The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld signed the following 

proposed rule on July 20, 2012 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 proposed rule, it is not the official version 

of the proposal for purposes of public comment. Please refer to the official 

version in a forthcoming FR publication appearing on the Government Printing 

Office’s FDsys website, http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action and on 

Regulation.gov in Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047, 

http://www.regulations.gov

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047; FRL-_________]

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter

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 to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and 

the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each State adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. On February 1, 

2008, February 26, 2008, September 15, 2009, and December 4, 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2

2009 the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) 

submitted revisions to Nevada’s SIP, which describe the State's 

provisions for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing the

standards listed above. On July 5, 2012, NDEP submitted a

supplement to these SIP revisions, including certain statutory 

and regulatory provisions. We encourage the State to submit a 

revised SIP to address the deficiencies identified in this 

proposal, and we stand ready to work with the State to develop a 

revised plan. 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]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number 

EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047, by one of the following methods:

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

for submitting comments.

2. E-mail: r9_airplanning@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.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3

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 email. 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, 

large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4

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

B. Regulatory History 

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP Evaluation 

II. The State’s Submittals

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals 

B. Proposed Disapprovals

C. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals (Parallel Processing)

D. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals (Clark County NSR)

E. Discussion of CAA SIP Revision Requirements

F. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5

I. Background

I.A. Statutory Framework

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit 

to EPA, within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary 

or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides 

for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such 

NAAQS. EPA refers to these specific submissions as 

"infrastructure" SIPs because they are intended to address basic 

structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS. The 

infrastructure SIP elements include: 

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.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6

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 

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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7

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).

I.B. Regulatory History

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone1 and 

a new NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently 

revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2006.3 Each of 

these actions triggered a requirement for states to submit an 

infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the new or 

revised NAAQS. 

On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with 

EarthJustice that obligated EPA to make official findings in 

accordance with section 110(k)(1) of the CAA as to whether 

states had made required complete SIP submissions, pursuant to 

 

1 The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, 

and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

2 The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), 

based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from 

single or multiple community-oriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-

hour PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652).

3 The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3

was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), by December 15, 2007 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and by October 5, 2008 for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA made such findings for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as 

published on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205), and for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, as published on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62902). For the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA found that Nevada had failed to make a 

complete submittal to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2).4 For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA found that Nevada had 

made a complete submittal to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2).

I.C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP Evaluation

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. 

Commenters on EPA’s recent proposals for some states raised 

concerns about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain 

substantive issues in the context of acting on those 

infrastructure SIP submissions.5 Those commenters specifically 

raised concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that it would address two 

 

4 Notwithstanding EPA’s finding of failure to submit, footnote 2 of the 

findings notice noted that Nevada had submitted its infrastructure SIP for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS on February 1, 2008. (See 73 FR 16205 at 16207).

5 See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. 

Docket # EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse comments on proposals for three 

states in Region 5). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9

issues separately and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) existing provisions related 

to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); and 

(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”). EPA notes that there are two 

other substantive issues for which EPA likewise stated in other 

proposals that it would address the issues separately: (i) 

existing provisions for minor source new source review programs 

that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations that pertain to such programs (“minor source 

NSR”); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 

FR 80,186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32,526 (June 

13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). In light of the comments, EPA believes 

that its statements in various proposed actions on 

infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual issues 

should be explained in greater depth.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10

EPA intended the statements in other proposals concerning 

these four issues merely to be informational, and to provide 

general notice of the potential existence of provisions within 

the existing SIPs of some states that might require future 

corrective action. EPA did not want states, regulated entities, 

or members of the public to be under the misconception that the 

Agency’s approval of the infrastructure SIP submission of a 

given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger 

existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that some states may have 

existing SIP-approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the 

CAA and EPA policy, but that “in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State provisions 

with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at 

facilities.” EPA further explained, for informational purposes, 

that “EPA plans to address such State regulations in the 

future.” EPA made similar statements, for similar reasons, with 

respect to the director’s discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR 

Reform issues. EPA’s objective was to make clear that approval 

of an infrastructure SIP for these NAAQS should not be construed 

as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing provisions 

that relate to these four substantive issues.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11

Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently 

interpreted these statements to mean that EPA considered action 

upon the SSM provisions and the other three substantive issues 

to be integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission, and therefore that EPA was merely postponing taking 

final action on the issues in the context of the infrastructure 

SIPs. This was not EPA’s intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the potential for certain types 

of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any 

misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to convey its position that the 

statute does not require that infrastructure SIPs address these 

specific substantive issues in existing SIPs and that these 

issues may be dealt with separately, outside the context of 

acting on the infrastructure SIP submission of a state. To be 

clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it was not taking a full 

final agency action on the infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to be a 

required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) 

or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting 

from EPA’s statements in those other proposals, however, we want 

to explain more fully the Agency’s reasons for concluding that 

these four potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12

addressed separately from actions on infrastructure SIP 

submissions.

