.9



# Q

Q Proposed Revisions
to Nevada’s Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) Plan Submittals

as of July 2012 July 2012 The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submits the following revisions and clarifications

to Nevada’s existing Clean Air Act (CAA)

§

I l0(a)(2) state plan submittals: • February

1, 2008 submittal, “CAA
11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements

in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone,” (1997 NAAQS); • February 26, 2008 submittal, “CAA

1 l0(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements

in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM 25 ,” (1997 NAAQS); • September 15, 2009 submittal, “CAA

I 10(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements

in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM 25 ,” (2006 NAAQS); • December

4, 2009 submittal, “Current CAA 11 0(a)(2) Requirements

in the Washoe County’s Portion of the Nevada PM 2 , 5 SIP,” (2006 NAAQS); • October 15, 2011 submittal, (1) “The NDEP Portion of the Nevada Plan to Meet the Infrastructure SIP Requirements

of the Clean Air Act for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” and (2) “The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Lead Infrastructure SIP Requirements

of Clean Air Act Section llO(a)(2).” The NDEP requests that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approves these revisions into the Nevada applicable SIP. To the greatest extent possible, the NDEP also requests that the USBPA apply any and all provisions that may provide support from this submittal
to future USEPA actions on CAA 11 0(a)(2) requirements for all NAAQS pollutants. The NDEP further requests that generally
as statutes and regulations

in Nevada’s applicable SIP are replaced or removed through subsequent USEPA approvals of SIP revisions submitted by the NDEP, USEPA also replace or remove those provisions

in this submittal and all of Nevada’s CAA

1 I0(a)(2) SiPs. Secti:nhlO(a) Revisions
to Nevada’s Existing 11O(a)(2) SIP Submittals The NDEP has full delegation
of the federal prevention
of significant deterioration

of air quality (PSD) program (40 CFR §5221). The NDEP maintains that 40 CFR §52.1485 (b), “Regulation for pre venting significant deterioration
of air quality. The provisions
of §110(a)(2)(C)
52.21 except paragraph (a)(1) are incorporated and made
a part of the applicable State plan for the State of Nevada except for that portion applicable

to the Clark County Health District.” incorporates the federal PSD provisions into the applicable Nevada SIP, thereby satisfying USEPA’s reading of the CAA to require that Nevada’s PSD program be in Nevada’s state plan. 110

2 D
As

noted in element

C above, the NDEP has full delegation
of the federal PSD program, and § (a)( )(
40 CFR

§ 52. 1485 incorporates the provisions
of § 52.21 into the applicable Nevada SIP. The consultation and public notice provisions

in the applicable Nevada SIP are listed under0

0Secti:nllO(a) Revisions
to Nevada’s Existing 11O(a)(2) SIP SubmittalselementsJandMoftheNDEP’s110(a)(2)submittals(listedatthebeginningofthisdocument).Nevada’sPSDprogramandtheseprovisionsfullyaddressthepublicnoticerequirementsinthiselement.(i)TheNDEPissubmittingAttachmentAasaSIPrevisiontoreplaceSection12,“Resources,”ofthe1972SIP.AttachmentAaddressesthefundingandpersonnelrequirementsofthis§110’“2”E’element.(ii):CAA§128requirements.TheNDEPissubmittingNRS232A.020,281A.150,281A.160,281A.400,281A.410and281A.420asaSIPrevision(AttachmentB).Theserulesaddressthedisclosureofconflictsofinterestrequirementofthiselement.SeeNDEP’sanalysisofhowtheseprovisionssatisfytherequirementinAttachmentC.(iii):NAC445B.315(3),submittedtoUSEPAonJanuary24,2011,requirestheholderofanoperatingpermittoretainallrequiredmonitoringdataandprovidesNDEPtheauthoritytorequireanyinformationnecessarytodeterminecompliancewithconditionsoftheoperatingpermit.NAC445B.265requiresreportingofmonitoredemissions,includingexcessemissions.NAC445B.252providestheauthoritytorequirecompliancetestingandsampling.§11Olaf2FlComplianceinspectionreportscorrelatethereportedemissionstotheemissionlimitations‘““‘intheoperatingpermit;thesereportsareavailableonsiteattheNDEPofficesforpublicinspectionduringbusinesshours.TogetherwithNAC445B.3368and445B.346,submittedtoUSEPAonJanuary24,2011,theprovisionscitedabovesatisfytheelement110(a)(2)(F)(iii)requirementsforthecorrelationofemissionsfromstationarysourceswithanyemissionlimitationsorstandardsestablishedpursuanttotheCAA,andtheavailabilityofsuchinformationforpublicinspection.•CAA§121,Consultation:TheNDEPIssubmittingAttachment0asaSIPrevisiontoreplaceSection11,“IntergovernmentalRelations,”ofthe1972SIP.AttachmentDaddressestheintergovernmentalconsultationrequirementsofthiselement.•CAAPartC,PSD:AsnotedunderelementC,theNDEPhasfulldelegationofthefederal§110’a”2”J’PSDprogram,whichismadepartofNevada’sapplicableSIPper40CFR§52.1485.The‘““‘consultationandpublicnoticeprovisionsintheapplicableSIP(aslistedunderelementsJandMoftheNDEP’s110(a)(2)submittalsnotedatthebeginningofthisdocument)fulfillthepublicnoticerequirementsofCAAPartC,subchapterI.•TheNDEPissubmittingthe2011codificationofNRS445B.500toreplacetheversioncurrentlyincludedinNevada’sapplicableSIPbecausethisstatutewasrevisedIn2011.TheNDEPisalsosubmittingNRS445B.503,whichcontainsprovisionsrelevanttoconsultationrequirementsforlocalairagenciesincountieswithpopulationsgreaterthan700,000.ThefollowingNACprovisionsweresubmittedtoUSEPAonJanuary24,2011asaSIPrevision:•445B.308Prerequisitesandconditionsforissuanceofcertainoperatingpermits;compliancewithapplicablestateimplementationplan.§110(a)(2)(K)•445B.310Environmentalevaluation:Applicablesourcesandothersubjects;exemption.•445B.311Environmentalevaluation:Contents;considerationofgoodengineeringpracticestackheight.TogetherwithNevada’sfulldelegationofthefederalPSDprogram,asadoptedintotheapplicableNevadaSIPthrough40CFR§52.1485(seeelementCabove),theseregulationsfullysatisfytherequirementsofthiselement.§110(a)(2)(M)TheNDEPissubmittingAttachmentDasaSIPrevisiontoreplaceSection11,2

# 0 Secti:nllO(a) Revisions
to Nevada’s Existing 11O(a)(2) SIP Submittals “Intergovernmental Relations,”
of the 1972 SIP. Attachment

C addresses the requirements

of this element for consultation and participation

by local political subdivisions. 300)Thispageisintentionallyblank.4

# 0

0 ATTACHMENT

A AIR QUALiTY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA Section 12- Resources 12.0 Purpose The purposes of this section of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) are to update and replace section 12 (“Resources”)

of the Nevada SIP as approved by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in 1972 [37 Fed. Reg. 10,842 (May 31, 1972)] and to provide the necessary assurances that the State of Nevada, Clark County, and Washoe County have adequate personnel and funding under State law to carry out the SIP as required under the relevant portions of section
11 0(a)(2)(E)(i)
of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended
in 1990, and the applicable SIP regulations

in 40 CFR part 51 (“Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans”). 12.1 Statutory and Reu1atory Reguirements CAA section

1 10(a)(2)(E)(i) requires SiPs to provide: necessary assurances that the State (or, except where the Administrator deems inappropriate,
the general purpose local government

or governments,

or a regional agency designated
by the State or general purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding,... under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan The federal regulations

in title 40, part 51, subpart
0 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 51, subpart 0) (“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) include requirements
for SIPs pertaining
to funding and personnel. Specifically,
40 CFR 51.280 (“Resources”) requires: Each plan must include

a description
of the resources available
to the State and local agencies
at the date of submission
of the plan and of any additional resources needed
to carmy out the plan during the 5-year period following
its submission. The description must include pro/ections

of the extent to which resources will be acquired
at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals. 12.2 State of Nevada Outside Clark County and Washoe County, the primary organization responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing the SIP is the State Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Within DCNR, air pollution control responsibilities have been assigned
to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). The Nevada Legislature has created an account, the “Account for the Management
of Air Quality,” within the State General Fund that is to be administered
by the NDEP. Specifically, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) section 445B.590 (“Account for the Management
of Air Quality: Creation and administration; use; interest; payment of claims”) provides that money in A-

I0.

0 the account must be expended
to carry out and enforce the statutory air pollution control program and any regulations adopted pursuant
to that program. Among other functions, money from the account
is to be used to defray the direct and indirect costs of preparing regulations and recommendations

for legislation regarding those provisions, reviewing and acting upon applications for permits, enforcing the terms and conditions
in permits, monitoring emissions and ambient air quality, preparing inventories and tracking emissions, and performing modeling, analyses and demonstrations. The Account for the Management
of Air Quality
is replenished from various sources, including permit fees. NRS section 445B.300(2)(a) requires the State Environmental Commission (SEC) to provide by. regulation for the issuance, renewal, modification, revocation, and suspension
of operating permits, and to charge appropriate fees for their issuance
in an amount sufficient
to pay the expenses of administrating
the statutory air pollution control program and any regulations adopted to implement that program. Per NRS 445B.300(4),

all administrative fees collected by the SEC pursuant
to NRS section 445B.300(2) must be accounted for separately and deposited
in the State General Fund for credit to the Account for the Management
of Air Quality. The SEC has adopted

a fee regulation that imposes one-time fees, e.g., for permit application review, and annual fees on permit holders. See Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) section 445B.327 (“Fees; late penalty”). The Nevada Legislature has created

a second account within the State General Fund, the Pollution Control Account,
to provide funding for air quality management and control. See NRS section 445B.830 (“Fees to be paid to Department
of Motor Vehicles; expenditure
of money in Account; quarterly distributions

to local governments; annual reports by local governments; grants; creation and duties of advisory committee; submission and approval of proposed grants”). Under NRS section 445B.830, the Department
of Motor Vehicles charges fees in connection with administration

of the State’s motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (JIM) program and deposits the fees into the Pollution Control Account. Such fees are then allotted to various State and local agencies, including the NDEP, for air pollution control purposes. A third source of funding for the NDEP’s air programs

is CAA section 103 under which USEPA is authorized
to make grants to air pollution control agencies for research and development activities, and section 105 under which USEPA

is authorized

to make grants to air pollution control agencies
to defray

a portion of the costs associated with implementation

of programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and achievement
of the national ambient air quality standards. To qualify for section 105 grants in a given year, air pollution control agencies must at least maintain the same level of funding from non-Federal funds for air pollution control programs
as for the preceding year. See CAA section 105(c). With respect to air quality matters, the NDEP
is organized into two bureaus: the Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAQP) and the Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC). BAQP
is responsible for such activities
as ambient air quality monitoring, emissions inventory preparation, and air quality planning and modeling studies. BAPC
is responsible for such activities
as air quality permitting, compliance and enforcement. The Nevada Legislature approves the funding and personnel resources for BAQP and BAPC every two years. BAQP/BAPC receives funding from permit fees, Nevada Department
of Motor Vehicle fees, and federal grants, as described above. A-2

# 0 The budget allocated
to the BAQP/BAPC varies from year to year but has been in the $6 to $7 million range over the past four years. The most recent budget (State Fiscal Year 2011) exceeds $6 million with 54 approved full-time equivalent staff positions
in the air programs. 12.3 Clark County State law provides that the district board of health, county board of health or board of county commissioners

in each county whose population

is 100,000 or more shall establish

a program for the control of air pollution (excluding certain types of power plants), and administer the program within its jurisdiction unless superseded. See NRS 445B.500. For Clark County, the Nevada Governor has designated the Clark County Board of County Commissioners (80CC)
as the regulatory, enforcement and permitting authority for implementing applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act, any amendments

to that Act, and any regulations adopted pursuant
to that Act within Clark County. The Nevada Governor has also designated the Board of County Commissioners

of Clark County as the lead agency responsible for coordinating the preparation of implementation plans for Clark County. With respect to air pollution control, the BOCC acts through the Clark County Department
of Air Quality (DAQ). The state laws establishing local air pollution control agencies
in certain counties also provide for similar powers and responsibilities

to those agencies
as provided
to the SEC and the NDEP, including the power and duty to charge appropriate permit fees. See NRS 445B.500(1)(d). Clark County fees are set forth in Clark County Air Quality Regulations Section 18 (“Permit and Technical Service Fees”). In addition
to fees charged for permits and technical services, Clark County DAQ relies on grants issued by USEPA under CAA sections 103 and 105, state grants from the Pollution Control Account per NRS section 445B.830, regional transportation commission tax revenues
as established
by NRS section 377A.090, and funds from the Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. The BOCC approves the budgets for Clark County DAQ on an annual basis. The Clark County DAQ has a budget for Fiscal Year 2011- 2012 of approximately $28.7 million and has 105 full-time equivalent staff. 12,4 Washoe County As noted above, State law provides that the district board of health, county board of health or board of county commissioners

in each county whose population

is 100,000 or more shall establish

a program for the control of air pollution (excluding certain types of power plants) and administer the program within its jurisdiction unless superseded. For Washoe County, the Nevada Governor has designated the District Board of Health of the Washoe County Health District (WCDBOH)

as the regulatory, enforcement and permitting authority for implementing applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act, any amendments

to that Act, and any regulations adopted pursuant
to that Act within Washoe County. With respect to air pollution control, the WCDBOH acts through the Washoe County Health District’s Air Quality Management Division (AQMD). As discussed above in connection with Clark County, the WCDBOH has the authority and duty under state law to charge appropriate fees and WCDBOH does so through District Board of Health Regulations Governing Air Quality Management section 030.300
et seq (“Fees and Fee Schedules”).

In addition
to permit fees, Washoe County AQMD relies on grants issued by USEPA under CAA sections 103 and 105, Nevada Department
of Motor Vehicle fees, and funds A-30 from the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, and Washoe County via an inter-local agreement (“Interlocal Agreement Concerning the Washoe County District Health Department”) among the WCDBOH, City of Reno, City of Sparks, and Washoe County. The Washoe County Board of County Commissioners

is responsible for approving the budget for the Washoe County AQMD. Washoe County AQMD has a Fiscal Year 20 11-2012 budget of approximately $2.1 million and has 19 allocated full-time staff. 12.5 Evaluation
of Resource Requirements The NDEP, Clark County DAQ, and Washoe County AQMD have been administering, implementing, and enforcing air programs designed
to meet the CAA’s SIP requirements
for over 40 years, and the funding and personnel described above for each of the three agencies

is adequate
to meet the needs of these programs. Over the next five years, current funding and personnel levels are expected
to remain stable via the funding mechanisms described above and to be sufficient
to meet the resource needs of the agencies for air pollution control purposes over that period.

A-4

# 0

0 ATTACHMENT

B The NDEP requests that the USEPA approve the following Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) into the Nevada applicable SIP. Note that NRS 445 B.500 is currently
in the Nevada applicable SIP; we are requesting that USEPA replace that version with the more current 2001 codification, because that statute was revised in 2011. Statutes for Inclusion
in Nevada’s ASIP NRS 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. 1. Except as otherwise provided
in this section,

a person appointed
to a new term or to fill a vacancy on a board, commission

or similar body by the Governor must have, in accordance with the provisions
of N RS 281.050. actually,
as opposed
to constructively, resided, for the 6 months immediately preceding the date of the appointment: (a) In this State; and (b) Ef current residency

in a particular county, district, ward, subdistrict
or any other unit is prescribed
by the provisions of law that govern the position, also in that county, district, ward, subdistrict
or other unit. 2. After the Governor’s initial appointments

of members
to boards, commissions

or similar bodies, all such members shall hold office for terms of 3 years or until their successors have been appointed and have qualified. 3. A vacancy on a board, commission

or similar body occurs when

a member dies, resigns, becomes ineligible
to hold office or is absent from the State for a period of 6 consecutive months. 4. Any vacancy must be filled by the Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term. 5. A member appointed
to a board, commission

or similar body as a representative

of the general public must be a person who: (a) Has an interest in and
a knowledge
of the subject matter which
is regulated by the board, commission

or similar body; and (b) Does not have
a pecuniary interest in any matter which
is within the jurisdiction
of the board, commission

or similar body. 6. The Governor shall not appoint

a person to a board, commission

or similar body if the person
is a member of any other board, commission

or similar body. 7. The provisions of subsection

I do not apply if: (a) A requirement
of law concerning another characteristic

or status that
a member must possess, including, without limitation, membership

in another organization, would make
it impossible

to fulfill the provisions
of subsection

I; or (b) The membership
of the particular board, commission

or similar body includes residents of another state and the provisions
of subsection

I would conflict with
a requirement that applies to all members of that body. (Added toNRS by 1977, 1176; A 2005. 1581; 2011.2992) NRS 281 A.l 50 “Public employee” defined. “Public employee” means any person who performs public duties under the direction and control of a public officer for compensation paid by the State or any county, city or other political subdivision. (Added to NRS by 1985, 2121; A 2009. 1047)—(Substituted

in revision for NRS 281.436) NRS 281A.160 “Public officer” defined. I. “Public officer” means

a person elected or appointed

to a position which: (a) is established
by the Constitution
of the State of Nevada,

a statute of this State or a charter or ordinance of any county, city or other political subdivision; and (b) Involves the exercise of a public power, trust or duty. As used in this section, “the exercise of a public power, trust or duty” means: (1) Actions taken in an official capacity which involve

a substantial and material exercise of administrative discretion

in the formulation
of public policy; (2) The expenditure
of public money; and (3) The administration

of laws and rules of the State or any county, city or other political subdivision. B-I2. “Public officer” does not include: (a) Any justice, judge orother officer of the court system; (b) Any member of aboard, commission

orother body whose function

is advisory; (c) Any member of a special district whose official duties do notinclude the formulation
of a budget for the district orthe authorization
of the expenditure
of the district’s money;or (d) A county health officer appointed pursuant
toNRS 439.290. 3. “Public office” does notinclude anoffice held by: (a) Any justice, judge orother officer of the court system; (b) Any member of aboard, commission

orother body whose function

is advisory; (c) Any member of a special district whose official duties do not include the formulation
of a budget for the district orthe authorization
of the expenditure
of the district’s money;or (d) A county health officer appointed pursuant
toNRS 43 9.290. (Added toNRS by 1985, 2121; A 1987, 2093; 1999. 883; 2001. 658,j,.;2003,

116; 2005. 2302; ZQ i.4.2)—(Substituted

in revision for NRS 281.4365) NRS 281A.400 General requirements; exceptions.

A code of ethical standards

is hereby established

to govern the conduct of public officers and employees: 1. •A public officer or employee shall notseek or accept any gift, service, favor, employment, engagement, emolument

oreconomic opportunity which would tend improperly

to influence

areasonable personin the public officer’s
or employee’s position
to depart from the fuithful and impartial discharge of the public officer’s
or employee’s public duties. 2. A public officer or employee shall notusethe public officer’s or employee’s position
in government

tosecure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions

or advantages for the public officer or employee, any business entity in which the public officer or employee has a significant pecuniary interest, or any persontowhom the public officer or employee has acommitment

in a private capacity
tothe interests of that person.As used in this subsection: (a) “Commitment

in a private capacity
tothe interests of that person” has the meaning ascribed
to “commitment in a private capacity
tothe interests of others” in subsection

8 of NRS 281A.420. (b) “Unwarranted” meanswithout justification

or adequate reason. 3. A public officer or employee shall not participate

asan agentof government

in the negotiation

orexecution of acontract between the government and anybusiness entity in which the public officer or employee has a significant pecuniary interest. 4. A public officer or employee shall not accept any salary, retainer, augmentation, expenseallowance
orother compensation from any private sourcefor the performance
of the public officer’s or employee’s duties asa public officer or employee. 5. If a public officer or employee acquires, through the public officer’s or employee’s public duties or relationships, anyinformation which by law or practice

is not atthe time available
to people generally, the public officer or employee shall notusethe information

tofurther the pecuniary interests of the public officer or employee or anyother personorbusiness entity. 6. A public officer or employee shall not suppress any governmental reportorother document because

it might tend to affect unfavorably the public officer’s or employee’s pecuniary interests. 7. Except for State Legislators who are subject tothe restrictions
setforth in subsection

8, a public officer or employee shall notuse governmental time, property, equipment
orother facility tobenefit the public officer’s or employee’s personal orfinancial interest. This subsection does not prohibit: (a) A limited useof governmental property, equipment
orother facility for personal purposes
if: (1) The public officer who is responsible for and has authority
to authorize the useof such property, equipment
orother facility has established

a policy allowing the useorthe useis necessary
asaresult of emergency circumstances; (2) The usedoes not interfere with the performance
of the public officer’s or employee’s public duties; (3) The costorvalue related tothe useis nominal; and (4) The usedoes notcreatethe appearance
of impropriety; (b) The useof mailing lists, computer data orother information lawfully obtained from
a governmental agency which
is available
tomembers of the general public for nongovernmental purposes;
or (c) The useof telephones
orother meansof communication

if there is nota special charge for that use. B-2

# 0

0 If a governmental agency incurs

a cost as a result of a use that is authorized pursuant
to this subsection
or would ordinarily charge

a member of the general public for the use, the public officer or employee shall promptly reimburse the cost or pay the charge to the governmental agency. 8. A State Legislator shall not: (a) Use governmental time, property, equipment
or other facility for a nongovernmental purpose or for the private benefit of the State Legislator
or any other person. This paragraph does not prohibit: (1) A limited use of state property and resources for personal purposes
if: (I) The use does not interfere with the performance
of the State Legislator’s public duties; (II) The cost or value related to the use is nominal; and (III) The use does not create the appearance
of impropriety; (2) The use of mailing lists, computer data or other information lawfully obtained from

a governmental agency which
is available
to members of the general public for nongovernmental purposes;
or (3) The use of telephones
or other means of communication

if there is not a special charge for that use. (b) Require or authorize

a legislative employee, while on duty, to perform personal services or assist in a private activity, except: (1) In unusual and infrequent situations where the employee’s service
is reasonably necessary
to permit the State Legislator
or legislative employee
to perform that person’s official duties; or (2) Where such service has otherwise been established

as legislative policy. 9. A public officer or employee shall not attempt to benefit the public officer’s or employee’s personal
or financial interest through the influence of a subordinate. 10. A public officer or employee shall not seek other employment

or contracts through the use of the public officer’s or employee’s official position. (Added to NRS by 1977, 1105; A 1987, 2094; 1991, 1595; 1993, 2243; 1997, 3324; 1999. 2736; 2003. 3388; 2009, 1053)—.{SubstitutedinrevisionforNRS 281.481) NRS 281A.410 Limitations
on representing

or counseling private persons before public agencies; disclosure required by certain public officers.
In addition to the requirements
of the code of ethical standards: 1. If a public officer or employee serves in a state agency of the Executive Department

or an agency of any county, city or other political subdivision, the public officer or employee: (a) Shall not accept compensation from any private person to represent
or counsel the private person on any issue pending before the agency in which that public officer or employee serves, if the agency makes decisions; and (b) If the public officer or employee leaves the service of the agency, shall not, for

1 year after leaving the service of the agency, represent
or counsel for compensation

a private person upon any issue which was under consideration by the agency during the public officer’s or employee’s service. As used in this paragraph, “issue” includes

a case, proceeding, application, contract or determination, but does not include the proposal
or consideration
of legislative measures
or administrative regulations. 2. A State Legislator
or a member of a local legislative body, or a public officer or employee whose public service requires less than half of his or her time, may represent
or counsel

a private person before an agency in which he or she does not serve. Any other public officer or employee shall not represent
or counsel

a private person for compensation before any state agency of the Executive
or Legislative Department. 3. Not later than January
15 of each year, any State Legislator
or other public officer who has, within the preceding year, represented

or counseled

a private person for compensation before

a state agency of the Executive Department shall disclose for each such representation

or counseling during the previous calendar year: (a) The name of the client; (b) The nature of the representation; and (c) The name of the state agency. 4. The disclosure required by subsection

3 must be made in writing and filed with the Commission
on a form prescribed by the Commission. For the purposes of this subsection, the disclosure

is timely filed if, on or before the last day for tiling, the disclosure

is tiled in one of the following ways: (a) Delivered

in person to the principal office of the Commission

in Carson City. (b) Mailed to the Commission
by first-class mail, or other class of mail that is at least as expeditious, postage prepaid. Filing by mail is complete upon timely depositing the disclosure with the United States Postal Service. (c) Dispatched

to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery
to the Commission within

3 calendar days. Filing by third-party commercial carrier
is complete upon timely depositing the disclosure with the third-party commercial carrier.

B-3/

5. The Commission shall retain

a disclosure filed pursuant
to subsections

3 and 4 for 6 years after the date on which the disclosure was filed. (Added to NRS by 1977, 1106; A 1991, 1597; 2001, 2289; 2007, 638; 2009, 1054)—(Substituted

in revision for NRS 281.491) NRS 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. 1. Except as otherwise provided
in this section,

a public officer or employee shall not approve, disapprove, vote, abstain from voting Or otherwise act upon
a matter: (a) Regarding which the public officer or employee has accepted

a gift or loan; (b) In which the public officer or employee has a pecuniary interest; or (c) Which would reasonably
be affected by the public officer’s or employee’s commitment

in a private capacity to the interest of others, without disclosing sufficient information conceming the gift, loan, interest or commitment

to inform the public of the potential effect of the action or abstention upon the person who provided the gift or loan, upon the public officer’s or employee’s pecuniary interest, or upon the persons
to whom the public officer or employee has a commitment

in a private capacity. Such
a disclosure must be made at the time the matter
is considered.
If the public officer or employee

is a member of a body which makes decisions, the public officer or employee shall make the disclosure

in public to the chair and other members of the body. If the public officer or employee

is not a member of such
a body and holds an appointive office, the public officer or employee shall make the disclosure

to the supervisory head of the public officer’s or employee’s organization
or, if the public officer holds an elective office, to the general public in the area from which the public officer
is elected. 2. The provisions
of subsection

1 do not require

a public officer to disclose: (a) Any campaign contributions that the public officer reported
in a timely manner pursuant
to NRS 294A. 120 or 294A. 125; or (b) Any contributions

to a legal defense fund that the public officer reported
in a timely manner pursuant
to 1fS. 294A.286. 3. Except as otherwise provided
in this section, in addition
to the requirements
of subsection

1, a public officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate

in the consideration
of, a matter with respect to which the independence
of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by: (a) The public officer’s acceptance
of a gift or loan; (b) The public officer’s pecuniary interest; or (c) The public officer’s commitment

in a private capacity
to the interests of others. 4. In interpreting and applying the provisions
of subsection

3: (a) It must be presumed that the independence ofjudgment
of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would not be materially affected by the public officer’s pecuniary interest or the public officer’s commitment

in a private capacity
to the interests of others where the resulting benefit or detriment accruing
to the public officer, or if the public officer has a commitment

in a private capacity
to the interests of others, accruing
to the other persons,

is not greater than that accruing
to any other member of the general business, profession, occupation

or group that is affected by the matter. The presumption
set forth in this paragraph does not affect the applicability
of the requirements
set forth in subsection

I relating to the disclosure of the pecuniary interest or commitment

in a private capacity to the interests of others. (b) The Commission must give appropriate weight and proper deference
to the public policy of this State which favors the right of a public officer to perform the duties for which the public officer was elected or appointed and to vote or otherwise act upon

a matter, provided the public officer has properly disclosed the public officer’s acceptance
of a gift or loan, the public officer’s pecuniary interest or the public officer’s commitment

in a private capacity
to the interests of others in the manner required by subsection

1. Because abstention by a public officer disrupts the normal course of representative government and deprives the public and the public officer’s constituents of a voice in governmental affairs, the provisions of this section are intended
to require abstention only in clear cases where the independence

of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by the public officer’s acceptance
of a gift or loan, the public officer’s pecuniary interest or the public officer’s commitment

in a private capacity
to the interests of others. 5. Except as otherwise provided
in NRS 241.0355.

if a public officer declares
to the body or committee

in which the vote is to be taken that the public officer will abstain from voting because of the requirements
of this section, the B-4

# 0

0 necessary quorum
to act upon and the number of votes necessary
to act upon the matter, as fixed by any statute, ordinance
or rule, is reduced
as though the member abstaining were not a member of the body or committee. 6. The provisions
of this section do not, under any circumstances: (a) Prohibit

a member of a local legislative body from requesting
or introducing

a legislative measure; or (b) Require

a member of a local legislative body to take any particular action before or while requesting
or introducing

a legislative measure. 7. The provisions
of this section do not, under any circumstances, apply to State Legislators

or allow the Commission

to exercise jurisdiction

or authority over State Legislators. The responsibility
of a State Legislator

to make disclosures concerning gifts, loans, interests or commitments and the responsibility

of a State Legislator
to abstain from voting upon or advocating the passage or failure of a matter are governed by the Standing Rules of the Legislative Department
of State Government which are adopted, administered and enforced exclusively
by the appropriate bodies of the Legislative Department
of State Government pursuant
to Section

6 of Article

4 of the Nevada Constitution. 8. As used in this section: (a) “Càmmitment

in a private capacity
to the interests of others” means

a commitment

to a person: (1) Who is a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; (2) Who is related to the public officer or employee by blood, adoption or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity

or affinity; (3) Who employs the public officer or employee
or a member of the public officer’s or employee’s household; (4) With whom the public officer or employee has a substantial and continuing business relationship;

or (5) Any other commitment

or relationship that is substantially similar to a commitment

or relationship described
in subparagraphs
(I) to (4), inclusive, of this paragraph. (b) “Public officer” and “public employee”
do not include

a State Legislator. (Added to NRS by 1977, 1106; A 1987, 2095; 1991, 1597; 1995, 1083; 1997, 3326; 1999, 2738; 2003, 818, fl3, 3389; 2007. 3372; 2009. 1055, jQj)— Substituted

in revision for NRS 281.501) NRS 445B.500 Establishment and administration

of program; contents of program; designation
of air pollution control agency of county for purposes of federal act; powers and duties of local air pollution control board; notice of public hearings; delegation
of authority

to determine violations and levy administrative penalties; cities and smaller counties; regulation
of certain electric plants prohibited. I. Except as otherwise provided
in this section and in NRS 445B.3 10: (a) The district board of health, county board of health or board of county commissioners

in each county whose population

is 100,000 or more shall establish

a program for the control of air pollution and administer the program within its jurisdiction unless superseded. (b) The program: (1) Must include, without limitation, standards for the control of emissions, emergency procedures and variance procedures established
by ordinance
or local regulation which are equivalent

to or stricter than those established by statute or state regulation; (2) May, in a county whose population

is 700,000 or more, include requirements for the creation, receipt and exchange for consideration
of credits to reduce and control air contaminants

in accordance with NRS 445B.508; and (3) Must provide for adequate administration, enforcement, financing and staff. (c) The district board of health, county board of health or board of county commissioners

is designated

as the air pollution control agency of the county for the purposes of NRS 445B. 100 to 445B.640. inclusive, and the Federal Act insofar as it pertains
to local programs, and that agency
is authorized

to take all action necessary
to secure for the county the benefits of the Federal Act. (d) Powers and responsibilities provided for in NRS 445B.210, 445B.240
to 445B.470. inclusive, 445B.560. 445B.570. 445B.580 and 445B.640 are binding upon and inure to the benefit of local air pollution control authorities within their jurisdiction. 2. The local air pollution control board shall carry out all provisions
of NRS 445B.2l5 with the exception that notices of public hearings must be given in any newspaper, qualified pursuant
to the provisions
of chajter 238 of NRS, once
a week for
3 weeks. The notice must specife with particularity the reasons for the proposed regulations and provide other informative details. NRS 445B.215 does not apply to the adoption of existing regulations upon transfer of authority
as provided

in NRS 445B.610. 3. In a county whose population

is 700,000 or more, the local air pollution control board may delegate
to an independent hearing officer or hearing board its authority
to determine violations and levy administrative penalties B-S•0 for violations of the provisions
of NRS 445B.100

to 445B.450, inclusive, arid 445B.500

to 445B.640. inclusive,
or any regulation adopted pursuant
to those sections. If such
a delegation

is made, 17.5 percent of any penalty collected must be deposited
in the county treasury
in an account to be administered
by the local air pollution control board to a maximum of $17,500 per year. The money in the account may only be used to defray the administrative expenses incurred by the local air pollution control board in enforcing the provisions
of NRS 445B.i00

to 445B.640, inclusive. The remainder of the penalty must be deposited
in the county school district fund of the county where the violation occurred and must be accounted for separately
in the fund. A school district may spend the money received pursuant
to this section only in accordance with an annual spending plan that is approved by the local air pollution control board and shall submit an annual report to that board detailing the expenditures
of the school district under the plan. A local air pollution control board shall approve an annual spending plan if the proposed expenditures
set forth in the plan are reasonable and limited to: (a) Programs of education on topics relating to air quality; and (b) Projects
to improve air quality, including, without limitation, the purchase and installation
of equipment

to retrofit school buses of the school district to use biodiesel, compressed natural gas or a similar fuel formulated

to reduce emissions from the amount of emissions produced by the use of traditional fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuel, which are consistent with the state implementation plan adopted by this State pursuant
to 42 U.S.C.
§ 7410 and 7502. 4. Any county whose population

is less than 100,000 or any city may meet the requirements
of this section for administration and enforcement through cooperative

or interlocal agreement with one or more other counties,
or through agreement with the State, or may establish its own program for the control of air pollution.
If the county establishes such
a program,

it is subject to the approval of the Commission. 5. No district board of health, county board of health or board of county commissioners may adopt any regulation
or establish

a compliance schedule, variance order or other enforcement action relating to the control of emissions from plants which generate electricity by using steam produced by the burning of fossil fuel. 6. As used in this section, “plants which generate electricity by using steam produced by the burning of fossil fuel” means plants that burn fossil fi.iels in a boiler to produce steam for the production
of electricity. The term does not include any plant which uses technology for a simple or combined cycle combustion turbine, regardless of whether the plant includes duct burners. (AddedtoNRSby 1971, 1199;A 1973, 1819; 1975, 1126, 1782; 1977, 1559; 1979, 546; 1985, 291; 1991, 2161; 1993, 175; 1997. 1999; 1999. 1976; 2001. 1296. 2003, 44; 2007,319; 2011, 1262) NRS 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. 1. in addition
to the duties set forth in NRS 445B.500, the local air pollution control board in a county whose population

is 700,000 or more shall cooperate with the regional planning coalition and the regional transportation commission

in the county in which
it is located to: (a) Ensure that the plans, policies and programs adopted by each of them are consistent
to the greatest extent practicable. (b) Establish and carry out a program of integrated, long-range planning that conserves the economic, financial and natural resources of the region and supports

a common vision of desired future conditions. 2. Before adopting or amending

a plan, policy or program,

a local air pollution control board shall: (a) Consult with the regional planning coalition and the regional transportation commission; and (b) Conduct hearings
to solicit public comment on the consistency
of the plan, policy or program with: (1) The plans, policies and programs adopted or proposed
to be adopted by the regional planning coalition and the regional transportation commission; and (2) Plans for capital improvements that have been prepared pursuant
to NRS 278.0226. 3. As used in this section: (a) “Local air pollution control board” means

a board that establishes

a program for the control of air pollution pursuant
to NRS 445B.500. (b) “Regional planning coalition” has the meaning ascribed
to it in NRS 278.0172. (c) “Regional transportation commission” means

a regional transportation commission created and organized
in accordance with chanter 277A of NRS. (Added to NRS by 1999, 1975; A 2011. 1264) B-6

# 0

0 ATTACHMENT

C STATE OF NEVADA J
N‘ O1VS ON OF E O4ENT? ‘ROTECTION 3unei 2012 

# — Znfer Aoaie Dxiec Air Dn Ui EPA Rti

9 Du Am Pet x phone hou Jue 15. 2012. ittiched
ii the whitepiper bausiou fr the Nva$a Dison of Environmental Potectwn. WahoeCntv
Air Quahly )4anaenwrit DiSi**t and Clark County Deparrnent
of Aix Quahty re*rthn conflirt of mterest rovrcmocc zd inftaadire SIPi. If you h3ve ny tui’J qreflou plese feel e to comxtt

at (775) 67-933O. I /] Rob Bmfod Cle Bure*n of Air Quahly Plamaizg Nè D*vanon ot EnvE mziabl Ptntec F.Cc h*ktWi*? CaeL PA D Wt C AQMD Le. Mmid

DA Wiso.Dvy Laws Waye Dru, Clan Cy DAQ Cath Irpaon DqzyDA. Cak Cy Jn bla Dpam AG. S NE P — NEPaM D Anu NOES OT S e*t !.A4G1 Cai Cay, t’q*ta

p T77Ac7Ot 7Th81 c-I0Thispageisintentionallyblank.C-2

# 0

0 S TATE 

# C)

F N E\/ADA Department

of Ocnserv tnn & Naturni Reours

M Oto 

# DVISO OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GiCrvD 

# Analysis from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Clark County. and the Washoe County Health District Regarding Nevada’s Ethics in Government Statutes as Applied to Section 128 of the Clean Air Act The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has asked the State of Nevada, Clark County and Washoe County to set forth Nevada’s Ethics in Government statutes and explain how those statutes may address the conflict of interest provision

in section 128 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). This issue has arisen in the context of EPA’s review of Nevada’s infrastructure state implementation plan (“I-SIP”) for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards (“NAAQ.S”), and EPA has raised the issue with respect to Clark and Washoe Counties,
as it reviews the Nevada I-SIP. This memorandum from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (“NDEP”), Clark County, and the Washoe County Health District addresses how Nevada’s Ethics in Government provisions comply with the intent of Section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 of the CAA provides: State boards’ (a) Not later than the date one year after August
7, 1977, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements that: (1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least

a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under this chapter, and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by members
of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. A State may adopt any requirements respecting conflicts of interest for such boards or bodies or heads of executive agencies,
or any other entities which are more stringent than the requirements

of paragraph
(1) and (2), and the Administrator shall approve any such more stringent requirements submitted

as part of an implementation plan. 42 USC

§ 7428. EPA has provided

a memorandum dated March
2, 1978 with an attached model letter and suggested definitions (the “1978 Memo”) to provide non-binding guidance

in interpreting Section 128. The 1978 Memo provides that the goal of the conflict of interest requirement
“is generally aimed at assuring that decisions
to issue permits or enforcement orders neither be nor appear to be influenced by the private interests of individual decision makers.”

It also provides “suggested” definitions for 1 

# Arguably, Section 128 applies only to states, not local government entities. 

# I-——

N



# C-30

0 “board or body”, “majority
of members”, “represent the public interest”, and “significant portion of income.” State Environmental Commission
of Nevada Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 445B.200 establishes the composition

of the State Environmental Commission (“SEC”). The SEC is designated

as the board that hears appeals of permit approvals and enforcement orders. Five members
of the SEC are designated

as heads of state agencies who are employed full-time
as public officers. One is from State Board of Health. The Governor must appoint five others, three of which must have certain expertise. One must be an engineering

or building contractor, one must have experience

in mining reclamation, and one must have experience

as a conservation advocate. NRS 445B.200. This statute complies with Section 128 of the Clean Air Act for the following reasons. First, six of the eleven members already represent the public interest. Not only are five of them persons who work forty or more hours per week to protect the public interest, but each of them are public officers as defined by Nevada Ethics in Government statutes. NRS 281A.020 sets forth the legislative findings and declarations for the Ethics and Government statutes.

It provides: 1. It is hereby declared
to be the public policy of this State that: (a) A public office
is a public trust and shall be held for the sole benefit of the people. (b) A public officer or employee must commit himself or herself to avoid conflicts between the private interests
of the public officer or employee and those of the general public whom the public officer or employee serves. NRS 281A.160 goes on to define “public officer” as “a person elected or appointed
to a position which: (a) Is established
by the Constitution

of the State of Nevada,
as statute of this State or a charter or ordinance
of any county, city or other political subdivision; and (b) Involves the exercise of a public power, trust or duty.” The “exercise of a public power, trust or duty”
is defined as: “(1) Actions taken in an official capacity which involve

a substantial and material exercise of administrative discretion

in the formulation
of public policy; (2) The expenditure

of public money; and (3) The administration

of laws and rules of the State or any county, city or other political subdivision.” NRS 281A.160(1)(b). The members
of the SEC are defined by state statute as public officers, and, therefore, must follow the Ethics in Government laws. In addition; two of the five Governor’s appointees are statutorily precluded from having any pecuniary interest
in matters that come within the jurisdiction
of the SEC. Section 232A.020(5) provides: A member appointed
to a board, commission

or similar body as a representative

of the general public must be a person who: (a) Has an interest
in and
a knowledge
of the subject matter which
is regulated
by the board, commission

or similar body; and (b) Does not have

a pecuniary interest
in any matter which
is within the jurisdiction of the board, commission

or similar body. Thus, two of the Governor’s appointees are appointed
to represent the “general public interest” and are precluded from having

a pecuniary interest
in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the SEC. C-4

# 0

0 To assert that those persons do not represent the public interest because they do not fit within the “suggested” definition from the 1978 Memo seems to be an overly strict interpretation

of Section 128 and what it intended
to accomplish. EPA seems to suggest that
a person does not represent the public interest

if he or she has a “controlling interest in” or serves as an attorney, consultant, officer or director of, or has any other contractual relationship with “any person subject to permits or enforcement orders under the Clean Air Act or any trade or business association
of which such
a person

is a member.” 1978 Memo.
If one were to strictly construe that language, the fact that
a board member contracted with

a contractor
to pave his or her driveway would render him or her unfit to represent the public interest. Moreover, that “suggested” definition conflates “public interest” with pecuniary interest because

it defines “public interest”
as not having

a significant pecuniary interest
in a person who may come before the board. That would render the two requirements
set forth in Section 128 of the CAA into one requirement.

It is a tenet of statutory construction that
a statute not be read so as to render any part of it meaningless. The suggested definition for “represent the public interest”

is simply untenable. Certainly,

it is within reason to expect that
a person who serves the public interest by working over forty hours

a week for the public interest (such as the directors of the various executive agencies who by statute sit on the SEC) “represent[s] the public interest”
as intended by the Clean Air Act. One need only look at the mission statements for each of the agencies
to understand that the persons
in those positions represent the public interest. 2 While the agency heads who sit by statute on the SEC are already public officers, the Governor’s appointees become public officers by virtue of their appointment

in accordance with NRS 281A.160.

In short, all board members are subject to the Ethics in Government statutes
in NRS Chapter 281A. NRS 281A.400 precludes any member from accepting “any gift, service, favor, employment, engagement, emolument

or economic opportunity which would tend improperly
to influence

a reasonable person
in the public officer’s or employee’s position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the public officer’s or employee’s public duties.” Nor may the public officer use his or her position to secure “unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions

or advantages for the public officer or employee, any business entity in which the public officer or employee has
a significant pecuniary interest,
or any persons to whom the public officer or employee has
a commitment

in a private capacity to the interests of that person.” NRS 281A.400(2). That test is an objective one— 

# the reasonable person standard— 

# rather than

a subjective one. It precludes any member of the SEC from using the position
to the member’s economic benefit. Thus, the majority of SEC members represent the public interest and cannot have

a significant pecuniary interest
in matters before the board.
If they do, they are required
to disclose that fact and recuse themselves from participation

in that matter. NRS 281A.420. Furthermore,

as a practical matter, the SEC sits as panel of three members
to hear appeals. The members have already determined whether they must recuse themselves before sitting on the panel. Clark County Hearing Board 2 

# See http://forestrv.nv.gov!; http:!/www.ndow.onilabout/; http://water.nv.ov!; http://agri.nv.gov/AboutUs.htm: http://mineralsstate.nv.us/aboutus_mission.htm; http://heafth.nv.gov/BOH.htm. C50 In Clark County, the Control Officer has been delegated the authority
to issue or approve permits. For decades, Clark County and the predecessor agency
in the county, the Southern Nevada Health District, 3 have used the local hearing board to hear appeals of the Control Officer’s permitting actions. NRS 445B.275 authorizes the governing body of the county to create

a local hearing board and establishes the required makeup of the board.

It states: 1. The governing body of any district, county or city authorized
to operate an air pollution control program pursuant
to NRS 445B.100
to 445B.640, inclusive, may appoint an air pollution control hearing board. 2. The air pollution control hearing board appointed
by a county, city or health district must consist of seven members who are not employees
of the State or any political subdivision
of the State. One member of the hearing board must be an attorney admitted
to practice law in Nevada, one member must be a professional engineer licensed
in Nevada and one member must be licensed
in Nevada
as a general engineering contractor
or a general building contractor

as defined
in NRS 624.215. Three must be appointed for a term of
1 year, three must be appointed for a term of 2 years and one must be appointed for a term of 3 years. Each succeeding term must be for a period of 3 years. A Nevada county has only that authority provided by statute, which means that Clark County generally cannot add or remove provisions

in its exercise of statutory authority.

In particular, Clark County may exercise its authority
to appoint

a hearing board, and the hearing board must be composed
of seven members who meet the qualifications found in NRS 445B.275(2). There
is no additional language

in the statute that would authorize Clark County to include additional requirements. According
to the 1978 Memo, the term “board or body” in Section 128 “includes any individual, 4 agency, board, committee, council, department,

or other state, local, or regional instrumentality authorized
to approve permits or enforcement orders under the Clean Air Act, in the first instance or on appeal.” Although the term “approve”

is not separately defined
in the memo, the suggested definition
of “board or body” indicates that EPA believes an appeal
is part of the approval process and, therefore, any board or body that hears appeals

is subject to Section 128. From the discussions with EPA, it appears that EPA would require

a SIP submittal
to demonstrate compliance with Section 128 that would include additional criteria to determine the composition

of the hearing board. At a minimum,

it appears that EPA would require the following criteria: that
a majority of members of the board or body “represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders” pursuant
to the Clean Air Act. EPA may also require the incorporation

of language from the suggested definitions

in the 1978 Memo. Combining this interpretation with the interpretations

of “public interest” and “significant portion,” shows that EPA’s overall interpretation goes beyond the meaning of the plain language

in Section 128 and produces

a potentially absurd result. Section 128 requires that
a majority of the members of the board or body represent the public interest and do not derive

a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders. The1978 Memo, on the other hand, states: While the Southern Nevada Health District was formerly known as the Clark County Health District,

it has aLways been
a separate legal entity from Clark County. “During the recent discussions, EPA Region

9 has indicated that EPA no longer includes the term “individual”

as part of the “board or body” definition.

C-6

# 0

0 “Represent the public interest” means does not own
a controlling interest in, have 5% or more of his or her capital invested in, serve as attorney for, act as consultant for, serve as officer or director of, or hold any other official or contractual relationship with any person subject to permits or enforcement orders under the Clean Air Act or any trade or business association
or which such

a person

is a member. This interpretation encompasses just about anyone associated with the regulated community subject to the Clean Air Act, The 1978 Memo also states: “Significant portion of income” means 10 percent or more of gross personal income for
a calendar year, including retirement benefits, consultant fees, and stock dividends, except that it shall mean 50 percent of gross personal income for
a calendar year if the recipient

is over 60 years of age and is receiving such portion pursuant
to retirement, pension, or similar arrangement.

...“ 

# This suggested definition potentially covers anyone employed
by or formerly employed
by anyone
in the regulated community subject to the Clean Air Act. Essentially, the board or body could never have

a majority of members who have or who have ever had an economic
or business relationship with any person within the regulated community.
On the other hand, the 1978 Memo indicates that Section 128 would allow

a majority of members on a board or body from conservation groups. For a more stringent requirement, the 1978 Memo suggests that “[s]ome States may want to consider adopting additional provisions for selection of some number of board members from lists submitted
by state conservation leagues, by a panel of representatives

of environmentally concerned public interest groups, or by some similar mechanism.” Presumably, persons who are conservationists would represent the public interest within the meaning of Section 128 and would not derive any significant portion of their income from the regulated community. As discussed above, the Control Officer approves
or issues operating permits. Once that action
is taken, the permit

is valid and the action
is complete.
As the regulator,

it makes sense that the Control Officer does not have any economic
or business relationship with anyone
in the regulated community. The regulator must be separate from the regulated. This holds true for a board or body that acts as the regulator and has the authority
to approve or issue operating permits. However, even in this situation,

it appears that the 1978 Memo still goes too far in its interpretation. The term “income” can have

a particular meaning that does not include money received from retirement benefits or investments.

By defining “income”
so broadly, adherence
to the “suggested” definition would, at the very least, require that certain potential appointees

to the hearing board be filtered out if they were retired or owned stock in a particular company regulated
by the Clean Air Act. A more reasonable interpretation

of the term “income”

in Section 128 is a reference
to someone who currently receives compensation, through employment

or by contract, from

a person
in the regulated community. As stated above, while
it makes sense that Section 128 would require

a board or body that approves and issues permits and enforcement orders to be economically separate and apart from the regulated community, this logic breaks down once extended
to a board or body that hears appeals. As indicated above, an appeal

is not part of the approval process.

A permit, once issued by the Control Officer,

is valid and enforceable. The purpose of an appeal

is not to approve and issue an operating permit. Instead, the hearing board
is quasi-judicial, and its members must act in a fair and impartial manner. The C-70 main purpose of the hearing

is to provide due process to the person who applied for the permit and allow that person as well as other “aggrieved” 5 persons with

a mechanism

to test the adequacy
of the regulator’s decision. See NRS 445B.360. For a board hearing appeals to function properly, each member must be willing and able to be fair and impartial.

If, based on a particular real or perceived conflict of interest, the member cannot act in a fair and impartial manner, then that member must not participate in that particular proceeding. However, recusal
in one proceeding does not mean that member could not act fairly and impartially

in another proceeding. For
a quasi-judicial board,

it is illogical to attempt to manage the composition

of the board for one type of potential bias without managing
all other types of potential bias. In other words, the board or body that hears appeals should not be stacked with conservationists;
nor should

it be stacked with people associated with the regulated community.

