overarching TSD discussed three 

provisions in particular wherein we 

noted that ‘‘it is not clear how Nevada 

intended that these regulations support 

the enforcement of the emission 

limitation regulations.’’ See Overarching 

TSD at page 13. We reiterate our 

statement from that same page, 

however, that ‘‘[n]otwithstanding these 

three provisions, on the basis of the 

statutory and regulatory provisions, 

which have been approved into the SIP, 

we find that Nevada has an adequate 

program for enforcement of its 

provisions for emission limits at the 

state level.’’ 

Comment and Response #6: 

NDEP comment number 9 

recommends several corrections and 

clarifications to the text of our 

Overarching TSD. We respond to each 

sub-comment following separate 

comment summaries below. 

First, NDEP notes that on page 6, 

footnote 9, the second sentence should 

read, ‘‘Adele Malone, Supervisor, 

Planning and Modeling Branch, 

* * * .’’ We thank NDEP for its 

clarification regarding the Branch title, 

which we had listed as ‘‘Air Planning 

Branch’’ in footnote 9 of the 

Overarching TSD. 

Second, NDEP notes that on page 11 

EPA listed Nevada Air Quality 

Regulation (NAQR) Article 16.3.3.2 and 

16.3.3.3 as having been cited in support 

of CAA 110(a)(2)(C), and requests EPA 

to remove it from the list of submitted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64741 

7We have placed a copy of the signed, prepublication version of the final rule approving the 

Clark County SIP revisions in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

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

contains several exemptions for the definition of 

‘‘public officer.’’ In particular, NRS 281A.160(2)(d) 

exempts county health officers appointed pursuant 

to NRS 439.290. It is important to note that while 

a county health officer is appointed by the relevant 

board of county commissioners, pursuant to NRS 

439.290, a district health officer in a county whose 

population is less than 700,000 (e.g., Washoe 

County) is appointed by the relevant district board 

of health, pursuant to NRS 439.400. Thus, the 

exemption under NRS 281A.160 does not apply to 

the Washoe County District Health Officer. 

regulations. We agree that Articles 

16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 were not cited in 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

for section 110(a)(2)(C); our inclusion of 

these provisions in the list of 

regulations with respect to 110(a)(2)(C) 

was an inadvertent addition. 

To clarify further, Nevada’s 2008 

Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, 

and 2009 PM2.5 Submittal each cited 

Article 16.3.3.2 and 16.3.3.3 listed for 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See Enclosure 1, 

page 1 of each of these submittals. Given 

that these regulations pertain to opacity 

emission limits for kilns and related 

clinker coolers, they are appropriate for 

purposes of addressing the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A), as referenced by 

these submittals and discussed in our 

Overarching TSD. 

Third, NDEP notes a contradiction in 

the last sentence of the first full 

paragraph of page 43 regarding the PSD 

portion of the section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requirements and Clark County. We 

agree that this sentence contradicts our 

other stated conclusions regarding Clark 

County’s PSD program and the PSD 

requirements of CAA section 

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

intended statement, as noted in the 

conclusion paragraph of that same page, 

was that ‘‘the Clark County portion of 

the Nevada SIP meets the PSD-related 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), 

contingent upon final approval of the 

proposed SIP revisions [for permitting 

new or modified stationary sources in 

Clark County].’’ Furthermore, based on 

our final approval of those Clark County 

SIP revisions,7 we are finalizing our 

approval of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 

Clark County portion of the SIP. 

Fourth, NDEP believes that EPA had 

intended to reference NAQR Article 

13.3.1.2(b) on page 45, rather than 

Article 13.4.1.2(b), and that the latter is 

not in the applicable Nevada SIP. NDEP 

also refers to 77 FR 14862. We referred 

to Article 13.4.1.2(b) with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 

because it was included in Enclosure 2 

of Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 

p.m.2.5 Submittal, and 2009 p.m.2.5

Submittal and contains requirements for 

diffusion models for the permitting 

review of new sources. However, NDEP 

is correct that Article 13.4.1.2(b) is not 

in the Nevada SIP. Rather, Article 

13.3.1.2(b), which is part of the Nevada 

SIP and contains requirements for 

diffusion modeling, relates most closely 

to the air quality modeling requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(K). See 77 FR 14682 

at 14872. 

Fifth, NDEP notes that Footnote 19 

states that ‘‘ * * * NDEP repealed NAC 

445.694 and did not submit a 

replacement for inclusion in the SIP.’’ 