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general 

requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents 

of these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the 

specific statutory provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some 

of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive provisions, and some of which 

pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive 

provisions.6 Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2) are 

relatively straightforward, but others clearly require 

interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a 

particular NAAQS.7

 

6 For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must provide 

assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a 

substantive program to address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority 

to address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event of such 

an emergency.

7 For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure that each 

state’s SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent significant contribution 

to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This provision contains 

numerous terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to 

determine such basic points as what constitutes significant contribution. 

See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter 

and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that “each” 

SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is 

internally inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP submissions in section 

110(a)(1).8 This illustrates that EPA must determine which 

provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. Likewise, EPA has previously 

decided that it could take action on different parts of the 

larger, general “infrastructure SIP” for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on all subsections.9 Finally, EPA notes that 

not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that 

NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be 

 

Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25,162 (May 12, 

2005)(defining, among other things, the phrase “contribute significantly to 

nonattainment”). 

8 See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63 – 65 (May 12, 2005)(explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus 

section 110(a)(2)(I)).

9 For example, EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP 

submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, “Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,” from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division 

OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006. 

In addition, EPA bifurcated the action on these “interstate transport” 

provisions within section 110(a)(2) and in most instances, substantive 

administrative actions occurred on different tracks with different schedules. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14

necessary for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS 

could be very different than what might be necessary for a 

different pollutant. Thus, the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a state might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to 

an existing NAAQS.10

Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions 

required under the statute also must meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to 

identify the applicable elements for other SIP submissions. For 

example, nonattainment SIPs required by part D likewise have to 

meet the relevant subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear that 

nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements 

applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by 

part D also would not need to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency episodes, as such 

requirements would not be limited to nonattainment areas. As 

this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may 

implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not others.

 

10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment 

of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator 

species for the new NAAQS.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15

Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language 

of section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that language in the context of 

acting on the infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of 

the inherent ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 

110(a)(2), EPA has adopted an approach in which it reviews 

infrastructure SIPs against this list of elements “as 

applicable.” In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not 

have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of 

the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in question, would 

meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 

way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for 

infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making 

recommendations for the infrastructure SIP submissions for both 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.11 Within 

this guidance document, EPA described the duty of states to make 

these submissions to meet what the Agency characterized as the 

“infrastructure” elements for SIPs, which it further described 

as the “basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of 

 

11 See, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions I – X, dated October 2, 2007 (the “2007 Guidance”).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16

the standards.” 12 As further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, “attachment A” to the guidance 

document included a short description of the various elements of 

section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of 

issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such 

infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment A was not intended “to 

constitute an interpretation of” the requirements, and was 

merely a “brief description of the required elements.”13 EPA also 

stated its belief that with one exception, these requirements 

were “relatively self explanatory, and past experience with SIPs 

for other NAAQS should enable States to meet these requirements 

with assistance from EPA Regions.”14 For the one exception to 

that general assumption, however, i.e., how states should 

proceed with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific 

recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, 

and for certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA assumed that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to refine the scope of a 

 

12 Id. at page 2.

13 Id. at attachment A, page 1.

14 Id. at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by commenters with 

respect to EPA’s approach to some substantive issues indicate that the 

statute is not so “self explanatory,” and indeed is sufficiently ambiguous 

that EPA needs to interpret it in order to explain why these substantive 

issues do not need to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and 

may be addressed at other times and by other means. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17

State’s submittal based on an assessment of how the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic 

structure of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in question.

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make 

recommendations to states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.15 In the 2009 Guidance, EPA 

addressed a number of additional issues that were not germane to 

the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, but were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 

2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, director’s 

discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among 

specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in 

the context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any 

more specific recommendations with respect to how states might 

address such issues even if they elected to do so. The SSM and 

director’s discretion issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and 

the minor source NSR and NSR Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the 2009 Guidance, 

however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission 

 

15 See, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS),” from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I - X, dated September 

25, 2009 (the “2009 Guidance”).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18

to address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in 

the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, 

EPA’s 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states 

should make submissions in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that 

they have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. 

EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP 

requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to 

read section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a comprehensive review 

of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic 

structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have 

evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully up to date, 

nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes 

of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or 

revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of 

the SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19

110(a)(2) are applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given 

NAAQS, and to focus attention on those elements that are most 

likely to need a specific SIP revision in light of the new or 

revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of the 

absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in 

existing SIPs.

Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable 

reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute 

provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow the Agency to take appropriate tailored action, 

depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP 

call” whenever the Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to 

mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the 

CAA.16 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past 

 

16 EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific SIP deficiency 

related to the SSM issue. See, “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revision,” 76 FR 

21,639 (April 18, 2011).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20

actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.17

Significantly, EPA’s determination that an action on the 

infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP problems does not preclude 

the Agency’s subsequent reliance on provisions in section 

110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state 

to eliminate all existing inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, 

EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the 

statutory bases that the Agency cites in the course of 

addressing the issue in a subsequent action.18

II. The State’s Submittals

On February 1, 2008, the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP) submitted the “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

 

17 EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors in past actions 

on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See, “Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82,536 

(December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 

110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined 

it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 

34,641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, 

Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona 

and Nevada SIPs).

18 EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds 

that it would have included a director’s discretion provision inconsistent 

with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 

42,342 at 42,344 (July 21, 2010)(proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 (January 26, 2011)(final disapproval of 

such provisions). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21

(SIP) for 8-Hour Ozone” to address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (“2008 Ozone Submittal”).19

On February 26, 2008, NDEP submitted the “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 

Requirements in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for PM2.5” to address the infrastructure SIP requirements

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (“2008 PM2.5 Submittal”).20 On September 

15, 2009, NDEP submitted the “CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements 

in the Current Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5” 

to address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (“2009 PM2.5 Submittal”).21 Each of these three submittals 

included a cover letter from the NDEP Administrator to the 

Region IX Regional Administrator, a table listing the elements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2) followed by NDEP's discussion of the 

provisions in the existing Nevada SIP that address each element, 

and attachments that compile the State rules and statutes that 

are currently approved into the Nevada SIP.

On December 4, 2009, NDEP submitted the “Current CAA 

110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the Washoe County Portion of 

the Nevada PM2.5 SIP” to address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Washoe County 

 

19 See letter dated February 1, 2008 from Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator, 

NDEP, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

20 See letter dated February 26, 2008 from Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator, 

NDEP, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

21 See letter dated September 15, 2009 from Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator, 

NDEP, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22

portion of the State (“2009 PM2.5 Supplement”).22 Like the three 

earlier submittals, the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement contained a table 

listing the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) followed by Washoe 

County's discussion of the provisions in the existing (Washoe 

County portion of the) Nevada SIP that address each element, and 

attachments that include the Washoe County District Board of 

Health (DBOH) air pollution control regulations cited in the 

County's evaluation of the adequacy of the existing SIP for 

Washoe County in meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements for 

PM2.5,

23 the PSD delegation agreement between the Washoe County 

District Health Department and EPA, and an Interlocal Agreement 

among the Washoe County District Board of Health, Washoe County, 

and the cities of Reno and Sparks concerning the Washoe County 

District Health Department. 

On July 5, 2012, NDEP submitted “Revisions to Nevada’s 

Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Submittals; 

Parallel Processing Request” to address certain infrastructure 

SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

 

22 See letter dated December 4, 2009 from Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator, 

NDEP, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

23 A small number of Washoe County regulations included as attachment B to the 

2009 PM2.5 Supplement have already been approved into the Nevada SIP (e.g., the 

emergency episode provisions); most have not been approved. However, we 

understand that the submittal of the Washoe County regulations in attachment 

B was for information purposes, and that the specific Washoe County 

regulations submitted for approval into the SIP include only those submitted 

as part of NDEP's submittal dated July 5, 2012. We also understand attachment 

C to have been submitted for information purposes. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23

NAAQS (“2012 Submittal”).24 This submittal served as a supplement 

to the four prior ozone and PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals 

and was submitted under the parallel processing mechanism 

provided by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, Section 2.3. The 2012 

Submittal includes a number of provisions, including statutes, 

regulations, and non-regulatory provisions, that are currently 

effective under State law but that have not been adopted 

specifically for submittal to EPA as SIP revisions under CAA 

section 110. NDEP also included unofficial copies of these 

provisions with a request for “parallel processing”25 and stated 

its intention to open a public comment period on July 13, 2012, 

provide opportunity for a public hearing on August 15, 2012, and 

to submit these provisions as a formal SIP submittal by the end 

of August 2012.