It is also nonsensical

to presume that such

a large group of individuals, i.e. anyone associated economically, past or present, with persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the Clean Air Act, would be so unable to set aside their supposed bias in favor of the regulated community that they could not be trusted to make up the majority of a board or body hearing appeals. Given the purpose of an appeals board and the difference between an appeals board and
a board that acts in a regulatory capacity,

a more common sense interpretation

of Section 128 is that it applies to a board or body that actually approve and issue permits, but not to a board or body that hears permit appeals. This interpretation should also extend to enforcement orders.
In Clark County, the Control Officer may issue orders for corrective action, and
a hearing officer issues orders regarding violations. Both of these types of orders may be appealed
to the hearing board. However,
an appeal

is not necessary
to make either type of order final and valid. Because

a hearing officer
is not a “board or body” or the “head of an executive agency,” Section 128 doesn’t apply to the hearing officer’s actions. For all the reasons discussed above, Section 128 does not apply to the hearing board because the hearing board does not approve or issue enforcement orders, but instead, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, renders decisions on appeals. Section 128, by its plain language, does not apply to boards or bodies that hear appeals of permits or enforcement orders. Therefore, the Section 128 conflict of interest requirements
are not applicable
to the hearing board, and the SIP does not need to contain such requirements. Section 128(a)(2) does apply to the Control Officer. Therefore, the SIP must contain disclosure requirements applicable
to the Control Officer. There has been discussion about submitting the applicable provisions
of NRS Chapter 281A for SIP approval. As set forth above, NRS Chapter 281A already applies to the Control Officer and contains conflict of interest requirements which satisfy the requirement

of Section 128. The Washoe County Health District The Washoe County Health District (“WCHD”)

is a special district created pursuant
to Chapter 439 of the Nevada Revised Statutes and by the interlocal agreement
of the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, and the County of Washoe, Nevada. Washoe County District Board of Health Regulations Governing Air Quality Management (“AQR”) 010.023. The WCHD
is required by law to establish

a program for the control of air pollution and administer the program within its jurisdiction. NRS 445B.500.

It is designated

as the air pollution control agency of the district. NRS 445B.500. Before someone can become “aggrieved,”

a definitive and final action has to occur, further indication that the approval of a permit
is distinct from the appeal of a permit. C-8

# 0

0 The WCHD
is governed by a board of health. Pursuant
to NRS 439.390, the composition

of the Washoe County District Board of Health
is as follows: 1. A district board of health must consist of two members from each county, city or town which participated

in establishing the district, to be appointed
by the governing body of the county, city or town in which they reside, together with one additional member to be chosen by the members
so appointed. 2. The additional member must be a physician licensed
to practice medicine

in this State. 3. If the appointive members of the district board of health fail to choose the additional member within 30 days after the organization

of the district health department, the additional member may be appointed
by the State Health Officer. The interlocal agreement between the cities and county further clarifies that one member appointed
by each jurisdiction would be an elected member of that jurisdiction. The Reno City Council, Sparks City Council, and Washoe County Board of Commissioners each appoint two members, and those six members select the seventh member. Three of the city/county members are elected officials, who represent the interest of their constituents, who are members of the public. The seventh member, the physician member,

is subject to the licensing requirements

of NRS Chapter 630 and to oversight by the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners. NRS 630.130. As a licensed physician, that member

is also guided by the Ethics Code of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association website, available
at http://www.ama-assn.org. All of the members of the District Board of Health are public officers, as defined by NRS 281A.160, and therefore represent the public interest
in the exercise of public power, trust or duty. Unlike other boards that are limited
in jurisdiction

to air quality matters, the District Board of Health has jurisdiction over all public health matters
in the district except Emergency Management Services. NRS 439.410. Thus, the District Board of Health represents the public interest
in all public health matters. Moreover, the mission of the Washoe County Health District

is to “protect[] and enhance[] the quality of life for all citizens of Washoe County through providing health promotion, disease prevention, public health emergency preparedness, and environmental services.” Washoe Co. Health Dist. Website, available
at http://www.co.washoe.nv.us/health/dbh/mission.

html. Furthermore, District Board of Health members are subject to the same pecuniary interest prohibitions as described above. NRS 281A.400. They are also subject to the same disclosure and recusal requirements
set forth in NRS 281A.420. Therefore,
by virtue of the same analysis
as applied to members
of the SEC, the District Board of Health satisfies the requirements

of Section 128 of the Clean Air Act. In the Washoe County Health District, the Control Officer, defined
as the District Health Officer or designee issues permits and issues orders of enforcement. Anyone aggrieved
by an action of the Control Officer has the option to appeal the decision. The WCHD also utilizes an intermediate hearing board. The Washoe County Air Pollution Control Hearing Board hears appeals of permit actions and enforcement orders. AQR 020.025; 020.0251. However,

it is merely an advisory board to the Washoe County District Board of Health, which makes final decisions regarding such appeals. AQR 020.0051(P); 020.053-054. Since the Hearing Board does not approve permits or enforcement orders,

it does not come within the purview of Section 128 of the Clean Air Act. The Board of Health
is the decision making C-90

0 authority but as stated above its statutorily required composition and requirement

to comply with the provisions
of NRS 281A satisfy the requirements

of Section 128 of the Clean Air Act. Conclusion In summary, the Ethics in Government statutes address the concerns of Section 128 of the CAA and apply to all three hearing boards that hear air quality and compliance matters
in Nevada. c-b

# 0

0 ATTACHMENT

D AIR QUALITY iMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA Section
11- 

# Intergovernmental Consultation 11.0 Purpose The purposes of this section of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) are to update and replace section
11 (“Intergovernmental Relations”)
of the Nevada SIP as approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
in 1972 [37 Fed. Reg. 10,842 (May 31, 1972)1 and to provide for intergovernmental consultation

as required under the relevant portions of section 11 0(a)(2)(J) and section ii 0(a)(2)(M)
of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended
in 1990, and the applicable SIP regulations

in 40 CFR part 51 (“Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans”). 11.1 Statutory and Reiulatory Reguirements CAA section
11 0(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to meet the applicable requirements
of section 121 (relating
to consultation). CAA section 121 in turn requires that: In carrying out the requirements
of this Act requiring applicable implementation plans to contain— (1) any transportation controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements orpreconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution,
or (2) any measure referred to— (A) in part D (pertaining

to nonattainment requirements),

or (B) in part C (‘pertaining

to prevention of significant deterioration), and in carrying out the requirements
of section 113(d) (relating
to certain enfOrcement orders), 6 the State shall provide

a satisfactory process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations

of elected officials of local governments and any Federal land manager having authority over Federal land to which the State plan applies, effective with respect to any such requirement which
is adopted more than one year after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 as part of such plan. Such process shall be in accordance with regulations promulgated

by the Administrator

to assure adequate consultation. The Administrator shall update as necessary the original regulations required and promulgated under this section (as in effect immediately before the date of the enactment
of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990) to ensure adequate consultation. Only
a general purpose unit of local government, regional agency, or council of governments adversely affected by action of the Administrator approving any portion of a plan rferred 6 Sections 113(d) 

# and 121 were added to the CAA 

# in 1977. The CAA was significantly amended
in 1990, and a process in the SIP for consultation

in connection with state enforcement orders under section 113(d)
is no longer required because section 113(d), as amended
in 1990, no longer relates to state enforcement orders. D-

I0

0 to in this subsection may petition for judicial review of such action onthe basis of aviolation of the requirements
of this section. CAA section
11 0(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to: (M) provide for consultation and participation

by local political subdivisions affected by the plan. The federal regulations

at 40 CFR 51 Subpart M (“Intergovernmental Consultation”) include requirements pertaining

to consultation.
40 CFR 51.240 (“General Plan Requirements”) requires states to identify relevant implementing organizations.

It reads as follows: Each State implementation plan must identj5i organizations,

by official title, that will participate

in developing, implementing, and enforcing the plan and the responsibilities

of such organizations. The plan shall include anyrelated agreements
or memoranda
of understanding amongthe organizations. 40 CFR

5 1.241(a) (“Nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide and ozone”) requires Governors to certify the organization responsible for developing the revised plan for a carbon monoxide
or ozone nonattainment area. It reads as follows: For each A QCR or portion of anA QCR in which the national primary standard for carbon monoxide
orozonewill not be attained by July
1, 1979, the Governor (or Governors for interstate areas) shall certi,5’, after consultation with local off Icials, the organization responsible for developing the revised implementation plan or portions thereoffor such AQCR. 11.2 Statewide Overview Under state law, the State Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR)

is designated

as the Air Pollution Control Agency of the State of Nevada for the purposes of the Federal Clean Air Act insofar as it pertains
to state programs. See Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) section 445B.205. 7 The State Environmental Commission (SEC) has been established within the DCNR to, among other purposes, adopt regulations

to prevent, abate and control air pollution. Within the DCNR, the Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has the responsibility

to manage the air quality planning and air pollution control programs for the State of Nevada. The Director of the DCNR has selected the NDEP Administrator

as the official designee for the purposes of the CAA, including, but not limited to, adoption, revision and submittal of state implementation plans. See the letter from Allen Biaggi, Director, Nevada DCNR, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, dated May 30, 2007 and included herein as Exhibit 11-1. State law provides that the district board of health, county board of health or board of county commissioners

in each county whose population

is 100,000 or more shall establish

a program for the control of air pollution and administer the program within its jurisdiction unless superseded. Approved by USEPA
at 72 Fed. Reg. 11 (January

3, 2007). D-2

# 0

0 See NRS section 445B.500. 8 Two counties, Clark and Washoe, meet the population threshold and have developed their own air programs. Outside these two counties, the NDEP
is responsible for developing, implementing,

and enforcing the SIP. In addition, state law provides one exception
to the general assignment
of air program responsibilities

to counties whose populations are 100,000 or more. The exception

is for plants that burn fossil fuels in a boiler to produce steam for the production
of electricity. Boilers at such power plants, regardless of their location within the state, are subject to exclusive NDEP jurisdiction. See NRS section 445B.500, subsections (5) and (6). Lastly, the DCNR, through the SEC and the NDEP, retains the authority to administer air programs
in Clark and Washoe Counties
if such county-administered programs are found by the SEC to be inadequate. See NRS section 445B.520. 9 In carrying out the State’s air programs, the NDEP
is authorized

to cooperate with appropriate federal officers and agencies of the Federal Government, other states, interstate agencies, local governmental agencies and other interested parties in all matters relating to air pollution control in preventing
or controlling the pollution of the air in any area. See NRS section 445B.235. 1

° As authorized under state law, the NDEP has taken the initiative
to coordinate with local governments concerning air quality planning matters outside of Clark and Washoe Counties. See the Pahrump Valley Clean Air Action Plan Memorandum

of Understanding,

at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/monitoring/pahrumpmonitor2.

html (click on “MOU” in the section called “Preferred Option”),
as an example of NDEP coordination with local governmental agencies
in addressing air pollution issues that arise. Permits for New or Modified Stationary Sources Under

a delegation agreement with USEPA Region 1X, the NDEP has agreed to implement and enforce the federal regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) found in title 40, part 52, section 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 52.21). The most recent delegation agreement took effect on September 15, 2011. Under the delegation agreement, the NDEP provides for early notice to, and consultation with, federal land managers of proposed new major sources or major modifications that could impact “Class I” areas, i.e., areas for which the ambient air quality standards have traditionally been met and for which the least amount of deterioration

is allowed under CAA requirements
for PSD. See 40 CFR 52.21(p). For other PSD sources, the NDEP provides notice and opportunity

to comment on draft permits for new major sources and major modifications

to affected county air pollution control districts and city and county agencies where the proposed source would be located and to any comprehensive regional land use planning agency and any state, federal land manager,
or Indian governing body whose lands may be affected by emissions from the proposed source or modification. See 40 CFR 52.21(q) and 40 CFR 124.10. With respect to proposed stationary sources and modifications that are not subject to PSD requirements,
the NDEP provides notice and opportunity

to comment
to the county air pollution control districts
if the proposed source or modification would be located within the respective counties. See NAC 445B.3395 and NAC 445B.3457. Approved by USEPA
at 71 Fed. Reg. 51,766 (August 31, 2006). Approved
by USEPA
at 71 Fed. Reg. 51,766 (August31, 2006). ° 

# Approved by USEPA
at 71 Fed. Reg. 51,766 (August31, 2006). D-30

0 11.3 Jark County As noted above, State law provides that the district board of health, county board of health or ioard of county commissioners

in each county whose population

is 100,000 ormoreshall establish

a programfor the control air pollution and administer the program within its jurisdiction unless superseded. For Clark County, the Nevada Governor has designated the Clark County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
asthe regulatory, enforcement and permitting authority for implementing applicable provisions of the CAA, anyamendments

to that Act, and any regulations adopted pursuant
to that Act within Clark County. The Nevada Governor has also designated the Clark County BOCC asthe lead agency responsible for coordinating the preparation
of implementation plans for Clark County. See Letter from Governor Kenny C. Guinn, dated June 21, 2001, which is included herein asExhibit 11-2. With respect to air pollution control, the BOCC acts through the Clark County Department
of Air Quality (DAQ). Under State law, certain specific consultation requirements apply to county agencies
in Nevada that establish and implement their ownair pollution control programs where the population

in the county
is 700,000 ormore.See NRS section 445B.503, which
is included herein asExhibit 11-3. Clark County meets this population threshold, and thus, under NRS 445B.503, the BOCC must cooperate with the regional planning coalition and the regional transportation commission

in Clark County to ensurethat the plans, policies, and programs adopted by each of them are consistent
to the greatest extent possible. Specifically, before adopting or amending anair quality plan, policy or program, the BOCC must consult with the regional planning coalition and the regional transportation commission. See NRS section 445B.503(2). Within Clark County, the regional planning coalition

is the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition and the regional transportation commission

is the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada. Members onthe Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition include representatives from Clark County, the cities of Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, and Clark County School District. Membership
onthe Southern Nevada RTC is set by State statute and consists of two members from the BOCC, two members from the city council of the largest incorporated city (Las Vegas) and one member from the city council of everyother incorporated city in the county (Boulder City, Henderson, Mesquite, and North Las Vegas). Permits for New orModified Stationary Sources Clark County regulations provide for notice to, and consultation with, federal land managersof proposed new major sourcesor major modifications that could impact “Class I” areas.See Clark County Air Quality Regulations (AQR) section 12.2.15. For proposed permit actions involving minor sources, Clark County DAQ provides notice and opportunity for comment
to officials and agencies having jurisdiction overthe location where the proposed sourceor modification would be located. See Clark County AQR section 12.1 (effective July 1, 2010), subsection 5.3. For major sources, Clark County DAQ specifically provides notice to the chief executives of the city and county where the source would be located; any comprehensive regional land use planning agency; any state, federal land manager,and Indian governing body whose lands maybe affected by emissions from the sourceor modification. See Clark County AQR section 12.2 (amended November 16, 2010), subsection 12.2.16.2; and section 12.3 (effective July 1, 2010), subsection 12.3.8.

D-4

# 0

0 Transportation Planning and Conformity

to the SIP Federal law requires that regional planning officials prepare both
a transportation plan to benefit public mobility and an air quality plan to benefit public health. Under the CAA, transportation activities that receive federal funding or approval must be fully consistent with the plan developed
to meet federal clean air standards, i.e., the SIP. Specifically, the CAA prohibits federal agencies and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) from approving any transportation plan, program,
or project that fails to conform
to the SIP. See CAA section 176(c). The “transportation conformity” requirements apply within all “nonattainment”
and “maintenance” areas (i.e., former nonattainment areas that have been redesignated

to “attainment”)
for a national ambient air quality standard, for the pollutant for which the area is either “nonattainment”

or “maintenance.” The transportation conformity requirements apply in Clark County based on the status of portions of the county as a “maintenance” area for the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide,

a “nonattainment” area for the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter less than 10 microns
in diameter (PM-.l0), and a “nonattainment” area for the 1997 national ambient air quality standard for ozone.

‘ 

# The MPO in Clark County
is the Southern Nevada RTC. The Southern Nevada RTC has established
an interagency process to ensure that transportation and air quality issues are addressed by the various organizations involved
in transportation and air quality planning and to meet the specific requirements for interagency consultation
set forth in 40 CFR 93.105. Consultation

is required when the Southern Nevada RTC develops
or revises

a regional transportation plan or program or makes

a conformity determination and when the Clark County DAQ develops
or revises the SIP. Within Clark County, interagency consultation

is implemented through the Conformity Working Group, which comprises stakeholder federal, state, and regional agencies. Specifically, the Conformity Working Group in Clark County consists of representatives from the USEPA Region IX, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, NDEP, Nevada Department
of Transportation,
the Southern Nevada RTC, the Clark County Public Works Department, Clark County DAQ, Clark County Department
of Aviation, and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. USEPA has approved Clark County DAQ’s Clark County Transportation (‘onfbrmity Plan (January 2008), which provides specific criteria and procedures for interagency consultation for conformity purposes,
as part of the Nevada SIP. See 73 Fed. Reg. 66,182 (November

7, 2008). 11.4 Lake Tahoe Basin Lake Tahoe lies in a basin between crests of the Sierra Nevada and Carson ranges on the California-Nevada border at a surface elevation of approximately 6,260 feet above sea level. The Lake Tahoe Basin comprises portions of El Dorado and Placer Counties on the California side, and State hydrographic area 90 on the Nevada side. Hydrographic area 90 includes the H 

# See 75 Fed. Reg. 59,090 (September 27, 20l0)(USEPA approval of redesignation request for Las Vegas Valley from nonattainment

to attainment for the carbon monoxide standard); CAA designations for Nevada with respect to the national ambient air quality standards are contained

in 40 CFR

§ 81 .329 (see 77 FR 30088 for 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards area designations). D-50 southwestern corner of Washoe County and the western-most portions of Carson City and Douglas County. The NDEP administers and enforces state air pollution regulations within the Carson City and Douglas County portions of the Lake Tahoe Basin, and Washoe County Health District administers and enforces District Board of Health air pollution regulations within the Washoe County portion of the basin. In 1969, to protect and restore the Lake Tahoe environment

in the wake of development pressures, Congress ratified

a compact between the States of California and Nevada and created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The compact,
as revised in 1980 (http://www.trpa.org/documents/abouttrpaJBistateCompact.pdf),

gave TRPA authority
to adopt environmental quality standards, called thresholds, and to enforce ordinances designed
to achieve the thresholds. Seven of TRPA’s Governing Board are from California; seven are from Nevada; and there is one non-voting Presidential appointee. The Nevada delegation on TRPA’s Governing Board includes appointees by the boards of county commissioners

of Douglas and Washoe Counties, by the board of supervisors
of Carson City, and by the Governor, and includes the secretary of State of Nevada (or designee), and the director of the DCNR (or designee), and one appointee by the six other members of the Nevada delegation.
In 1978, the Governor of Nevada designated TRPA as the agency to prepare the 1979 nonattainment plan for oxidants and carbon monoxide for the Lake Tahoe Basin. The NDEP and California Air Resources Board worked with TRPA to develop the 1979 nonattainment area plan for the Basin; however, thereafter the NDEP has taken the lead for air planning matters on the Nevada side of the Basin. Transportation Planning and Conformity

to the SIP As noted above in connection with Clark County, federal law requires that regional planning officials prepare both
a transportation plan to benefit public mobility and an air quality plan to benefit public health and that certain “transportation conformity” requirements, including those related to interagency consultation, apply within nonattainment and maintenance areas. The transportation conformity requirements apply within Lake Tahoe Basin based on the status of the Basin as a “maintenance” area for the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide. See 68 Fed. Reg. 69,611 (final rule redesignating
the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin from nonattainment

to attainment for the carbon monoxide standard). Although the Nevada side of the Basin qualifies
as a “limited” maintenance area, transportation conformity determinations
are still required for transportation plans, programs and projects. The MPO in the Lake Tahoe Basin is the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (“TMPO”). The jurisdiction
of the TMPO covers all areas within the watershed that drains into Lake Tahoe. The TMPO board is made up of 16 members. Fifteen of these members are the same members that make up the board of the TRPA and there is one representative

of the U.S. Forest Service, in recognition
of the major role this agency plays in transportation provision
in the Basin. Six members, who are locally elected officials or their designees, represent the units of local government. In developing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Plan, the TMPO works very closely with other agencies responsible for planning activities within the Tahoe Area. Since the TIVFPO shares its board and staff with the TRPA, there is a close linkage between local planning, environmental protection, and the transportation planning that goes into D-6

# 0



# 0 the RTP. The TMPO has established
an interagency process to ensure that transportation and air quality issues are addressed by the various organizations involved
in transportation and air quality planning and to meet the specific requirements
for interagency consultation
set forth in 40 CFR93.105. Within the Lake Tahoe Basin, interagency consultation

is implemented through the Conformity Task Force, which comprises stakeholder federal, state, and regional agencies. Specifically, the Conformity Task Force in the Lake Tahoe Basin consists of representatives from the USEPA Region IX, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, NDEP, California Air Resources Board, Eldorado Air Pollution Control District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Washoe County Health District, Nevada Department
of Transportation, California Department
of Transportation, Eldorado County Department
of Transportation, Placer County Public Works Department, Douglas County Community Development, Washoe County RTC, TRPA and TMPO. 11.5 Washoe County As noted above, State law provides that the district board of health, country board of health or board of county commissioners

in each county whose population

is 100,000 or more shall establish

a program for the control air pollution and administer the program within its jurisdiction unless superseded. For Washoe County, the Nevada Governor has designated the District Board of Health of the Washoe County Health District (WCDBOH)

as the regulatory, enforcement and permitting authority for implementing applicable provisions
of the CAA, any amendments

to that Act, and any regulations adopted pursuant
to that Act within Washoe County. With respect to air pollution control, the WCDBOH acts through the Washoe County Health District’s Air Quality Management Division (AQMD). Under state law,
a district board of health must consist of two members from each county, city or town that participated

in establishing the district,
to be appointed by the governing body of the county, city or town in which they reside, together with one additional member
to be chosen by the six members
so appointed. See NRS 43 9.390, included herein as Exhibit 11-4. The additional member must be a physician licensed
to practice medicine
in the State of Nevada. Accordingly, the WCDBOH comprises seven members, two each that (one elected official and onenonelected official) represent the city of Reno, the city of Sparks, and Washoe County, and one who is a licensed physician. Permits for New or Modified Stationary Sources Under

a delegation agreement with USEPA Region IX, the AQMD has agreed to implement and enforce the federal PSD regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21. The most recent delegation agreement took effect on March 13, 2008. Under the delegation agreement, AQMD provides for early notice to, and consultation with, federal land managers of proposed new major sources or major modifications that could impact “Class I” areas. See 40 CFR 52.21(p). For other PSD sources, the AQMD provides notice and opportunity

to comment on draft permits for new major sources and major modifications

to affected county air pollution control districts and city and county agencies where the proposed source would be located and to any comprehensive regional land use planning agency and any state, federal land manager,
or Indian governing body whose D-70

0 lands maybe affected by emissions from the proposed sourceor modification. See 40 CFR 52.21(q) and 40 CFR 124.10. For new major sourcesand major modifications that are “major” for anonattainment pollutant within

anonattainment area, AQMD specifically provides for early consultation with anyfederal land manager whose lands maybe affected by a proposed sourceor modification and provides for notice to the NDEP, the regional planning authority of Washoe County, local government offices, and anyIndian governing body whose lands maybe affected by the proposed permitting action. See WCDBOH Regulations Governing Air Quality Management section 030.506 (revised October 25, 1995), paragraphs (D) and (F). Transportation Planning and Conformity

to the SIP As noted above in connection with Clark County, federal law requires that regional planning officials prepareboth
a transportation plan to benefit public mobility and anair quality plan to benefit public health and that certain “transportation conformity” requirements, including those related to interagency consultation, apply within nonattaimnent and maintenance areas.The “transportation conformity” requirements apply within all “nonattainment”
and “maintenance” areas (i.e., former nonattainment areasthat have been redesignated

to “attainment”)
for the national ambient air quality standard. The transportation conformity requirements apply in Washoe County based onthe status of the Truckee Meadows portion of the county (i.e., State hydrographic area 87) asa “maintenance” areafor the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide and asa “nonattainment” areafor the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter (PM-b). 12 The MPO in Washoe County
is the Regional Transportation Commission
of Washoe County (“Washoe County RTC”). The Washoe County RTC has established
an interagency processto ensurethat transportation and air quality issues areaddressed by the various organizations involved
in transportation and air quality planning and to meet the specific requirements for interagency consultation
set forth in 40 CFR 93.105. In Washoe County, interagency consultation

is implemented through the Conformity Working Group, which comprises stakeholder federal, state, and regional agencies. Specifically, the Conformity Working Group consists of representatives from the USEPA Region IX, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, NDEP, Nevada Department
of Transportation, Washoe County RTC, Washoe County District Health Department—Air Quality Management Division, and the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency. 13 12 See 73 Fed. Reg. 38,124 (July 3, 2008)(USEPA approval of redesignationrequest

for Truckee Meadows from nonattainment

to attainment for the carbon monoxide standard); CAA designations for Nevada with respect to the national ambient air quality standards are contained
in 40 CFR

§ 81.329. 13 See Washoe County RTC’s and AQMD’s “Working Draft,” Washoe County Transportation Conformity Plan, September 2011.

D-8

# 0

0 EXHIBITS TO SECTION
11, INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION,

OF THE NEVADA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN June 2012 D-90.Thispageisintentionallyblank.D-10

# 0 EXHIBIT il-I 

# 0 ¶1,)RI I3IAGCE l1nte af •Dptctu1tnF nfl cm servsrwn mid flhr.l Xuum lice 1Jn tLnvtu timui If. RrvbI Hiimrimm 9)I S. fLcwan 5tctl. Sub. 5001 Laztun CIV. ‘4eiAdfi K’flal TLIPIt?(tLe T75 184 2’00 WCMCT1ILm (?7!1 I’427i$ hIUW

ICAV SCH&tEfl ?JçOLfly 1J,iglns ThvimA,,c,., Conrsl,rrn DiMnc l)Wmnq -‘Mrouju,.jmwJ rL.atcbucL ti

n L)jvWot
OF qt Lajsih Civioirm olfitmite Paricm Ijivu,,juii
(A IQfl9( ‘3LIL’(’V Nnmurnl iitiitzig v’njm V.114 [ThI n JLL Nevada Revised Statutem 445B.295 desigmlte3 the DCpRTIrnenI
ci Cnnservacion and !‘lamral ksourecs (I)epanmenc)

a the air pollution control agency ±ór the t&1tc of Nevada fbr the • piflpoaes of the Cicaji Mi Act inso1r as ii pertains
to 

# State progims. Within tht Department, the Division of bnvirnnmemtal Protccfiorz baa responsibility

ui manage 

# the air qnahiy planning and air polbidon 000tr{)l programs for the 

# Slate oiNtntada. Therelótc, pursuiiut
to NewuLa Administrative Code 44513,053.1 .ini hereby assisting the Administrator

of the Nevada Division 

# of Brwironrnental Protection,

or the Deputy Administrator 

# acting on 

# his hehali, to he my official deneo kw the



# or the Clean Air Act, including, hal nat limited cc. adoption, revision and submittal 

# of state placis and 

# state implenLenlaton plans. Sincerely,- 

# Allen Biaggi Iiitoctor cc Michael Dayton, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor Jodi Stephens. Deputy Chief of Staff, 

# Ollice of the Coveineri Leo 1)ronioff, Adimnatralor, NTWP Colleen Cripps fleputy Administrator, 

# NDEP T’vm Pcrtu, Deputy Adminiatralar, 

# NUt!’ Dehnib Jordan, Diratni-. fiPA Air Divisloti, 

# kegitot IX Jcffcmon Wehling. ORE, 

# PP.4 Re8ion IX i:si oiliiioFcs (.i’,,’) car a STATE OF NEVADA 

# Department
of Cunscrvatiou and Natural Resources QflJCE OF The flRE&YOR May 30, 2007 Wayne Nastri Regional Adininistntor 

# ORA—l, USIWA Region

9 75 Hawthorne Stroct San FnLTWiNCOCA 94105 I)csr Mr. Nastr[ 

# . iC•’i

D-l

I0EXHIBIT11-2O—*———Ocwni.GOVRRNOXI3EG4I!bDWa1RutL?acM-.—...•,.,L.gV.WVB9W46013.4OineUdTwiNkfii.iw.ycpøaafOk,Ir1p?.aØáim)diwmC*e$,rdteimgjqppai.WiU.k*LLnAkA4y’miui4Ø?IqobIadAawikcca,,hLrkW6- —dbk-mdM1r.4flaIXNR101‘ThM.jD-12

# 0

0 EMUBIT 11-3 Ju 2012 TITLE 40- PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 4453- 

# AIR POLLUTION PROGR1M FOR 

# CONTROL 0! IR POLLUTiON 

# NRS 445B.$03 Local air pollution control board in comuv whose population

is 7tO,(HX) or more: Cooperation with regional planning coalition and regional transportation commission prerequisites

to adoption or amendment
of plan. policy or program. 1 In aathtiou
to the duties set forth in PS 445R .M’ the local air pollution continl board m a counW whose population

is 700,000 or more shall cooperate with the regional phrnriin coalition and the regional transportation couuinssion

in the county in which
it is located to: (a) Ensure that the plans, policies and programs adopted by each of them are consistent
to the greatest extent practicable. (b) Establish and carry out a prooram of inteerated.. long-range planning that conserves the economic, financial and natural resources of the region and supports

a common vision of desired future conditions. 2 Before adopting or amending

a plan, pohc or program,

a local air pollution control board shall: (a) Consult with the regional plannmg coalition and the regional transportitlon commission. and (b) Conduct hearings
to i.olicit public coniment on the ccnnatency
of the plan, policy or program with: (1) The plans, policies and proims adcpted or prop ed to be adopted by the regional planning coahtion and the regional nan’portatlon cc’mmision and 2) Plans for capital improvements that have been prepared pursuant
to NRS 278.O22. 3, Asuedinthissection (a) Local air poUunon contiol board means

a board that earabh.hes

a program for the control of air pollution pursuant
to NRS 4453.500. b)Eegiona1 planning coalition’ has the meaning ascribed
to it in NRS 8.012. c) esioria1 transportation conmussion’ ru.eans

a regional transportation commission created and orcanized

in accordance with chanter 277A of NRS. dddtasb 199. 175,A 2511 124


# D- 130

0 LXH1Bt 11--i line G12 TTLE 40. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAFfER 439.- ADMINISTRATION

OF PUBLIC HEALTH LOCAL ADflNSThAT1ON Ditt,i1 Board of Etaith sad Dstrkj Eealth Q bcoaps 1Tho Ejs Less Thsa 7OOOOQ NRS 4.tL3PO Dnrict boerd of health. Compo i1thctie emien. I A thUit board of health nt rcnsot of twv nembers um esh cowy, city or town wbth pextirxpoted

in eithin the &i*ict, o be mted by the go’tenfng body of the coimy, city ot town ia whch they res1e, the widi one adcnu1 tosmb
to be chosax by de membei
so epomsei 1 The adiboual mber must be a physkian hcensed
to pssclke

in this Stat,..If the aiAtxe menibem of the drsliict boBd of iealth fail to choe1he sdihtiom1 mberlhin

30 clays te cganitioa
of the ilisnict health

d itne& the iriooai cisy
be appointed by the Stare KeaIth 1S199tI91l. eddad I3P, 27, I3l NC!. d&)l—(NR5

A 19S9, 11>4 tLg4l. !1 I3?) -t4,

D-L4