NDEP states that this footnote was 

inaccurate since the authority to repeal 

a state regulation lies with the Nevada 

State Environmental Commission. We 

thank NDEP for its clarification. 

Footnote 19 of the Overarching TSD 

should have made clear that the State 

Environmental Commission is the body 

authorized under state law to adopt 

regulations to prevent, abate and control 

air pollution (NRS 445B.210), the 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources is designated as the air 

pollution control agency for the State of 

Nevada for the purposes of the CAA 

(NRS 445B.205), and the Administrator 

of NDEP is the official designee of the 

Director of the Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources for 

the purposes of the CAA, including, but 

not limited to, adoption, revision, and 

submittal of SIPs to EPA. 

Comment #7: 

Washoe County notes a ‘‘minor 

correction/clarification that should be 

made’’ in EPA’s Section 128 TSD on 

pages 4 and 7. Washoe County identifies 

the District Health Officer of the Washoe 

County Health District, or his designee, 

as the Control Officer, pursuant to 

Washoe County Air Quality Regulation 

(AQR) 010.042, rather than the AQMD 

Director, as stated in EPA’s Section 128 

TSD. The comment further states that 

the AQMD Director and Branch Chief 

are designees of the Control Officer and 

that the applicability of section 128 does 

not change and remains as ‘‘not 

applicable’’ because it ‘‘applies to 

boards and bodies composed of multiple 

individuals.’’ 

Response #7: 

EPA agrees that we should have 

identified the District Health Officer of 

Washoe County Health District as the 

Control Officer in Washoe County. 

Washoe County Air Quality Regulation 

(AQR) 010.042 defines ‘‘Control Officer’’ 

as the ‘‘District Health Officer of the 

Washoe County Health District or the 

person designated by said District 

Health Officer to enforce these local air 

pollution control ordinances and 

regulations as approved by said District 

Board of Health created pursuant to the 

interlocal agreement of the City of Reno, 

the City of Sparks, and the County of 

Washoe, Nevada.’’ AQR 020.020 

(‘‘Control Officer—Powers and Duties’’) 

states that the ‘‘Control Officer, or his 

designated agent or representative, shall 

enforce the provisions of these [air 

pollution control] regulations.’’ From 

the context of Washoe County’s 

comments and conversation with 

WCHD–AQMD staff, we understand the 

AQMD Director and Branch Chief to be 

designated agents or representatives of 

the Control Officer (i.e., the District 

Health Officer of the Washoe County 

Health District), pursuant to AQR 

020.020. 

We cited AQR 020.020 in our Section 

128 TSD because it authorizes the 

Control Officer and his designated 

agents or representatives to issue 

corrective action orders (a kind of 

enforcement order). Thus, the Control 

Officer and his designated agents or 

representatives are subject to the 

requirements of section 128(a)(2). This 

reflects a point of distinction with 

respect to Washoe County’s comment 

that the requirements of CAA section 

128 are ‘‘not applicable’’ to the Control 

Officer or his agents or representatives. 

While we agree that section 128(a)(1) 

regarding board membership 

requirements does not apply to 

individual decision-makers, such as the 

Control Officer, we reaffirm that the 

disclosure requirement of section 

128(a)(2) applies both to board members 

and to heads of executive agencies and 

their delegates as is clear on the face of 

the statute. See page 2 of our Section 

128 TSD. 

As a result, we have assessed whether 

the Washoe County District Health 

Officer is covered by Nevada’s statutes 

concerning disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest. As per NRS 

281A.160.1, a public officer in Nevada 

is defined by two criteria: (a) that the 

person is appointed or elected to a 

position established by a charter or 

ordinance of any county, and (b) that his 

or her position ‘‘[i]nvolves the exercise 

of a public power, trust, or duty.’’ The 

District Health Officer is a public officer 

under these criteria because he or she is 

a person appointed to a position 

established by the Washoe County Code 

and because approval of permits or 

enforcement orders under state or 

county law involves an exercise of a 

public power, trust or duty.8

Our determinations regarding 

disclosure as it relates to the AQMD 

Director and Branch Chief remain 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64742 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

9 i.e., NRS 232A.020, NRS 281A.150, NRS 

281A.160, NRS 281A.400, NRS 281A.410, and NRS 

281A.420. 