 

24 See letter dated July 5, 2012 from Colleen Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. This SIP revision was 

also submitted to revise Nevada’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 

Lead (Pb) NAAQS, which was submitted on October 12, 2011. EPA will address 

the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in a separate 

rulemaking.

25 Under EPA’s "parallel processing" procedure, EPA proposes rulemaking action 

concurrently with the State's proposed rulemaking. If the State's proposed 

plan is changed, EPA will evaluate that subsequent change and may publish 

another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is made, EPA

will publish a final rulemaking on the plan after responding to any submitted 

comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the plan has 

been fully adopted by Nevada and submitted formally to EPA for approval into 

the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3. We note that because 

NDEP’s rulemaking process here is for purposes of adopting the 2012 Submittal 

as a SIP revision under CAA section 110, including existing statutes and 

regulations (without revision) and updating non-regulatory provisions, we do 

not expect any significant changes between the proposed and final plans.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24

NDEP did not provide notice and an opportunity for public 

comment or hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2008 

Ozone Submittal, the 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, the 2009 PM2.5

Submittal, or the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement in reliance on EPA 

guidance that indicated that, where a State was simply 

certifying that the existing SIP met the infrastructure 

requirements with respect to the new or revised NAAQS, no public 

process was required. EPA's views on this matter have changed, 

and we now recognize submittals by States in response to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) do represent SIP 

submittals, even if they simply certify the existing SIP as 

sufficient. 

As SIP revisions, such submittals require public notice, 

and opportunity for comment and hearing. We find, however, that, 

in this instance, because NDEP has provided notice, and 

opportunity to comment and hearing in connection with the 2012 

Submittal, described above, and because NDEP's notice refers to 

the 2008 Ozone Submittal, the 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, the 2009 PM2.5

Submittal, and the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement, in addition to the 2012 

Submittal, NDEP will have met the procedural requirements for 

public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 

51.102 for all five infrastructure SIP submittals on which we 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25

are proposing action today when NDEP submits the related 

documentation to us with the 2012 Submittal.

We are proposing to act on all five submittals since they 

collectively address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We refer to them 

collectively herein as “Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals.”

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action

EPA has evaluated Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

and the existing provisions of the Nevada SIP for compliance 

with the CAA section 110(a) requirements for the 1997 ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Our three Technical Support 

Documents (TSDs) contain more detailed evaluations and are

available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be 

accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number 

EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0047. The three Technical Support Documents are 

as follows: 1) “Overarching TSD” for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) 

through (C), parts of (D) and (E), and (F) thru (M); 2) “2006 

PM2.5 Transport TSD” for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; and 3) “Section 128 TSD” for CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which addresses compliance with the conflict 

of interest requirements of CAA section 128. All proposals below 

apply to our evaluation of Nevada’s infrastructure SIPs for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS unless a specific 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26

distinction is made as to which of Nevada’s five submittals or 

which of these three NAAQS a given proposal applies. 

III.A. Proposed Approvals

Based upon our evaluation as presented in the TSDs, EPA 

proposes to approve Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 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. (Please see our 2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD for our 

evaluation of Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5

Supplement regarding interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.)

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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27

government agencies. (Please see our Section 128 TSD for 

our evaluation of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

regarding the conflict of interest requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii).)

Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source monitoring 

and reporting.

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

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

Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part): Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air quality modeling and 

submission of modeling data.

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

Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities.

In connection with our proposed partial approval of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we are proposing to 

approve certain statutes, regulations, and other materials, that 

were included in the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement and the 2012 Submittal 

to supplement the four earlier submittals. 

First, with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)(i.e., 

necessary assurances for adequate personnel, funding, and 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28

authority), EPA is proposing to approve an interlocal agreement 

among the Washoe County District Board of Health, Washoe County 

and the cities of Reno and Sparks concerning the Washoe County 

District Health Department, and a comprehensive revision to 

Section 12 (“Resources”) of the Nevada SIP. The interlocal 

agreement was submitted as attachment D to the 2009 PM2.5

Supplement and the revision to Section 12 was submitted as 

attachment A to Nevada's 2012 Submittal. Nevada's revision to 

Section 12 ("Resources") includes updated information concerning

funding and personnel supporting the functions of the three air 

pollution control agencies administering CAA programs in Nevada: 

NDEP, Clark County Department of Air Quality, and Washoe County 

Health District's Air Quality Management Division (AQMD). If 

finalized as proposed, NDEP's 2012 revision to Section 12 will 

entirely replace the existing SIP version of Section 12, 

approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP.

Second, in connection with our proposed approval of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 

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

requirements under CAA section 128), EPA is proposing to approve 

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) sections 232A.020, 281A.150, 

281A.160, 281A.400, 281A.410, and 281A.420, as provided in 

Attachment B of Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, into the Nevada SIP.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29

Third, in connection with our proposed approval of Nevada's 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 

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

comprehensive revision to Section 11 (“Intergovernmental 

Consultation”) of the Nevada SIP, which is included as 

Attachment D to Nevada's 2012 Submittal. Nevada's revision to 

Section 11 ("Intergovernmental Consultation") includes updated 

information concerning consultation among the three air 

pollution control agencies administering CAA programs in Nevada 

(NDEP, Clark County Department of Air Quality, and Washoe County 

Health District's Air Quality Management Division) as well as 

regional planning and transportation agencies that also have 

certain air-quality-planning-related responsibilities. If 

finalized as proposed, NDEP's 2012 revision to Section 11 will 

entirely replace the existing SIP version of Section 11, 

approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), in the Nevada SIP.

Nevada's 2012 revision to Section 11 ("Intergovernmental 

Consultation") cites a number of statutes, two of which are 

included as exhibits to Section 11, NRS section 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") and NRS 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30

section 439.390 ("District board of health: Composition; 

qualifications of members"), that would be new to the SIP.26 We 

have reviewed them and find them acceptable and are proposing to 

approve them in connection with our proposed approval of the 

2012 revised Section 11 of the Nevada SIP.27

Fourth, in connection with our proposed approval of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (F)(iii), we note that EPA has proposed to 

approve three Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) sections cited by 

NDEP in its 2012 Submittal, NAC sections 445B.315(3), 445B.3368, 

and 445B.346, in a separate rulemaking (see 77 FR 38557, June 

28, 2012). While we believe that the three cited NAC sections

are generally supportive of the requirements of sections 

 

26 NDEP included, in attachment B of the 2012 Submittal, certain statutes for 

inclusion in the Nevada SIP in support of the Infrastructure SIP Submittals. 

While both NRS 445B.503 and NRS 439.390 are included as exhibits to revised 

Section 11 ("Intergovernmental Consultation"), only the former is included in 

attachment B to the 2012 Submittal. We have assumed that the absence of NRS 

439.390 in attachment B was inadvertent, and that NDEP intends NRS 439.390 to 

be included in the Nevada SIP, but we request confirmation from NDEP on this 

matter.

27 In the 2012 Submittal, NDEP also included an updated version of a statute 

that is also cited in the revised Section 11 ("Intergovernmental 

Consultation") but that is already approved into the SIP, NRS section 

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"), approved at 71 FR 51766 (August 31, 2006). We 

have reviewed the updated version of NRS 445B.500 and note that the only 

changes relative to the existing SIP version of NRS 445B.500 relate to 

hearing boards, hearing officers, and school districts and, thus, are 

administrative in nature. As such, we propose herein to approve the updated 

version of NRS 445B.500 that was included in attachment B to the 2012 

Submittal as a revision to the Nevada SIP. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), we believe that the 

existing Nevada SIP, even without the three cited NAC sections, 

is adequate to meet the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) with respect to sources 

under NDEP jurisdiction. See our Overarching TSD.

Fifth and last, in connection with our proposed approval of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(F), our proposed approval with respect to this element 

for the Washoe County portion of the SIP relies on final 

approval of four Washoe County rules, 030.218, 030.230, 030.235, 

and 030.970, that were included in the 2012 Submittal. We 

proposed approval of these four Washoe County rules in a 

separate rulemaking signed on July 19, 2012.28

III.B. Proposed Disapprovals

EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the following infrastructure SIP 

requirements (details of the partial approvals and 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.

 

28 A copy of our separate, concurrent proposal is available in the docket for 

this action and online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2011-0047.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32

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

transport. (Please see our 2006 PM2.5 Transport TSD for our 

evaluation of Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5

Supplement regarding interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.)

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)(in part): Interstate pollution 

abatement and international air pollution.

Section 110(a)(2)(F)(in part): Stationary source monitoring 

and reporting.

Section 110(a)(2)(J)(in part): Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

Section 110(a)(2)(K)(in part): Air quality modeling and 

submission of modeling data.

As explained more fully in our Overarching TSD, we are 

proposing to disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals

for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP with respect 

to the permitting-related requirements of CAA sections 

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

110(a)(2)(J), and 110(a)(2)(K) because the Nevada SIP does not 

fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit programs
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33

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 NSR pollutants, pursuant to delegation 

agreements with EPA. See 40 CFR 52.1485.29 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. 

For Section 110(a)(2)(C), we propose to approve Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the requirement 

that the SIP include a program to provide for enforcement of the 

emissions limitations described in section 110(a)(2)(A). For the 

permitting-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), we 

propose to approve the Clark County portion of the SIP,

contingent on finalizing our proposed approval of Clark County’s 

SIP revisions for the review of new or modified stationary 

sources,

30 and to disapprove the NDEP and Washoe County portions 

of the SIP, for the reasons discussed at the start of section 

III.B of this notice and our Overarching TSD.

 

29 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 to Washoe County (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”). 

30 See EPA’s proposal signed on July 13, 2012, and included in the docket of 

this infrastructure SIP proposal.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34

With respect to the requirements regarding interstate 

transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, we propose to partially approve and partially 

disapprove Nevada’s 2009 PM2.5 Submittal and 2009 PM2.5

Supplement. We propose to partially disapprove the submission 

because it relies on irrelevant factors and lacks any technical 

analysis to support the State’s conclusion with respect to 

interstate transport. We also propose to partially approve the 

submission, however, based on EPA’s supplemental evaluation of 

relevant technical information, which supports a finding that

emissions from Nevada do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that the existing Nevada SIP 

is, therefore, adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See our 2006 

PM2.5 Transport TSD.

For the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

previously approved an interstate transport SIP submitted by 

Nevada as satisfying the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(D)(i)(I). See 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007).

For the requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

(regarding interference with other states’ required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality), we propose to 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35

approve the Clark County portion of the SIP, and to disapprove 

the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP, for the reasons 

discussed at the start of section III.B of this notice and our 

Overarching TSD. With respect to the requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (regarding interference with other states’ 

required measures to protect visibility), EPA previously 

approved Nevada’s interstate transport SIP as satisfying this 

requirement for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of 

EPA’s action on Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 17334 at 

17339 (March 26, 2012). For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we 

propose the same interpretations and conclusions that we 

proposed as part of EPA’s proposed action on the Nevada Regional 

Haze SIP. See 76 FR 36450 at 36466, June 22, 2011. In other 

words, we propose to find that Nevada’s SIP-approved Regional 

Haze Plan contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in 

other states, and therefore meets the visibility requirement of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.31

 

31 Section IV.G.7 of the June 22, 2011 Regional Haze SIP proposal (see 76 FR 

36450 at 36466) stated the following: “Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act 

requires SIP revisions to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source 

or other types of emission activity within the state from emitting any air 

pollutant in amounts that will interfere with another state’s plan to protect 

visibility. Nevada submitted its SIP for Interstate Transport to EPA on 

February 7, 2007, which EPA approved and promulgated in the Federal Register 

on July 31, 2007 (70 FR 41629). In our Federal Register Notice, we deferred 

action on whether Nevada interferes with other states’ plans to address 

regional visibility impairment caused by regional haze until we received 

Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. As explained in Section IV.D.2. of this notice, 

NDEP relied on the [Western Regional Air Partnership’s] source apportionment 

modeling to demonstrate that Nevada’s emissions are projected to have a 

minimal contribution to sulfate and nitrate extinction in each of 24 Class I 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

36

With respect to the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA proposes to approve Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the Clark County 

portion of the Nevada SIP, contingent on finalizing EPA’s 

proposed approval of Clark County’s SIP revisions for the review 

of new or modified stationary sources, and to disapprove the SIP 

with respect to the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the 

Nevada SIP, for the reasons discussed at the start of section 

III.B of this notice and in our Overarching TSD.

For Section 110(a)(2)(F), we propose to approve the Clark 

County portion of the SIP, contingent on finalizing EPA’s 

proposed approval of Clark County’s SIP revisions for the review 

of new or modified stationary sources, for subsections 

110(a)(2)(F)(i) and 110(a)(2)(F)(ii). See our Overarching TSD. 

We propose to disapprove subsection 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the 

Clark County portion of the SIP because Clark County has 

repealed its regulation, Section 24, that formerly addressed the 

correlation requirement of this subsection, without submitting a 

SIP revision to replace it. For the NDEP and Washoe County 

portions of the SIP, we propose to approve Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for all three subsections. Note, 

 

areas in five adjacent states. Moreover, none of the neighboring western 

states have requested emission reductions from Nevada in order to meet their 

[reasonable progress goals]. Therefore, in proposing to approve Nevada’s 

[Regional Haze] SIP, we are proposing to find that this plan revision 

contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states.”
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

37

however, that our proposed approval of subsections 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Washoe County 

portion of the SIP is contingent on finalizing EPA’s proposed 

approval of Washoe County Air Quality Regulations 030.218, 

030.230, 030.235, and 030.970. See our Overarching TSD.

For Section 110(a)(2)(J) we propose to approve Nevada’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals as meeting the consultation, 

public notification, and visibility requirements of this 

section. Our proposed approval with respect to the consultation 

requirements of this section are contingent on finalizing EPA’s 

proposed approval of certain provisions of Nevada’s 2012 

Submittal, as described in section III.A of this notice. For the 

permitting-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), we 

propose to approve the Clark County portion of the SIP,

contingent on finalizing EPA’s proposed approval of Clark 

County’s SIP revisions for the review of new or modified 

stationary sources, and to disapprove the NDEP and Washoe County 

portions of the SIP, for the reasons discussed at the start of 

section III.B of this notice and in our Overarching TSD.

For Section 110(a)(2)(K), we propose to approve the Clark 

County portion of the SIP contingent on finalizing EPA’s 

proposed approval of Clark County’s SIP revisions for the review 

of new or modified stationary sources. See our Overarching TSD. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

38

We propose to disapprove the NDEP and Washoe County portions of 

the SIP with respect to the permit modeling requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(K), for the reasons discussed at the start of 

section III.B of this notice and our Overarching TSD.

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. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals (Parallel Processing)

Several of our proposed approvals rely on Nevada’s 2012 

Submittal, which was made under the parallel processing 

mechanism provided by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, Section 2.3.

If Nevada is not able to submit the fully adopted SIP revision 

anticipated by its 2012 Submittal by the end of August 2012, as 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

39

stated in the letter transmitting the 2012 Submittal, EPA must 

still take final action by September 30, 2012, consistent with 

the terms of the consent decree entered October 20, 2011 in 

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 3:11-cv-00190 and the 

settlement agreement entered November 30, 2011 in Sierra Club et 

al v. Lisa Jackson, Case No. 3:10-cv-04060-CRB, as amended.

Therefore, as a contingency for such a case, we propose, in the 

alternative, to disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the following infrastructure SIP 

requirements.

For Section 110(a)(2)(E), in the absence of the anticipated 

SIP revisions, Nevada’s 2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5

Submittal, 2009 PM2.5 Submittal, and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement have 

not provided necessary assurances of adequate personnel and 

funding for Clark County DAQ and Washoe County AQMD to carry out 

the SIP, as required by section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).32 More broadly, 

the SIP still contains outdated information in Section 12 

(“Resources”), as approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). On 

this basis, we propose, in the alternative, to disapprove 

Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

subsection 110(a)(2)(E)(i). Nonetheless, Nevada has provided 

necessary assurances of adequate legal authority to carry out 

 

32 In its 2008 and 2009 Infrastructure SIP Submittals, Nevada did not submit 

any information on personnel or funding for Clark County and did so for 

Washoe County only for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

40

the SIP at both the state and county levels. In other words, our 

proposed approval regarding the Nevada’s legal authority for 

subsections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) do not rely on 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal.

With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), pertaining to 

conflict of interest requirements, absent receipt of the SIP 

revisions embodied by Nevada’s 2012 Submittal – especially the 

Nevada Ethics in Government statutory provisions included in 

that submittal – we propose, in the alternative, to disapprove 

Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 Infrastructure SIP Submittals as they do 

not address the various conflict of interest requirements.

Our proposed approval of subsections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and

110(a)(2)(F)(iii) for the Washoe County portion of the SIP are 

contingent upon finalizing EPA’s proposed approval of four 

Washoe County regulations. Thus, absent receipt of these SIP 

revisions as embodied by Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, we propose, in 

the alternative, to disapprove these two subsections for the 

Washoe County portion of the SIP because the local regulations 

supportive of these requirements are currently not in the SIP.

Lastly, in the absence of the SIP revisions anticipated by 

Nevada’s 2012 Submittal, Nevada’s formal submittals (i.e., the 

2008 Ozone Submittal, 2008 PM2.5 Submittal, 2009 PM2.5 Submittal, 

and 2009 PM2.5 Supplement) have not met the consultation 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

41

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 110(a)(2)(M).

33 These 

four submittals highlight provisions for notification and 

opportunity for comment in connection with rulemaking and 

issuing permits and make a commitment to maintain a process of 

consultation.

However, sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 110(a)(2)(M) address 

more than just rulemaking or permits, although such consultation 

may be relevant as part of the process for consultation required 

under CAA section 121. Moreover, a commitment to maintain an 

acceptable process of consultation is not a substitute for the 

identification of the process itself as part of the Nevada SIP.

More broadly, the SIP still contains outdated information in 

Section 11 (“Intergovernmental Relations”), as approved on May 

31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). While the Nevada SIP does have a number 

of statutes that authorize the state and counties to cooperate

with local governments (see, e.g., NRS 445B.210, 445B.220, 

445B.235, and 445B.500), such cooperation is optional and 

similarly not a substitute for a process for consultation that 

 

33 In its 2008 and 2009 Infrastructure SIP Submittals, Nevada did not submit 

any information about consultation within Clark County. For Washoe County, 

the 2009 PM2.5 Supplement included a copy of the “Interlocal Agreement 

Concerning the Washoe County District Health Department” as Attachment D. 

This agreement partially addresses the consultation requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(J) and (M), since it defines membership and other aspects 

of the DBOH’s operation such that Washoe County and the two incorporated

cities (Reno and Sparks) each have two representatives on the seven-member 

DBOH. However, it is insufficient to address the consultation requirements of 

CAA section 121. For example, it does not identify a process to consult with 

Federal Land Managers having authority over Federal land affected by the 

County’s air plans.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

42

exists as part of the SIP. On this basis, we propose, in the 

alternative, to disapprove Nevada’s 2008 and 2009 Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals with respect to the consultation requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) and section 110(a)(2)(M).

III.D. Alternative Proposed Disapprovals (Clark County NSR)

Several proposed approvals for the Clark County portion of 

the SIP rely on EPA finalizing its proposal of July 13, 2012 on 

Clark County’s NSR program revisions. If EPA is unable to 

finalize the approvals embodied in that proposal, upon which our 

infrastructure SIP proposal relies (see our Overarching TSD for 

more details), EPA must still take final action by September 30, 

2012, consistent with the terms of the consent decree entered 

October 20, 2011 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case No. 3:11-

cv-00190 and the settlement agreement entered November 30, 2011 

in Sierra Club et al v. Lisa Jackson, Case No. 3:10-cv-04060-

CRB, as amended. As a contingency for such a case, EPA proposes,

in the alternative, to disapprove Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for the Clark County portion of the SIP with respect 

to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:

Section 110(a)(2)(C), pertaining to the requirement for a 

program for the review of new or modified stationary 

sources, including the PSD requirements under CAA title 1, 

part C;
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

43

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), pertaining to interference 

with other states’ required measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality;

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), pertaining to notification of 

other states affected by new or modified stationary 

sources, as per section 126(a);

Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and 110(a)(2)(F)(ii), pertaining to 

the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment 

to monitor emissions from stationary sources, and periodic 

reports on those emissions;

Section 110(a)(2)(J), pertaining to CAA title 1, part C 

(relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air 

quality); and

Section 110(a)(2)(K), pertaining to permit modeling.

III.E. Discussion of CAA SIP Revision Requirements

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any 

SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

All of the elements of Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

that we are proposing to approve, as explained in our 

Overarching TSD and Section 128 TSD, would improve the SIP by 

replacing obsolete provisions and by providing new provisions 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

44

addressing the resources, conflict of interest, stationary 

source monitoring, and consultation requirements of the CAA. We 

propose to determine that our approval of these elements of 

Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals would comply with CAA 

section 110(l) because the proposed SIP revision would not 

interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that 

requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and 

the submitted SIP revision clarifies and updates the SIP. Our 

Overarching TSD and Section 128 TSD contain a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation.

III.F. 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 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals were not submitted to meet either 

of these 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 Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years 

after finding that a State has failed to make a required 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

45

submission or disapproving a State implementation plan 

submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP 

revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year 

period. With respect to our proposed partial approval and 

partial disapproval of Nevada’s submissions related to 

interstate transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

however, we propose to conclude that any FIP obligation 

resulting from finalization of the partial disapproval would be 

satisfied by our determination that there is no deficiency in 

the SIP to correct. Finalization of this proposed disapproval 

also would not require any further action on Nevada’s part given 

EPA’s conclusion that the SIP is adequate to meet the 

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

hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

46

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-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 

of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by 

the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

47

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed

rule on small entities, I 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 in-and-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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

48

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 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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

49

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. 

IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

50

501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. 

This proposed action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is 

not an economically significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This 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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

51

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 

to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

The EPA believes that this 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 LowIncome Population

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this proposed rulemaking.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on July 20, 2012. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

52

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

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

_________________ _____________________________________

Date Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX