Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1149 

All coordinates are North American 

Datum 1983. 

(b) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.10, 

165.11, and 165.13 apply. 

(2) In accordance with the general 

regulations, entry into, anchoring, or 

movement within the RNA, during 

periods of enforcement, is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Long Island Sound (COTP) or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(3) During periods of enforcement, 

entry and movement within the RNA is 

subject to a ‘‘Slow-No Wake’’ speed 

limit. Vessels may not produce more 

than a minimum wake and may not 

attain speeds greater than six knots 

unless a higher minimum speed is 

necessary to maintain steerageway when 

traveling with a strong current. In no 

case may the wake produced by the 

vessel be such that it creates a danger of 

injury to persons, or damage to vessels 

or structures of any kind. 

(4) During periods of enforcement, all 

persons and vessels must comply with 

all orders and directions from the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(5) During periods of enforcement, 

upon being hailed by a Coast Guard 

vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or 

other means, the operator of the vessel 

must proceed as directed. 

(6) Persons and vessels may request 

permission to enter the RNA during 

periods of closure on VHF–16 or via 

phone at 203–468–4401. 

(7) Notwithstanding anything 

contained in this rule, the Rules of the 

Road (33 CFR part 84—Subchapter E, 

inland navigational rules) are still in 

effect and must be strictly adhered to at 

all times. 

(c) Effective period. This rule is 

effective from January 7, 2013 through 

November 30, 2017. 

(d) Enforcement period. Except when 

suspended in accordance with 

paragraph (e) of this section, this RNA 

is enforceable 24 hours a day during the 

effective period. 

(e) Suspension of enforcement. The 

COTP may suspend enforcement of the 

RNA. If enforcement is suspended, the 

COTP will cause a notice of the 

suspension of enforcement by all 

appropriate means to promote the 

widest publicity among the affected 

segments of the public. Such means of 

notification may include, but are not 

limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

and Local Notice to Mariners. Such 

notifications will include the date and 

time that enforcement is suspended as 

well as the date and time that 

enforcement will resume. 

(f) Waterway closure. The COTP may 

temporarily suspend all traffic through 

the RNA for any situation that would 

pose imminent hazard to life on the 

navigable waters. In the event of a 

complete waterway closure, the COTP 

will make advance notice of the closure 

by all means available to promote the 

widest public distribution including, 

but not limited to, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. 

Such notification will include the date 

and time of the closure as well as the 

date and time that normal vessel traffic 

can resume. 

(g) Violations of this RNA may be 

reported to the COTP, at 203–468–4401 

or on VHF-Channel 16. Persons in 

violation of this RNA may be subject to 

civil or criminal penalties. 

Dated: December 20, 2012. 

T.J. Vitullo, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00211 Filed 1–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0792; FRL–9766–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of Nevada; 

Redesignation of Clark County to 

Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve, as a revision of the Nevada 

state implementation plan, the State’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in Clark County for ten 

years beyond redesignation, and the 

related motor vehicle emissions 

budgets, because they meet the 

applicable requirements for such plans 

and budgets. EPA is also taking final 

action to approve a request from the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection to redesignate the Clark 

County ozone nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

because the area meets the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on February 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0792. 

Generally, documents in the docket for 

this action are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., confidential business information 

or ‘‘CBI’’). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3964, 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable 

for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110 and Part D 

C. The Area Must Show the Improvement 

in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emissions Reductions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 

175A 

II. Public Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On November 13, 2012 (77 FR 67600), 

we proposed to take several related 

actions. First, under Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’) section 110(k)(3), EPA 

proposed to approve a submittal from 

the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP) dated April 11, 2011 

of Clark County’s Ozone Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan (March 

2011) (‘‘Clark County Ozone 

Maintenance Plan’’ or ‘‘Ozone 

Maintenance Plan’’) as a revision to the 

Nevada state implementation plan (SIP). 

In connection with the Clark County 

Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA proposed 

to find that the maintenance 

demonstration showing that the area 

will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

1150 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time 

frame. 

2The boundaries of the Clark County ozone 

nonattainment area are defined in 40 CFR 81.329. 

Specifically, the area is defined as: ‘‘That portion 

of Clark County that lies in hydrographic areas 

164A, 164B, 165, 166, 167, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 

and 218 but excluding the Moapa River Indian 

Reservation and the Fort Mojave Indian 

Reservation.’’ The area includes a significant 

portion of the unincorporated portions of central 

and southern Clark County, as well as the cities of 

Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and 

Boulder City. 

3The design value for the 8-hour standard is the 

three-year average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at the 

worst-case monitoring site in the area. 

4Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive 

requirements for all nonattainment areas of any 

pollutant, including ozone, governed by a NAAQS. 

Subpart 2 contains additional, more specific 

requirements for ozone nonattainment areas 

classified under subpart 2. 

5 In any event, EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity requirements as not 

applicable for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request under section 107(d)(3)(E). 

See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) 

upholding this interpretation. 

standard (NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’) 1 for 

10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., 

through 2022), and the contingency 

provisions describing the actions that 

Clark County will take in the event of 

a future monitored violation, meet all 

applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related 

contingency provisions in CAA section 

175A. EPA also proposed to approve the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) in the Clark County Ozone 

Maintenance Plan because we found 

they met the applicable transportation 

conformity requirements under 40 CFR 

93.118(e). 

Second, under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to approve 

NDEP’s request that accompanied the 

submittal of the maintenance plan to 

redesignate the Clark County 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area 2 to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. We did so based on our 

conclusion that the area has met the five 

criteria for redesignation under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in 

this regard was based on our 

determination that the area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that 

relevant portions of the Nevada SIP are 

fully approved, that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions, 

that Nevada has met all requirements 

applicable to the Clark County 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area with respect 

to section 110 and part D of the CAA, 

and based on our approval as part of 

this action of the Clark County Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 

For the purposes of this final rule, we 

have summarized the basis for our 

findings in connection with the 

proposed approvals of the Ozone 

Maintenance Plan and redesignation 

request. For a more detailed explanation 

as well as background information 

concerning the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the CAA requirements for 

redesignation, and the ozone planning 

history of Clark County, please see our 

November 13, 2012 proposed rule. 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

Prior to redesignating an area to 

attainment, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) 

requires that we determine that the area 

has attained the NAAQS. For our 

proposed rule, consistent with the 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 

50, EPA reviewed the ozone ambient air 

monitoring data for the monitoring 

period from 2009 through 2011, as 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database, and determined, based 

on the complete, quality-assured data 

for 2009–2011, that the Clark County 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

because the design value 3 is less than 

0.084 ppm. We also reviewed 

preliminary data from 2012 and found 

that it was consistent with continued 

attainment of the standard in the Clark 

County 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. See pages 67602–67604 of our 

November 13, 2012 proposed rule. 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved SIP Meeting Requirements 

Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D 

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the 

CAA require EPA to determine that the 

area has a fully approved applicable SIP 

under section 110(k) that meets all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and part D for the purposes of 

redesignation. For the reasons 

summarized below, we found that the 

Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has a fully approved 

applicable SIP under section 110(k) that 

meets all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D for the purposes 

of redesignation. See pages 67604– 

67607 of our November 13, 2012 

proposed rule. 

With respect to section 110 of the 

CAA (General SIP Requirements), we 

concluded that NDEP and Clark County 

have met all SIP requirements for Clark 

County applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Our conclusion in this 

regard was based on our review of the 

Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP. 

With respect to part D (of title I of the 

CAA), we reviewed the Clark County 

portion of the Nevada SIP for 

compliance with applicable 

requirements under both subparts 1 and 

2.4

First, we noted that EPA previously 

determined that the Clark County 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

2007–2009 ozone data (76 FR 17343, 

March 29, 2011), and thereby 

suspended, under 40 CFR 51.918, the 

obligation on the State of Nevada to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures and other planning 

requirements related to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As 

such, we explained that the State’s 

compliance status with the attainmentrelated SIP requirements under subpart 

1 was not relevant for the purposes of 

evaluating the State’s redesignation 

request. 

As to the other applicable subpart 1 

requirements, we found that: 

• The emissions inventory 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) 

would be met by our approval of the 

Clark County Ozone Maintenance Plan 

and related emissions inventories for 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX); 

• A fully-approved nonattainment 

New Source Review (NSR) program was 

not a prerequisite to redesignation in 

this instance because the Clark County 

Ozone Maintenance Plan demonstrates 

maintenance of the standard without 

implementation of nonattainment NSR; 

moreover, after redesignation, sources 

under NDEP jurisdiction would be 

subject to the federal PSD program and 

sources under Clark County jurisdiction 

would be subject to an EPA-approved 

PSD program that is deficient in certain 

respects but not in ways that would 

interfere with maintenance of the ozone 

standard; and 

• Clark County and the State 

previously met the requirements for 

transportation conformity SIPs under 

section 176(c) (see EPA’s approval of 

Clark County’s transportation 

conformity SIP at 73 FR 66182, 

November 7, 2008).5

With respect to the requirements 

associated with subpart 2, we noted that 

the Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area was initially 

designated nonattainment under subpart 

1 of the CAA, but was subsequently 

classified as marginal nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1151 

6Although the Ozone Maintenance Plan is not 

explicit in this regard, we presume that Clark 

County DAQ’s intention to continue operation of a 

monitoring network means that the agency intends 

to do so consistent with EPA’s monitoring 

requirements in 40 CFR part 58 (‘‘Ambient Air 

Quality Surveillance’’). 

7See 40 CFR part 51, subpart A (‘‘Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements’’). 

subpart 2 of part D of the CAA in May 

2012, i.e., after NDEP’s submittal of the 

redesignation request. Under EPA’s 

longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time a 

redesignation request is submitted and 

in consideration of the inequity of 

applying retroactively any requirements 

that might in the future be applied, we 

determined that the requirements under 

subpart 2 need not be addressed as a 

condition of redesignation. 

C. The Area Must Show the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions 

Reductions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) precludes 

redesignation of a nonattainment area to 

attainment unless EPA determines that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable regulations. Based on 

our review of the control measures 

credited in the Clark County Ozone 

Maintenance Plan as providing the 

emissions reductions sufficient to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area through the year 

2022, and based on our consideration of 

other factors such as weather patterns 

and economic activity, we found that 

the improvement in air quality in the 

Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area is the result of 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions from a combination of 

Federal vehicle and fuel measures and 

EPA-approved State and local control 

measures. See pages 670607–67608 of 

our November 13, 2012 proposed rule. 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Under 

CAA Section 175A 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. As 

explained in the proposed rule, we 

interpret this section of the Act to 

require, in general, the following core 

elements: Attainment inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, monitoring 

network, verification of continued 

attainment, and contingency plan. 

Based on our review and evaluation of 

the Ozone Maintenance Plan, we 

concluded that it contained the core 

elements and met the requirements of 

CAA section 175A. See pages 67608– 

67613. Our conclusion was based on the 

following findings: 

• The base year emissions inventories 

for 2008 are comprehensive, that the 

methods and assumptions used by Clark 

County Department of Air Quality 

(DAQ) to develop the 2008 emission 

inventory are reasonable, and that the 

inventories reasonably estimate actual 

ozone season emissions in an 

attainment year. Moreover, we found 

that the 2008 emissions inventories in 

the Ozone Maintenance Plan reflect the 

latest planning assumptions and 

emissions models available at the time 

the plan was developed, and provide a 

comprehensive and reasonably accurate 

basis upon which to forecast ozone 

precursor emissions for years 2015 and 

2022; 

• The projected VOC and NOX

emissions estimates adequately account 

for projected area-wide growth, specific 

projects (including, among others, the 

Nellis Air Force Base F–35 beddown 

project), and emissions reduction 

credits (ERCs), and show that VOC and 

NOX emissions would remain well 

below the attainment levels throughout 

the 10-year maintenance period and 

thereby adequately demonstrate 

maintenance through that period; 

• Clark County DAQ has committed 

to continue to operate the air quality 

monitoring network to verify the 

continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS ambient ozone 

monitoring; 6

• Clark County DAQ’s commitment in 

the Ozone Maintenance Plan to the 

continued operation of an ozone 

monitoring network and the 

requirement that NDEP and Clark 

County DAQ must inventory emissions 

sources and report to EPA on a periodic 

basis 7 would be sufficient for the 

purpose of verifying continued 

attainment; and 

• The contingency provisions of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan clearly 

identify specific contingency measures, 

contain adequate tracking and triggering 

mechanisms to determine when 

contingency measures are needed, 

contain a sufficient description of the 

process of recommending and 

implementing contingency measures, 

and contain specific timelines for 

action, and would, therefore, be 

adequate to ensure prompt correction of 

a violation and comply with the 

contingency-related requirements under 

CAA section 175A(d). 

Lastly, we proposed to approve the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) contained in the Ozone 

Maintenance Plan because we found 

that they meet the transportation 

conformity adequacy requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). In so 

proposing, we found that, among other 

things, the MVEBs, when considered 

with emissions from all other sources, 

would be consistent with maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

II. Public Comments 

Our November 13, 2012 proposed rule 

provided for a 30-day comment period. 

We received comment letters in support 

of our proposed action from NDEP and 

the Washoe County Health District. In 

its comment letter, NDEP also noted that 

approval of the redesignation request for 

the Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area will negate the 

need, that had been identified in EPA’s 

proposed limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Clark County’s revised 

NSR rules at 77 FR 43206, for a revision 

to NDEP’s nonattainment NSR 

provisions at this time. We received no 

adverse comments in response to our 

November 13, 2012 proposed rule. 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 

107(d)(3)(D), and for the reasons set 

forth in our proposed rule and 

summarized above, EPA is taking final 

action to approve NDEP’s submittal 

dated April 11, 2011 of Clark County’s 

Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan (March 2011) (‘‘Clark 

County Ozone Maintenance Plan’’) as a 

revision to the Nevada SIP and to 

approve NDEP’s request to redesignate 

the Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In 

connection with the Clark County 

Ozone Maintenance Plan, EPA finds 

that the maintenance demonstration 

showing that the area will continue to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., 

through 2022) and the contingency 

provisions describing the actions that 

Clark County will take in the event of 

a future monitored violation meet all 

applicable requirements for 

maintenance plans and related 

contingency provisions in CAA section 

175A. EPA is also approving the 

following motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) from the Clark County 

Ozone Maintenance Plan for 

transportation conformity purposes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

1152 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8On July 28, 2008, NDEP submitted the 8-Hour 

Early Progress Plan for Clark County, Nevada (June 

2008) to EPA as a revision to the Nevada SIP. 

because we find that they meet the 

applicable transportation conformity 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e): 

Budget 

year 

VOC (tpd, 

average summer 

weekday) 

NOX (tpd, 

average summer 

weekday) 

2008 65.08 68.46 

2015 45.32 34.69 

2022 36.71 23.15 

These new MVEBs become effective 

on the date of publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2)) and must be used by U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

and the Regional Transportation 

Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) 

for future transportation conformity 

determinations for Clark County. The 

existing 2008 VOC and NOX MVEBs 

from the Clark County Early Progress 

Plan,8 which EPA found adequate in 

2009, are replaced by these budgets. 

In connection with the redesignation 

request, EPA is taking final action to 

approve the request because we find 

that the area has met the five criteria for 

redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E). Specifically, we find that 

the area has attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, that relevant portions of 

the Nevada SIP are fully approved, that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions, that Nevada has met all 

requirements applicable to the Clark 

County 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area with respect to section 110 and part 

D of the CAA, and that the area has a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A (i.e., the Clark County Ozone 

Maintenance Plan approved herein). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment under section 

107(d)(3)(E) and the accompanying 

approval of a maintenance plan under 

section 175A are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by State law. Redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these 

actions merely approve a State plan and 

redesignation request as meeting 

Federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

by State law. For these reasons, these 

actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. Nonetheless, EPA discussed 

the proposed action with the one Tribe, 

the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, located 

within the Clark County 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The Tribe has 

indicated that it concurs with the 

redesignation request. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by March 11, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: December 20, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470 in paragraph (e), 

the table is amended by adding an entry 

for ‘‘Ozone Redesignation Request and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1153 

Maintenance Plan, Clark County, 

Nevada (March 2011)’’ after the entry for 

‘‘Emissions Inventory for 1995’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 

*******

Ozone Redesignation Request 

and Maintenance Plan, 

Clark County, Nevada 

(March 2011).

Clark County, Nevada: that 

portion of Clark County that 

lies in hydrographic areas 

164A, 164B, 165, 166, 167, 

212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 

and 218, but excluding the 

Moapa River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation.

4/11/11 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the 

document begins] 1/8/13.

Approval includes appendices 

A, B, and C. Relates to the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

* * * * * * * 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—[AMENDED] 

■ 4. Section 81.329 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘Nevada—1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)’’ by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Las Vegas, NV’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.329 Nevada. 

* * * * * 

NEVADA—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Las Vegas, NV: Clark County (part) That portion of Clark County 

that lies in hydrographic areas 164A, 164B, 165, 166, 167, 212, 

213, 214, 216, 217, and 218, but excluding the Moapa River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservationb.

2/7/13 Attainment.

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

bThe use of reservation boundaries for this designation is for purposes of CAA planning only and is not intended to be a federal determination 

of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Nor does the specific listing of the Tribes in this table confer, deny, or withdraw Federal recognition 

of any of the Tribes listed or not listed. 1This date is June 15, 2004 unless otherwise noted. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00057 Filed 1–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with