10EPA’s final rule on the Clark County NSR SIP 

revisions is included in the docket of today’s final 

rule. While the Clark County NSR final rule is a 

limited approval and limited disapproval, the 

permitting elements necessary for infrastructure SIP 

approval for the Clark County portion of the SIP 

were all among those that were approved. 

11As noted previously, we have placed a copy of 

the signed, pre-publication version of the final rule 

approving the Clark County SIP revisions in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

unchanged. The AQMD Director is a 

public officer, pursuant to NRS 

281A.160, and the AQMD Branch Chief 

of the Permitting and Compliance 

Branch is a public employee, pursuant 

to NRS 281A.150, (see pages 8–9 of our 

Section 128 TSD) and they are both 

subject to adequate disclosure 

requirements under CAA section 

128(a)(2), as codified at NRS 281A.410 

and NRS 281A.420 (see pages 11–13 of 

our Section 128 TSD). 

Thus, our overall conclusion remains 

that the conflict of interest provisions 9

submitted in Nevada’s 2012 Submittal 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

128 and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We are 

therefore finalizing our proposed 

approval of Nevada’s conflict of interest 

provisions into the SIP and our 

proposed approval of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

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

III. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and 

based on the evaluation and rationale 

presented in the proposed rule, the 

related TSDs, and this final rule, EPA is 

approving in part and disapproving in 

part Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In the 

following subsections, we list the 

elements for which we are finalizing 

approval or disapproval and provide a 

summary of the basis for those elements 

that are partially approved and partially 

disapproved. We also describe the 

statutory provisions and other materials 

submitted by NDEP that we are 

approving herein, and describe the 

consequences of our disapprovals. 

A. Summary of Approvals 

EPA is approving Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the following requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport. 

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

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

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

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

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

quality modeling and submission of 

modeling data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

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

participation by affected local entities. 

We are approving Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

Clark County portions of the SIP with 

respect to the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

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

110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD based upon 

our final approval of certain SIP 

revisions for the review of new or 

modified stationary sources for the 

Clark County portion of the SIP.10

For section 110(a)(2)(C), we are 

approving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for all three jurisdictions 

(NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe 

County) with respect to the requirement 

that the SIP include a program to 

provide for enforcement of the 

emissions limitations described in 

section 110(a)(2)(A). 

With respect to the requirement of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

(regarding interference with other states’ 

required measures to protect visibility), 

EPA previously approved Nevada’s 

interstate transport SIP as satisfying this 

requirement for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of EPA’s 

action on Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. 

See 77 FR 17334 at 17339 (March 26, 

2012). For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, in today’s final rule we are 

approving Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as meeting the visibility 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS by virtue of Nevada’s SIPapproved Regional Haze Plan (77 FR 

17334, March 26, 2012), which contains 

adequate provisions to protect visibility 

in other states. 

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), 

for the NDEP and Washoe County 

portions of the SIP, we are approving 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

for all three subsections of section 

110(a)(2)(F). We note that EPA has 

approved three Nevada Administrative 

Code (NAC) sections cited by NDEP in 

its 2012 Submittal, NAC sections 

445B.315(3), 445B.3368, and 445B.346, 

in a separate rulemaking (see the prepublication version signed August 30, 

2012 and included in the docket of 

today’s final rule). These provisions 

provide additional support for the NDEP 

portion of the SIP as meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) 

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

County portion of the SIP, our approval 

of subsections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii) is based on our approval 

of four Washoe County rules, AQR 

030.218, 030.230, 030.235, and 030.970, 

which were included in the 2012 

Submittal, in a separate rulemaking (see 

the pre-publication version signed 

September 14, 2012 and included in the 

docket of today’s final rule). With 

respect to the Clark County portion of 

the SIP, we are approving the SIP for 

sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii) based 

upon our final approval of certain SIP 

revisions for the review of new or 

modified stationary sources in Clark 

County.11

B. Approval of Statutory Provisions and 

Other Materials 

In connection with our approval, or 

partial approval, of Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for these 

requirements as listed above, we are 

approving into the Nevada SIP certain 

statutes and other materials, which were 

included in the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement 

and the 2012 Submittal. 

First, with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) (i.e., necessary assurances 

for adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority), EPA is approving an 

interlocal agreement among the Washoe 

County District Board of Health, Washoe 

County and the cities of Reno and 

Sparks concerning the Washoe County 

District Health Department, and a 

comprehensive revision to Section 12 

(‘‘Resources’’) of the Nevada SIP. The 

interlocal agreement was submitted as 

Attachment D of Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5

Supplement and the revision to Section 

12 was submitted as Attachment A to 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal. NDEP’s 2012 

revision to Section 12 hereby replaces, 

in its entirety, the former SIP version of 

Section 12, approved on May 31, 1972 

(37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64743 

12 In our proposed rule, we requested clarification 

as to whether NDEP intends NRS 439.390 to be 

included in the Nevada SIP. See 77 FR 46361 at 

46367, footnote 26. NDEP’s submittal on August 30, 

2012 included NRS 439.390 in Attachment B 

(‘‘Statutes for Inclusion in the Nevada [Applicable 

SIP]’’). As such we are finalizing approval of NRS 

439.390 into the Nevada SIP. 

13EPA fully delegated the implementation of the 

federal PSD programs to NDEP on October 19, 2004 

(‘‘Agreement for Delegation of the Federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Program by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Nevada Division 

of Environmental Protection’’), as updated on 

September 15, 2011, and to Washoe County on 

March 13, 2008 (‘‘Agreement for Delegation of the 

Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Program by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Washoe County 

District Health Department’’). 

14The recent opinion vacating the Transport 

Rule, EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 11– 

1302 (DC Cir., August 21, 2012), does not alter our 

conclusion that the existing Nevada SIP adequately 

addresses this requirement. Nothing in the Homer 

City opinion disturbs or calls into question that 

conclusion or the validity of the technical 

information on which our August 3, 2012 proposal 

relied—e.g., ambient PM2.5 levels at monitoring 

sites representative of regional background in 

nearby states and relevant meteorological and 

topographical information. In addition, nothing in 

that opinion undermines our proposed conclusion, 

based on our review of the available technical 

information, that emissions from Nevada do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 

Second, in connection with our 

approval of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to section 

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

of interest requirements under CAA 

section 128), EPA is approving Nevada 

Revised Statutes (NRS) sections 

232A.020, 281A.150, 281A.160, 

281A.400, 281A.410, and 281A.420, as 

provided in Attachment B of Nevada’s 

2012 Submittal, into the Nevada SIP. 

Third and last, in connection with our 

approval of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to section 

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

approving a comprehensive revision to 

Section 11 (‘‘Intergovernmental 

Consultation’’) of the Nevada SIP, which 

is included as Attachment D to Nevada’s 

2012 Submittal. NDEP’s 2012 revision to 

Section 11 hereby replaces, in its 

entirety, the former SIP version of 

Section 11, approved on May 31, 1972 

(37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP. 

Nevada’s 2012 revision to Section 11 

(‘‘Intergovernmental Consultation’’) 

cites a number of statutes. Two of these, 

NRS section 445B.503 and NRS section 

439.390, are included as exhibits to 

Section 11 and are new to the SIP.12

Another statute, NRS 445B.500, is 

included in Attachment B to the 2012 

Submittal as an update to the former 

version of NRS 445B.500, which EPA 

had approved into the Nevada SIP (71 

FR 51766, August 31, 2006). We are 

approving NRS 445B.503, NRS 439.390, 

and the updated version of NRS 

445B.500 into the Nevada SIP in 

connection with our approval of the 

2012 revision to Section 11 of the 

Nevada SIP. The updated version of 

NRS 445B.500 hereby replaces, in its 

entirety, the former SIP version of NRS 

445B.500 in the Nevada SIP. 

C. Summary of Disapprovals 

EPA is disapproving Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C)(in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(in part): 

Interstate pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)(in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): 

Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air 

quality modeling and submission of 

modeling data. 

As explained in our proposed rule 

and Overarching TSD, we are 

disapproving Nevada’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals for the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the SIP with 

respect to the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

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

110(a)(2)(K) related to PSD because the 

Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for PSD permit programs under part C 

of title I of the Act. Both NDEP and 

WCHD–AQMD currently implement the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 

for all regulated NSR pollutants, 

pursuant to delegation agreements with 

EPA. See 40 CFR 52.1485.13

Accordingly, although the Nevada SIP 

remains deficient with respect to PSD 

requirements in both the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the SIP, 

these deficiencies are adequately 

addressed in both areas by the Federal 

PSD program. 

With respect to the requirements 

regarding interstate transport in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

previously approved an interstate 

transport SIP submitted by Nevada as 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(D)(i)(I). See 72 FR 41629 

(July 31, 2007). For the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, in today’s final rule we 

are partially approving and partially 

disapproving Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5

Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement. 

We are partially disapproving the 

submissions because they rely on 

irrelevant factors and lack any technical 

analysis to support the State’s 

conclusion with respect to interstate 

transport. We are also partially 

approving the submission, however, 

based on EPA’s supplemental 

evaluation of relevant technical 

information, which supports a finding 

that emissions from Nevada do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Nevada SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See our 

2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD.14

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(F), 

we are disapproving the Clark County 

portion of the SIP for subsection 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark County 

has repealed its regulation, Section 24, 

that formerly addressed the correlation 

requirement of this subsection, without 

submitting a SIP revision to replace it. 

D. Consequences of Disapprovals 

EPA takes a disapproval of a state 

plan very seriously. Rather than 

implement a FIP, we believe that it is 

preferable, and preferred in the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, for 

states to implement the CAA 

requirements through state provisions 

that are developed and adopted by the 

state and approved into the SIP by EPA. 

A state plan need not contain exactly 

the same provisions that EPA might 

require, but EPA must be able to find 

that the state plan is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act in accordance 

with its obligations under section 

110(k). Further, EPA’s oversight role 

requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act 

requirements by states across the 

country, even while acknowledging that 

individual decisions from source to 

source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. EPA believes these 

disapprovals are the only path that is 

consistent with the Act at this time. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D of title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64744 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

15 In our proposed rule, we did not explicitly state 

how EPA’s proposed disapproval of section 

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

SIP would trigger a new FIP obligation for EPA. 

However, our proposed rule made clear that ‘‘CAA 

section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 

promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

within two years after finding that a State has failed 

to make a required submission or disapproving a 

State implementation plan submission in whole or 

in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision 

correcting the deficiencies within that two-year 

period.’’ (77 FR 46361 at 46370). By contrast, for 

our other proposed disapprovals, we made clear 

that EPA’s FIP obligation would be satisfied ‘‘by our 

determination that there is no deficiency in the SIP 

to correct’’ (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS; see 77 FR 46361 at 46370) and that 

the ‘‘deficiencies are adequately addressed in both 

areas by the Federal PSD program’’ (for the PSDrelated requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

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

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

portions of the SIP; see 77 FR 46361 at 46367). 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. Nevada’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals were not submitted to 

meet either of these requirements. 

Therefore, our partial disapproval of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

does not trigger mandatory sanctions 

under CAA section 179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

within two years after finding that a 

State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a State 

implementation plan submission in 

whole or in part, unless EPA approves 

a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within that two-year 

period. 

With respect to our partial approval 

and partial disapproval of Nevada’s 

submissions related to interstate 

transport under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), we conclude that any 

FIP obligation resulting from our final, 

partial disapproval is satisfied by our 

determination that there is no 

deficiency in the SIP to correct. Such 

disapproval also does not require any 

further action on Nevada’s part given 

EPA’s conclusion that the SIP is 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to our final disapproval 

of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

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

for the Clark County portion of the SIP, 

today’s action establishes a deadline 

two years from the effective date of this 

action for EPA to promulgate a FIP, 

unless EPA approves a SIP revision 

correcting the deficiency within that 

two-year period.15 We encourage the 

state to submit a SIP revision to address 

the deficiencies identified in this final 

rule and we stand ready to work with 

the state to develop a revised plan. 

For all other final disapprovals of 

today’s action (i.e., for the PSD-related 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

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

110(a)(2)(K) for the NDEP and Washoe 

County portions of the SIP), we 

conclude that although the Nevada SIP 

remains deficient with respect to PSD 

requirements in both the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of the SIP, 

these deficiencies are adequately 

addressed in each jurisdiction by the 

Federal PSD program, and therefore no 

further FIP obligation is triggered by 

today’s action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule does 

not impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This partial 

SIP approval and partial SIP 

disapproval under CAA section 110 will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply approves 

certain State requirements, and 

disapproves certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the partial approval 

and partial disapproval action does not 

include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million 

or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action approves 

certain pre-existing requirements, and 

disapproves certain other pre-existing 

requirements, under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64745 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

proposing action would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This partial 

approval and partial disapproval under 

CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

approves certain State requirements, 

and disapproves certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

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

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This 

rule will be effective on November 23, 

2012. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 24, 

2012. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 28, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470 in paragraph (e), 

the table is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entries for ‘‘Section 

11—Intergovernmental Consultation,’’ 

‘‘Section 12—Resources,’’ and 

‘‘445B.500’’; 

■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘Attachment 

D—Inter-Local Agreement Supporting 

CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements’’ 

after the entry for ‘‘Section 11— 

Intergovernmental Consultation’’; 

■ c. Adding entries for ‘‘Enclosure 1— 

CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in 

the Current Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour 

Ozone,’’ ‘‘Enclosure 1—CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in the 

Current Nevada State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for PM2.5,’’ ‘‘Enclosure 1— 

CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in 

the Current Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5,’’ 

‘‘Attachment A—Current CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the 

Washoe County Portion of the Nevada 

PM2.5 SIP,’’ and ‘‘Revisions to Nevada’s 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) Plan 

Submittals as of July 2012 (August 

2012), excluding attachments A through 

D’’ after the entry for ‘‘Adopted Lead 

Implementation Plan for the Truckee 

Meadows Basin, 4/26/84’’; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64746 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

■ d. Adding new table heading titled 

‘‘Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 18, 

State Executive Department, Chapter 

232A, Boards, Commissions and Similar 

Bodies’’ after the entry for ‘‘0.039,’’ and 

under the new heading, adding an entry 

for ‘‘232A.020’’; 

■ e. Adding new table heading titled 

‘‘Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 23, 

Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 

281A, Ethics in Government’’ after the 

new entry for ‘‘232A.020,’’ and under 

the new heading, adding entries in 

numerical order for ‘‘281A.150,’’ 

‘‘281A.160,’’ ‘‘282A.400,’’ ‘‘281A.410,’’ 

and ‘‘281A.420’’; 

■ f. Adding new table heading titled 

‘‘Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 40, 

Public Health and Safety, Chapter 439, 

Administration of Public Health’’ after 

the entry for ‘‘366.060,’’ and under the 

new heading, adding an entry for 

‘‘439.390’’; and 

■ g. Adding an entry for ‘‘445B.503’’ 

after the entry for ‘‘445B.500.’’ 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 

*******

Section 11—Intergovernmental 

Consultation.

State-wide ....................................... 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted as attachment D to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. 

Attachment D—Inter-Local Agreement Supporting CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements.

Washoe County ............................... 12/4/09 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted as attachment D to 

NDEP’s December 4, 2009 SIP 

revision submittal. 

Section 12—Resources ................... State-wide ....................................... 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted as attachment A to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. 

*******

Enclosure 1—CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone.

State-wide, within NDEP jurisdiction 2/1/08 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for the 1997 8- 

Hour ozone standard. Enclosures 

(2) and (3) include copies of the 

regulatory and statutory provisions previously approved in the 

Nevada SIP. 

Enclosure 1—CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for PM2.5.

State-wide, within NDEP jurisdiction 2/26/08 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. Enclosures (2) 

and (3) include copies of the regulatory and statutory provisions 

previously approved in the Nevada SIP. 

Enclosure 1–CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for PM2.5.

State-wide, within NDEP jurisdiction 9/15/09 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. Enclosures (2) 

and (3) include copies of the regulatory and statutory provisions 

previously approved in the Nevada SIP. 

Attachment A—Current CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M) Requirements in 

the Washoe County Portion of 

the Nevada PM2.5 SIP.

Washoe County ............................... 12/04/09 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Attachment B includes Washoe 

County regulations, that are addressed in separate rulemakings. 

Attachment C is the PSD delegation agreement between Washoe 

County District Health Department and EPA Region IX. Attachment D (‘‘Inter-Local Agreement 

Supporting CAA 110(a)(2)(A)–(M) 

Requirements’’) is approved into 

the SIP and listed separately in 

this table. 

Revisions to Nevada’s Clean Air 

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

2012), excluding attachments A 

through D.

State-wide ....................................... 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Attachment A (‘‘Section 12-Resources’’), the individual statutory 

provisions in attachment B 

(‘‘Statutes for Inclusion in Nevada’s ASIP’’), and attachment D 

(‘‘Section 11—Intergovernmental 

Consultation’’) are listed separately in this table. Attachment C 

was submitted for information 

only and not for incorporation into 

Nevada’s SIP. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64747 

EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES—Continued 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 18, State Executive Department, Boards, Chapter 232A, Commissions and Similar Bodies 

232A.020 ......................................... Residency requirement for appointment; terms of members; vacancies; qualification of member appointed as representative of general public; gubernatorial appointee prohibited from serving 

on more than one board, commission or similar body.

8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 14, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 232A.020). 

Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 23, Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 281A, Ethics in Government 

281A.150 ......................................... ‘‘Public employee’’ defined .............. 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.150). 

281A.160 ......................................... ‘‘Public officer’’ defined ................... 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 481A.160). 

281A.400 ......................................... General requirements; exceptions .. 8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.400). 

281A.410 ......................................... Limitations on representing or counseling private persons before 

public agencies; disclosure required by certain public officers.

8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.410). 

281A.420 ......................................... Requirements regarding disclosure 

of conflicts of interest and abstention from voting because of 

certain types of conflicts; effect of 

abstention on quorum and voting 

requirements; exceptions.

8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 18, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 281A.420). 

* * * * * * * 

Nevada Revised Statutes, Title 40, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 439, Administration of Public Health 

439.390 ............................................ District board of health: Composition; qualifications of members.8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B, and as 

an exhibit to attachment D, to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 27, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 439.390). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64748 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES—Continued 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

445B.500 ......................................... Establishment and administration of 

program; contents of program; 

designation of air pollution control 

agency of county for purposes of 

federal act; powers and duties of 

local air pollution control board; 

notice of public hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative 

penalties; cities and smaller 

counties; regulation of certain 

electric plants prohibited.

8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12.

Submitted in attachment B to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 28, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 445B.500). 

445B.503 ......................................... Local air pollution control board in 

county whose population is 

700,000 or more: Cooperation 

with regional planning coalition 

and regional transportation commission; prerequisites to adoption 

or amendment of plan, policy or 

program.

8/30/12 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] 

10/23/12].

Submitted in attachment B, and as 

an exhibit to attachment D, to 

NDEP’s August 30, 2012 SIP revision submittal. (Nevada Revised Statutes, Volume 28, 2011, 

as published by the Legislative 

Counsel, State of Nevada, section 445B.503). 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.1472 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1472 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(d) 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on February 1, 2008 and 

August 30, 2012 are partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) 

for the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Quality (NDEP) and 

Washoe County portions of the Nevada 

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

for the Clark County portion of the 

Nevada SIP. 

(e) 1997 P2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on February 26, 2008 and 

August 30, 2012 are partially 

disapproved for CAA elements 

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

NDEP and Washoe County portions of 

the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element 

110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark County portion 

of the Nevada SIP. 

(f) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on September 15, 2009, 

December 4, 2009, and August 30, 2012 

are partially disapproved for CAA 

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

with measures in any other state to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

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

and Washoe County portions of the 

Nevada SIP; for CAA element 

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

County, and Clark County portions of 

the Nevada SIP; and for CAA element 

110(a)(2)(F) for the Clark County portion 

of the Nevada SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25558 Filed 10–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9743–1] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the 

Torch Lake Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 5 is 

publishing a Direct Final Notice of 

Deletion of the Isle Royale Tailings and 

Michigan Smelter Tailing parcels of 

Operable Unit 3 (OU3), and the Mason 

Sands Tailings parcel of Operable Unit 

1 (OU1) of the Torch Lake Superfund 

Site (Site), located in Houghton County, 

Michigan from the National Priorities 

List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to Section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix to the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final partial deletion is being published 

by EPA, with the concurrence of the 

State of Michigan through the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ), because EPA has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA at these identified 

parcels have been completed. However, 

this partial deletion does not preclude 

future actions under Superfund. 

This partial deletion pertains to the 

surface tailings, drums, and slag piles of 

Isle Royale Tailings and Michigan 

Smelter Tailings parcels of OU3 and the 

Mason Sands Tailings parcel of OU1. 

The following land parcels will remain 

on the NPL and are not being 

considered for deletion as part of this 

action: Dollar Bay, Point Mills, Calumet 

Lake Tailing, Boston Pond Tailing, 

North Entry and Quincy Smelter. 

DATES: This direct final partial deletion 

is effective December 24, 2012 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

November 23, 2012. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final partial deletion in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Nefertiti DiCosmo, Remedial 

Project Manager, at 

dicosmo.nefertiti@epa.gov 

• Email: Dave Novak, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, at 

novak.dave@epa.gov 

• Fax: Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion 

Process Manager, at (312) 886–2077. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES