The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following proposed rule on 

September 30, 2013, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While 

we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the 

official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in 

a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website 

(http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663.

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663; FRL-_________]

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Lead (Pb)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Nevada on October 12, 2011, July 

23, 2012, and August 30, 2012, pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 Lead (Pb) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We refer to such SIP revisions as "infrastructure" SIPs 

because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS including, but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources, permit 

programs, monitoring, and modeling necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [Insert date 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register]. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

2

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-

0663, by one of the following methods:

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

2. E-mail: mays.rory@epa.gov

3. Fax: 415-947-3579

4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may 

be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an anonymous access 

system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment.

Docket: 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, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

3

large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., 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: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3227, mays.rory@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms

“we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Background

A. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

B. Regulatory Background

II. The State’s Submittals

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals 

B. Proposed Disapprovals

C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years 

after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

4

provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. Many of the 

section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information and authorities that constitute 

the "infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program and SIP submittals that address 

these requirements are referred to as “infrastructure SIPs.” These infrastructure SIP elements are 

as follows:

 Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

 Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

 Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of 

new and modified stationary sources.

 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.

 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution abatement.

 Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight 

of local and regional government agencies.

 Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

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

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

 Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public notification, and 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

 Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data.

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

 Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year 

submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

5

elements relate to part D of title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within 

three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are: (i) 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D 

[nonattainment new source review (NSR)], and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or 

related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

In addition, this rulemaking does not address three substantive issues that are not integral 

to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to “director’s variance or “director’s discretion that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (“director’s discretion”); and, (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of 

EPA’s “Final NSR Improvement Rule.

1

Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to address any such existing SIP 

defects in other rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these issues are not part of 

the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA’s August 3, 2012 proposed rule 

entitled “Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

 

1

67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

6

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter” in section I.C. (“Scope of 

the Infrastructure SIP Evaluation”).2

B. Regulatory Background

On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.3This action triggered a 

requirement for states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) by October 15, 2011. EPA issued guidance in 2011 for such infrastructure SIPs 

entitled “Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS” (“EPA’s 2011 

Pb Guidance”).4

II. The State’s Submittals

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted “Nevada’s Clean 

Air Act § 110(a)(1) and (2) State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Pb NAAQS” on October 12, 

2011,5 which included the NDEP and Washoe County Air Quality Management Division 

(AQMD) portions of the state’s Pb infrastructure SIP submittal; and submitted the “Clark County 

Lead Infrastructure State Implementation Plan” on July 23, 2012,6 which is the Clark County 

Department of Air Quality (DAQ) portion of the state’s Pb infrastructure SIP submittal. On 

August 30, 2012, NDEP submitted the “Revisions to Nevada’s Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2) State 

 

2

77 FR 46361 at 46362 thru 46365.

3

73 FR 66964. The final rule was signed on October 15, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on November 

12, 2008. The 1978 Pb standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3-month average not to 

exceed 0.15 μg/m3. EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 μg/m3 and made it identical to the revised 

primary standard.

4

See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011). 

5

See letter dated October 12, 2011 from Colleen Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9.

6

See letter dated July 23, 2012 from Colleen Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

7

Implementation Plan Submittals,”7 which amended several of the state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals, including the October 12, 2011 submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

These submittals included cover letters from the NDEP Administrator to the Region IX 

Regional Administrator and tables for each air quality management jurisdiction in Nevada (i.e., 

NDEP, Clark County, and Washoe County Health District) that list and discuss how state and

local provisions address the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2). Each submittal also includes 

attachments that, among other things, compile the State and local rules and statutes that are 

currently approved into the Nevada SIP or that apply locally and are supportive of Nevada 

meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements, and provide evidence of public notice and an 

opportunity for public comment or hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the SIP revisions. 

We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for public participation under 

CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102.

We are proposing to act on all three submittals since they collectively address the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We refer to them collectively herein as 

“Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal.”

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action

EPA has evaluated Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal and the existing provisions of 

the Nevada SIP for compliance with the CAA section 110(a) requirements for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. Our Pb Infrastructure SIP Technical Support Document (“Pb TSD”) contains more 

detailed evaluations and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be 

accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0663. We 

 

7

See letter dated August 30, 2012 from Colleen Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

8

also rely on our technical support document (TSD) for the conflict of interest requirements of 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 (“Section 128 TSD”), which was prepared for our 2012 

rulemaking on Nevada’s infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5), 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.8That Section 128 TSD is also included in the public docket for today’s 

rulemaking.

III.A. Proposed Approvals

Based upon our evaluation as presented in the TSDs, EPA proposes to approve Nevada’s 

Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:

 Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

 Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

 Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified stationary sources.

 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution transport.

 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement and international air 

pollution.

 Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight 

of local and regional government agencies.

 Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

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

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

 Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government officials, public notification, 

and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

 

8

77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

9

 Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data.

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

 Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

III.B. Proposed Disapprovals

EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the 

following infrastructure SIP requirements (details of the partial disapprovals are presented after 

this list):

 Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified stationary sources.

 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution transport.

 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement and international air 

pollution.

 Section 110(a)(2)(F) (in part): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

 Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government officials, public notification, 

and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

As explained more fully in our Pb TSD, we are proposing to disapprove the NDEP and 

Washoe County portions of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the PSD-related 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) 

because the Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD

permit programs under part C, title I of the Act. Both NDEP and Washoe County AQMD 

currently implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated new source 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

10

review (NSR) pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with EPA. See 40 CFR 52.1485.9

Accordingly, although the Nevada SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements in 

both the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, these deficiencies are adequately 

addressed in both areas by the federal PSD program.

We are proposing to disapprove the Clark County portion of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal with respect to the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) because Clark County’s SIP-approved PSD permit program 

does not contain provisions that satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements concerning 

condensable particulate matter (PM) and PM2.5 increments under part C, title I of the Act and in 

40 CFR 51.166.

10 We address these PSD requirements as part of this proposal on Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS because section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires 

that each SIP contain a comprehensive PSD permitting program that addresses all regulated NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG).11 As explained in more detail below and in our 

Pb TSD, our proposed disapproval of the Clark County portion of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal based on these PSD program deficiencies would, if finalized, trigger a FIP obligation

with respect to the requirements concerning PM2.5 increments in Clark County but would not 

trigger a FIP obligation with respect to the requirements concerning condensable PM, as a FIP 

 

9 EPA fully delegated the implementation of the federal PSD programs to NDEP on October 19, 2004 (“Agreement 

for Delegation of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection”), as updated on 

September 15, 2011 and November 7, 2012, and to Washoe County on March 13, 2008 (“Agreement for Delegation 

of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9 to the Washoe County District Health Department”). 

10 Requirements for condensable PM were promulgated in EPA’s NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008; codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). Requirements for PSD increments for 

PM2.5 were promulgated in EPA’s PSD implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR 

64864, October 10, 2010; codified at 40 CFR 51.166(c).

11 The concept of a “comprehensive” PSD program (i.e., covering the PSD requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, including GHGs) has been discussed in numerous infrastructure SIP rulemakings. See, e.g., EPA’s final 

rule on Nevada’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 77 FR 

64737 at 64738-64739, October 23, 2012. This concept is also discussed in EPA’s 2011 Pb Guidance, page 6.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

11

clock to address this requirement has already been triggered by EPA’s 2012 action on the NSR 

rules submitted for sources under Clark County’s jurisdiction.12

Our proposed disapprovals of the NDEP and Clark County portions of the Nevada Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C) also stem from unique 

circumstances regarding NDEP and Clark County’s permit programs for the regulation of new 

and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, herein referred to as 

“minor NSR.” Within this infrastructure SIP proposal, we are not proposing to approve or 

disapprove existing minor NSR regulations. However, in 2012, EPA finalized rulemakings on 

Nevada’s submittals addressing minor NSR for sources under NDEP and Clark County DAQ 

jurisdiction, which included limited disapprovals.13 Upon review of those actions, we found that 

the NDEP and Clark County minor NSR programs lack provisions to address the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. Accordingly, we cannot rely on NDEP and Clark County’s existing minor NSR 

programs to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting 

programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Therefore, 

with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), we propose to find that the Nevada SIP does not meet the 

minor NSR program requirements for sources under NDEP and Clark County jurisdiction for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS.

As described in our Pb TSD, the resulting FIP obligations for these minor NSR program 

deficiencies have already been triggered by EPA’s 2012 actions on the NSR rules submitted for 

 

12 77 FR 64039, October 18, 2012.

13 Regarding NDEP’s minor NSR permit program, see our proposal (77 FR 38557 at 38564, June 28, 2012) and final 

rules (77 FR 59321 at 59325-59326, September 27, 2012). Regarding Clark County’s permit program, see our 

proposed (77 FR 43206, July 24, 2012) and final rules (77 FR 64309, October 18, 2012). These final rules and their 

context specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS are discussed further in our Pb TSD. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

12

sources under NDEP14 and Clark County jurisdiction.

15 As such, our proposed disapproval of 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to the minor NSR requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the NDEP and Clark County portions of the Nevada SIP would not trigger a 

new FIP obligation because a FIP obligation already exists for the same identified SIP 

deficiencies.

For the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (regarding interference with other 

states’ required measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality), we propose to 

disapprove Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure SIP for the reasons discussed above and in our Pb TSD in 

connection with the PSD-related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).

With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) concerning compliance 

with section 126 requirements regarding interstate pollution abatement, EPA proposes to 

disapprove the NDEP and Washoe County portions of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal, for 

the reasons discussed above and in our Pb TSD in connection with the PSD-related requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).

For Section 110(a)(2)(F), we propose to disapprove the Clark County portion of 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal with respect to subsection 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) because Clark 

County has repealed its regulation, Section 24, which formerly addressed the correlation 

requirement of this subsection, without submitting a SIP revision to replace it.

As discussed in our Pb TSD, the resulting FIP obligation for this stationary source 

correlation requirement for the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP has already been 

triggered by EPA’s 2012 action on Nevada’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 

 

14 77 FR 59321, September 27, 2012.

15 77 FR 64039, October 18, 2012.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

13

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

16 As such, we propose that this disapproval for section 

110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS does 

not trigger a new FIP obligation because a FIP obligation already exists for the same identified 

SIP deficiency.

For the PSD related requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(J) we propose to disapprove 

Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal for the reasons discussed above and in our Pb TSD in 

connection with the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C).

EPA takes very seriously a proposal to disapprove a state plan, as we believe that it is 

preferable, and preferred in the provisions of the Clean Air Act, that these requirements be 

implemented through state plans. A state plan need not contain exactly the same provisions that 

EPA might require, but EPA must be able to find that the state plan is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act. Further, EPA’s oversight role requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act requirements by states across the country, even while 

acknowledging that individual decisions from source to source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. EPA believes these proposed disapprovals are the only path that is consistent 

with the Act at this time.

III.C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals

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

requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA sections 171-193) or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal was not submitted to meet either of these 

 

16 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

14

requirements. Therefore, any action we take to finalize the described partial disapprovals will not 

trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a FIP within two 

years after finding that a State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a State 

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

correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. As discussed in section III.B of this 

proposed rule and in our Pb TSD, we are proposing several partial disapprovals. With one 

exception, however, these disapprovals would not result in new FIP obligations, either because 

EPA has already promulgated a FIP to address the identified deficiency or because a FIP clock 

has been triggered by EPA’s disapproval of a prior SIP submission based on the same identified 

deficiency. The provisions for which our proposed disapproval, if finalized, would not result in a 

new FIP obligation include:

 PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

and 110(a)(2)(J): For NDEP and Washoe County, EPA has already promulgated the 

federal PSD program (see 40 CFR 52.1485);

 PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J): 

For Clark County, EPA’s October 18, 2012 final action on Clark County’s PSD 

regulations triggered a November 19, 2014 deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP 

addressing this requirement (77 FR 64039);

 Minor NSR requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C): EPA’s September 27, 2012 final action 

on NDEP’s minor NSR regulations (77 FR 59321) and October 18, 2012 final action on 

Clark County’s minor NSR regulations (77 FR 64039) triggered deadlines of October 29, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

15

2014 and November 19, 2014, respectively, for EPA to promulgate FIPs addressing the 

identified deficiencies;

 Section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii): For Clark County, EPA’s October 23, 2012 final action on 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (77 FR 64737) triggered a November 23, 2014 deadline for EPA to promulgate 

a FIP addressing the requirement for correlation of stationary source emissions with 

emission limits.

The one disapproval that would trigger a new FIP clock concerns the requirement under 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) regarding PSD increments for PM2.5

in Clark County. EPA has not previously promulgated a FIP or triggered a FIP clock through 

disapproval of a prior SIP submission based on this deficiency. Thus, under CAA section 

110(c)(1), our partial disapproval of the Clark County portion of Nevada’s Pb Infrastructure 

Submittal based on this deficiency would, if finalized, require EPA to promulgate a FIP

establishing PM2.5 increments for Clark County within two years after the effective date of our

final rule, unless the State submits and EPA approves a SIP revision that corrects this deficiency 

prior to the expiration of this two-year period.

We anticipate that NDEP will submit SIP revisions that adequately address the

deficiencies identified in EPA’s 2012 actions on NDEP’s minor NSR program, Clark County’s 

permit program (i.e., both PSD and minor NSR), Nevada’s infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and today’s proposed action on Nevada’s Pb 

Infrastructure Submittal prior to expiration of the 2-year FIP deadline triggered by each of these 

actions. We further anticipate that EPA approval of such revisions would also serve to 

adequately address the partial disapprovals of the Nevada Pb Infrastructure SIP where no FIP is 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

16

currently in place (i.e., the disapprovals proposed herein, except for those tied to the federal PSD 

programs for sources under NDEP and Washoe County Health District’s jurisdiction). We stand 

ready to work with the State of Nevada to develop such SIP revisions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

IV.A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

This action is not a "significant regulatory action" under the terms of Executive Order 

(EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

IV.B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, because this proposed partial approval and 

partial disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any 

new information collection burdens but simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, 

and to disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

IV.C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

17

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule, we certify that this 

proposed action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 

proposed rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 

proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not inand-of itself create any new requirements but simply proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome 

compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule.

Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities.

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

IV.D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded 

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

governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed partial approval and 

partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 

of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to approve certain pre-existing requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other pre-existing requirements, under State or local law, and imposes no new 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

18

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 

private sector, result from this proposed action.

IV.E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and 

local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”

“Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 

the various levels of government.”

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 

the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and 

does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 

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

IV.F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP on which EPA is proposing action would not 

apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

19

IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to 

those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under 

section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed 

action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA section 110 

will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.

IV.H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

IV.I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9 on September 30, 2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, 

but it is not the official version.

20

The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean 

Air Act.

IV.J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Population

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy 

on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this proposed 

rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Particulate Matter, Pb, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

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

____________________ ______________________________

Date Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX