[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67652-67663]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27029]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812; FRL-9935-82-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone,
NO[ihel2] and SO[ihel2]

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving in part and
disapproving in part State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Nevada pursuant to the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS and
the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. The CAA requires that
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, and that EPA act
on such SIPs. Nevada has met most of the applicable requirements. Where
EPA is disapproving, in part, Nevada's SIP revisions, the deficiencies
have already been addressed by a federal implementation plan (FIP).

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., confidential business information
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA,
within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or
any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these
specific submissions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are
intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or
revised NAAQS.
    EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone on March 28, 2010, for
NO2 on February 9, 2010, and for SO2 on June 22,
2010.1 2 3 These NAAQS revisions triggered requirements for
states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years. The Nevada
Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has submitted several
infrastructure SIP submittals in response to EPA's promulgation of
these NAAQS, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 16436. This final rule reduced the ozone NAAQS from
0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.
    \2\ 75 FR 6474. This final rule revised the primary
NO2 NAAQS from an annual arithmetic average to a one-hour
NO2 NAAQS of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and left
unchanged EPA's secondary annual NO2 NAAQS. The form of
the 1-hour standard is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2
concentrations.
    \3\ This final rule revoked EPA's annual and 24-hour
SO2 NAAQS and a 1-hour NAAQS of 75 ppb. The form of the
1-hour standard is the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the
yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum SO2
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ozone

     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS:
Demonstration of Adequacy April 10, 2013;
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Ozone
Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(2),
Clark County, Nevada, February, 2013;
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration of
Adequacy, February 28, 2013.

NO2

     NDEP letter to EPA, dated May 9, 2013 and Washoe County
letter, dated April 26, 2013, containing the Approved Minutes of the
February 28, 2013 public hearing and the Certificate of Adoption;
     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
Primary NAAQS: Demonstration of Adequacy and appendices, January 18,
2013;
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Nitrogen
Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sec.
110(a)(2), and attachments Clark County, Nevada, December, 2012;
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan to Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide Primary NAAQS; Final
Submittal, March 15, 2013.

SO2

     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Primary NAAQS, and appendices, June 3, 2013;
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Sulfur
Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sec.
110(a)(2), and attachments Clark County, Nevada, May, 2013;
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP
Requirements of Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(2), and attachments, March
28, 2013.
    We refer to these submittals collectively as ``Nevada's
Infrastructure Submittals.''
    On May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28893), EPA proposed to approve in part, and
disapprove in part, these SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 ozone, the
2010 NO2, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Except for the
interstate transport elements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, we are taking final action on all the
Nevada Infrastructure Submittals since they collectively address the
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements.
    Nevada's submittals also requested that EPA reclassify the Nevada
Intrastate Air Quality Control Region from priority IA to priority III
for SO2 emergency episodes and remove historic, outdated
language at 40 CFR 52.1475 from the state's approved SIP. Our Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking included these proposed changes. We also proposed
to define the term Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region and
proposed to reclassify the Las Vegas Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region from priority IA to priority III for SO2 emergency
episodes.
    The rationale supporting EPA's actions is explained in our May 20,
2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (proposed rule) and the associated
technical support documents (TSDs) and will not be restated
here.4 5 The proposed rule and TSD are available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 28893, May 20, 2015.
    \5\ ``Technical Support Document Evaluation of the Nevada
Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2'' May 2015; ``Nevada Pb Infrastructure SIP Technical
Support Document, September 13, 2012; Technical Support Document:
EPA Evaluation of Nevada Provisions for 1997 Ozone, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for Section
110(a)(2)(A) through (C), D((i)(II) and (D)(ii), E(i) and (E(iii),
(F) through (M), July 2012; and Technical Support Document: EPA
Evaluation of NV Provisions for Section 110 (a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section
128 Conflict of Interest Requirements, July 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on May 20,
2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on June 19, 2015. During this period, EPA received comments from an
unidentified commenter, NDEP, and a single comment letter from the
Sierra Club and Earthjustice. The comments are summarized below; full
text of these comments is available in the docket to this final
rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See document number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0812-0074, 0076 and
0077 at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-R09-
OAR-2014-0812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Unidentified Commenter

    Comment: The commenter supported the partial disapproval of the
Nevada SIP and discussed the health benefits of minimizing criteria
pollutants and maintaining low levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide and ozone. The commenter asserted that with stricter standards,
clean renewable energy may become more popular.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the support for our action. We do wish
to clarify that EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of
elements of the Nevada SIP will not result in changes to air quality
regulation in Nevada, as the specific deficiencies have already been
addressed by the delegation of EPA's prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality (PSD) program to NDEP and Washoe County.
The need for this action, however, did result from EPA's lowering of
its NAAQS for ozone (in 2008), nitrogen dioxide (in 2010) and sulfur
dioxide (in 2010).

B. NDEP Comments

    NDEP Comment 1: NDEP suggested that EPA revise and approve all
proposed disapprovals in the proposed rulemaking. The commenter
contended that the proposed disapproval of two elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) and (D), were based on NDEP and Washoe County having a
delegated PSD programs. The commenter further claimed that the proposed
disapprovals stem from EPA's interpretation that a delegated PSD
program is not considered part of the applicable Nevada SIP. Next, NDEP
cited Federal Register language from EPA's approval and disapproval of
a recent Nevada Infrastructure SIP, ``the SIP, viewed broadly, thus
includes both portions of the plan submitted by the State and approved
by EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by EPA to substitute for a State
plan disapproved by EPA or not submitted by a State.'' \7\ Then the
commenter stated ``the NDEP suggests that this broad interpretation of
what constitutes Nevada's applicable SIP is the appropriate
interpretation . . . delegation is an acceptable method for
implementing a PSD program and no penalties to the state apply if they
choose that option.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 77 FR 64737 (October 23, 2012) Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada;
Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with NDEP's suggestion that Nevada's I-SIP
Submittals should be approved for PSD-related infrastructure SIP
requirements for the NDEP and Washoe County jurisdictions. We note that
NDEP and Washoe County submitted similar comments in 2012 and 2013 with
respect to EPA's proposed rulemaking on infrastructure SIPs for the
1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS; and proposed rulemaking on infrastructure SIPs
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Our response to NDEP's comment largely
reiterates our response to NDEP and Washoe County's comments on
delegated PSD FIP programs during our 2012 and 2014 rulemakings on
Nevada's infrastructure SIPs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 64737, October 23, 2012; 79 FR 15697, March 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to adopt and submit a plan which
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
See CAA section 110(a)(1). Section 110(a)(2) sets forth the content
requirements for such plans, including the requirement for a permit
program as required in part C (``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality,'' or ``PSD'') of title I of the CAA. Such
plans are referred to as state implementation plans or SIPs.
    EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP derives from EPA's
determination that a state has failed to submit a complete, required
SIP submission or from EPA's disapproval of a state submission of a SIP
or SIP revision. See CAA section 110(c)(1). The SIP, viewed broadly,
thus includes both portions of the plan submitted by the state and
approved by EPA as well as any FIP promulgated by EPA to substitute for
a state plan disapproved by EPA or not submitted by a state.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 40 CFR 52.02(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1974, EPA disapproved each state's SIP with respect to PSD and
promulgated a FIP as a substitute for the SIP deficiency (``PSD
FIP'').\10\ In 1975, EPA codified the PSD FIP in each state's subpart
in 40 CFR part 52.\11\ In 1978 and 1980, EPA amended the PSD
regulations following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and related
court decisions and amended the codification of the PSD FIP in each
state's subpart, including 40 CFR 52.1485, accordingly.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 39 FR 42510, December 5, 1974.
    \11\ 40 FR 25004, June 12, 1975, adding 40 CFR 52.1485 to
Subpart DD--Nevada.
    \12\ 43 FR 26380, June 19, 1978 and 45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since then, EPA has approved the PSD SIP for the sources and
geographic area that lie within the jurisdiction of Clark County
Department of Air Quality (DAQ), and has delegated responsibility for
conducting PSD review, as per the PSD FIP, to NDEP and Washoe County.
Notwithstanding the delegation, however, the Nevada SIP remains
deficient with respect to PSD for the geographic areas and stationary
sources that lie within NDEP's and Washoe County's jurisdictions. As
such, EPA's disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submittals for those
elements that require states to have a SIP that includes a PSD permit
program, including CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and
(J), is appropriate because EPA disapproved the state's submitted plan
as not adequately addressing PSD program requirements. To conclude
otherwise would be inconsistent with the long-standing and current
disapproval of the SIP for PSD for the applicable areas, with the
statutory foundation upon which the PSD FIP is authorized, and with the
obligation under section 110(a) for each state to

adopt and submit a plan for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS that includes a PSD program. EPA's delegation
of the PSD FIP is not the same as state adoption and submittal of state
or district rules meeting PSD requirements and EPA's approval thereof.
    NDEP Comment 2: NDEP requested clarification regarding EPA's
``proposed partial disapproval,'' at 80 FR 28898, column 3, ``of the
interstate pollution transport portion'' of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
i.e. prongs 1 and 2. The commenter noted that EPA has proposed approval
of the transport analysis submitted for nitrogen dioxide, yet proposed
no action on the transport analysis for ozone and sulfur dioxide.
    Response: In section IV.A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals
of our proposal notice we accidentally identified prongs 1-2 as being
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), when in fact prongs 1-2 are sub-
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, a proposed partial
approval, partial disapproval for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is
correct as this sub-element relates to prongs 3 and 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). As our analysis makes clear in the TSD on pp. 21-22,
EPA proposed a partial approval, partial disapproval for prong 3 under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because NDEP and Washoe County do not have
SIP approved PSD programs. However, we acknowledge NDEP's point that we
proposed approval for prongs 1-2 for NO2, and proposed no
action on 2008 ozone or 2010 SO2 under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). We thank NDEP for identifying this typographical
error, and we have clarified it in the final rulemaking.

C. Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comments

    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 1: Sierra Club/Earthjustice
asserted that the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA,
and EPA regulations, at 40 CFR 51.112, requires that SIPs contain
emissions limits adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not
designated nonattainment. The legislative history of the CAA, case law,
EPA regulations such as 40 CFR 51.112(a), and EPA interpretations in
rulemakings require the inclusion of enforceable emission limits in an
infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated
nonattainment. The commenter argued that the Nevada 2008 ozone
infrastructure SIP submittal did not revise the existing ozone emission
limits in response to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and failed to comport with
asserted CAA requirements for SIPs to establish enforceable emission
limits that are adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not
designated nonattainment.
    The commenter believed that the main objective of the
infrastructure SIP process ``is to ensure that all areas of the country
meet the NAAQS,'' and that nonattainment areas are addressed through
nonattainment SIPs. The commenter maintained the NAAQS are the
foundation for specific emission limitations for most large stationary
sources, such as coal-fired power plants. The commenter stated its
belief that, pursuant to section 107(a), the states have primary
responsibility to maintain air quality through the controls and
programs contained in the state's infrastructure SIPs as required by
section 110(a)(2). The commenter also argued that, on its face, the CAA
requires infrastructure SIPs ``to be adequate to prevent exceedances of
the NAAQS,'' as provided in section 110(a)(1), which requires states to
adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS, and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires SIPs to
include enforceable emissions limitations necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA and which the commenter claimed also should
include the maintenance plan requirement. The commenter maintained the
CAA definition of emission limit, when combined with the provisions
stated above, requires ``enforceable emission limits on source
emissions sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.''
    Response: EPA disagrees that section 110 is clear ``on its face''
and must be interpreted in the manner suggested by Sierra Club/
Earthjustice. As we have previously explained in response to the
commenter's similar comments on Virginia's SO2
infrastructure SIP, section 110 is only one provision that is part of a
complex structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under
the CAA, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that
structure, but in the context of the historical evolution of the
Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and
Promulgations: Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 79 FR 17043
(March 27, 2014); Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 79
FR 62022 (October 16, 2014); and Final Approval of Illinois
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 79 FR 62042 (October
16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA interprets infrastructure SIPs as more general planning SIPs,
consistent with the CAA as understood in light of its history and
structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include
provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas as attainment or
nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the
state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and section 110 set
forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that
time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air
pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in
section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with a new NAAQS
within five years. Section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section
110 plan provide for ``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section
110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include ``emission
limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such
limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure
attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].''
    In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not
sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time,
Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA
to identify whether areas of a state were violating the NAAQS (i.e.,
were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment)
and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas
not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not
meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet
another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of
the NAAQS. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove
references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including
removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and
renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally,
Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to insure attainment
and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.''
Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since
it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 of the CAA did
provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and
specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS,
under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial
stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. More
detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive

planning process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS.
    Thus, EPA asserts that section 110 of the CAA is only one provision
that is part of the complicated structure governing implementation of
the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be
interpreted in the context of that structure and the historical
evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110
since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning
requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide for
``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the SIP
must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining
and/or maintaining the NAAQS. EPA has interpreted the requirement for
emission limitations in section 110 to mean that the state may rely on
measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new
control measures that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA
stated in the Infrastructure SIP Guidance which specifically provides
guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he
conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure
that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural
requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that
the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by making a
substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.'' 14 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See pages 1 and 2 of Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), September 2013.
    \15\ Thus, EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's general assertion
that the main objective of infrastructure SIPs is to ensure all
areas of the country meet the NAAQS, as we believe the
infrastructure SIP process is the opportunity to review the
structural requirements of a state's air program. EPA, however, does
agree with Sierra Club that the NAAQS are the foundation upon which
emission limitations are set, but we believe, as explained in
responses to other comments, that these emission limitations are
generally set in the attainment planning process envisioned by part
D of title I of the CAA, including, but not limited to, CAA sections
172 and 191-192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA addressed the adequacy of Nevada's infrastructure SIP for
section 110(a)(2)(A) purposes in the TSD accompanying the May 20, 2014
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and explained that the SIP includes
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures ``necessary
or appropriate to meet the requirements of this chapter.'' \16\ These
include permit requirements for major sources in attainment and
nonattainment areas and general permits for minor stationary
sources.\17\ As discussed in the TSD for this rulemaking, EPA finds the
provisions for ozone emission limitations and measures adequately
address section 110(a)(2)(A) to aid in attaining and/or maintaining the
NAAQS and finds that the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP has
demonstrated it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce the
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The TSD for this action (``Technical Support Document
Evaluation of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2'' May 2015) is available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0812-0038.
    \17\ See Table 3 of ``Technical Support Document Evaluation of
the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2'' May 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 2: The commenter claimed that two
excerpts from the legislative history of the 1970 CAA support an
interpretation that SIP revisions under CAA section 110 must include
emissions limitations sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in
all areas of Nevada. The commenter also claimed that the legislative
history of the CAA supports the interpretation that infrastructure SIPs
under section 110(a)(2) must include enforceable emission limitations,
citing the Senate Committee Report and the subsequent Senate Conference
Report accompanying the 1970 CAA.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters claim. As provided in
the previous response (Section C, response to Sierra Club/Earthjustice
Comment 1), the CAA, as enacted in 1970, including its legislative
history, cannot be interpreted in isolation from the later amendments
that refined that structure and deleted relevant language from section
110 concerning demonstrating attainment. In any event, the two excerpts
of legislative history the commenter cites provide that states should
include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs. As provided in the
response to Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 6 below, the TSD for the
proposed rule explains why the Nevada SIP includes enforceable
emissions limitations for ozone for the relevant area.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 3: The commenter referenced two
prior EPA rulemaking actions where EPA disapproved or proposed to
disapprove SIPs and claimed they were actions in which EPA relied on
section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs.
The commenter directed attention to a 2006 partial approval and partial
disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing plan addressing the
SO2 NAAQS. In that action, EPA relied on section
110(a)(2)(A) for disapproving an emission limit revision on the basis
that the State failed to demonstrate the SIP revision was sufficient to
ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS; EPA cited to 40 CFR
51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules in a SIP are
adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, the commenter cited a 2013
disapproval of a revision to the SO2 SIP for Indiana, where
the revision removed an emission limit that applied to a specific
emissions source at a facility in the State. See 78 FR 17157, 17158,
(March 20, 2013) (proposed rule on Indiana SO2 SIP) and 78
FR 78720, 78721 (December 27, 2013) (final rule on Indiana
SO2 SIP). The commenter believed that in the proposed
disapproval, EPA relied on 40 CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the
revision, stating that the State had not demonstrated that the emission
limit was ``redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not
result in or allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions.''
The commenter contended that EPA stated in that proposed disapproval
that the State had not demonstrated that removal of the limit would not
``affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing
attainment demonstration'' and asserted that outside of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction requirements, EPA's 2013 I-SIP guidance did
not discuss postponement of any I-SIP requirements.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions referenced
by Sierra Club/Earthjustice establish how EPA reviews infrastructure
SIPs. It is clear from both the final Missouri rule and the proposed
and final Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing initial
infrastructure SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA, but rather
reviewing revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent. EPA's partial
approval and partial disapproval of revisions to restrictions on
emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71 FR 12623
addressed a control strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP. The
Indiana action provides even less support for the commenter's position.
78 FR 78720. The review in that rule was of a completely different
requirement than the section 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. Rather, in that case,
the State had an approved SO2 attainment plan and was
seeking to remove provisions from the SIP that it relied on as part of
the modeled attainment demonstration. EPA proposed that the State had
failed to demonstrate under

section 110(l) of the CAA why the SIP revision would not result in
increased SO2 emissions and thus interfere with attainment
of the NAAQS. See 78 FR 17157. Nothing in that proposed or final
rulemaking addresses the necessary content of the initial
infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply
applying the clear statutory requirement that a state must demonstrate
why a revision to an approved attainment plan will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter includes a footnote explaining
that EPA's infrastructure SIP guidance inappropriately postpones start-
up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements, offering no support
for departing from the plain text of EPA's regulations and past
practices.
    The guidance states, ``two elements that could not be governed by
the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) . . . the following
elements are considered by the EPA to be outside the scope of
infrastructure SIP actions: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that
it refers to permit programs (known as ``nonattainment new source
review'') under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety,
which addresses SIP revisions for nonattainment areas. Both these
elements pertain to SIP revisions that collectively are referred to as
a nonattainment SIP or an attainment plan, which would be due by the
dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D,
extending as far as 10 years following area designations for some
elements. Because the CAA directs states to submit these plan elements
on a separate schedule, the EPA does not believe it is necessary for
states to include these elements in the infrastructure SIP submission
due 3 years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS.''
    As discussed in detail in the TSD and NPR, EPA finds the Nevada SIP
meets the appropriate and relevant structural requirements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the
NAAQS and that the State demonstrated that it has the necessary tools
to implement and enforce a NAAQS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA will take a separate action on CAA (a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Nevada ozone infrastructure SIP (i.e. the Good Neighbor SIP
provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 4: The commenter discussed several
cases applying the CAA which they claimed support their contention that
courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable
emissions limits in infrastructure SIPs to prevent exceedances of the
NAAQS. The commenter cited to language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60,
78 (1975), addressing the requirement for ``emission limitations'' and
stating that emission limitations ``are specific rules to which
operators of pollution sources are subject, and which, if enforced,
should result in ambient air which meet the national standards.'' The
commenter also cited to Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA,
932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the proposition that the CAA
directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP where it does not ensure
maintenance of the NAAQS, and to Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547
F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the
CAA of 1970. The commenter contends that the 1990 Amendments do not
alter how courts have interpreted the requirements of section 110,
quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470
(2004), which in turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also
stated that ``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified''
to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter also quotes several
additional opinions that purportedly stand for similar propositions:
Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012)
(``The Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans--
SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of [NAAQS] through
enforceable emissions limitations''); Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1153
(9th Cir. 2001) (``Each State must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the
manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained within each air
quality control region in the State''); Conn. Fund for Env't, Inc. v.
EPA, 696 F.2d 169, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (CAA requires SIPs to contain
``measures necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS'');
Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000)
(EPA may not approve a SIP revision that does not demonstrate how the
rules would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS). The commenter also cites Comm. For a Better Arvin v. EPA,
No.11-73924, at*3-4 (9th Cir. May 20, 2015) as supporting their
contention that the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
infrastructure SIPs to include enforceable emissions limits on sources
sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. None of the cited
cases hold that section 110(a)(2)(A) unambiguously requires
infrastructure SIPs to include detailed plans providing for attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they
shed light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted.
With the exception of Train, none of the cases the commenter cites
concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section
110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the courts reference section
110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the
background sections of decisions in the context of either (1) a
challenge to an EPA action on revisions to a SIP that were required and
approved as meeting other provisions of the CAA, or (2) an enforcement
action.
    In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was addressing a state revision to
an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
the sole statutory provision at that time regulating such submissions.
The issue in that case concerned whether changes to requirements
occurring before attainment deadlines were variances (which would be
addressed pursuant to the provision governing SIP revisions) or
``postponements'' (which would have to meet the prescriptive criteria
of section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970). The Court concluded that EPA
reasonably interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict a state's choice
of the mix of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that
revisions to SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the
attainment date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). The
issue was not whether a section 110 SIP must provide for attainment or
whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the
issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to
revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in
the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be
interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion
was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section
110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS,
a reference that was removed in 1990.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also
decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was
whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps.
The Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that
provision. Yet, even if the Court had interpreted that provision, EPA
notes

that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has
little bearing on the issue here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of
``emissions limitation,'' not whether section 110 requires the state to
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the
NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the
opinion the commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). Sierra Club/Earthjustice does not raise
any concerns about whether the measures relied on by the Commonwealth
in the infrastructure SIP are ``emissions limitations'' and the
decision in this case has no bearing here.
    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the Court was
reviewing a federal implementation plan (FIP) that EPA promulgated
after a long history of the state failing to submit an adequate SIP in
response to EPA's finding under section 110(k)(5) that the previously
approved SIP was substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the
NAAQS, which triggered the state's duty to submit a new SIP to show how
it would remedy that deficiency and attain the NAAQS. The Court cited
generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the
proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS
through emission limitations, but this language was not part of the
Court's holding in the case, which focused instead on whether EPA's
finding of SIP inadequacy, disapproval of the state's responsive
attainment demonstration, and adoption of a remedial FIP were lawful.
The commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 540
U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments do
not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is inaccurate.
Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted
previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision and the
court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore, Sierra
Club/Earthjustice also quotes the Court's statement that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified,'' but that statement
specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which
requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the
modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that
case was the state's ``new source'' permitting program, not its
infrastructure SIP.
    Two of the cases Sierra Club/Earthjustice cites, Mich. Dept. of
Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret CAA
section 110(l), the provision governing ``revisions'' to plans, and not
the initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a
new or revised NAAQS, such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in this
instance. In those cases, the courts cited to section 110(a)(2)(A)
solely for the purpose of providing a brief background of the CAA.
    In Conn. Fund for Env't, Inc. v. EPA, the Second Circuit was
reviewing EPA action on a control measure SIP provision that adjusted
the percent of sulfur permissible in fuel oil. 696 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir.
1982). The Second Circuit denied a petition for review concerning
whether EPA needed to evaluate effects of the SIP revision on one
pollutant or effects of changes on all possible pollutants. The Second
Circuit did not address required measures for infrastructure SIPs and
nothing in the opinion addressed whether infrastructure SIPs needed to
contain measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
court did note, however, that, ``the need for flexibility in the
administration of the [CAA] . . . should not be underestimated,'' and
highlighted the court's past practice of being ``careful to defer to
EPA's choice of methods to carry out its `difficult and complex job' as
long as that choice is reasonable and consistent with the Act.'' Id. at
173-74 (quoting Conn. Fund for the Env't v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998, 1006 (2d
Cir. 1982). Here, section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to
require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their
planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that
they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the
state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement
plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
    Finally, in Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA, the Petitioner
challenged California's plans to improve air quality in the San Joaquin
Valley. At issue was whether EPA erred in approving the state's SIP to
comply with the NAAQS under section 109 concerning ozone and fine
particulate matter. The court held that by approving the state's plans,
even though the plans did not include the state-adopted mobile
emissions standards on which those plans rely to achieve their
emissions reductions goals, EPA violated the CAA. However, the court
found that EPA did not violate the CAA by not requiring inclusion of
other state mechanisms in its plans, and that other control measures
approved by EPA are enforceable commitments as the CAA requires. While
the court cited to section 110(a)(2)(A) for the proposition that SIPs
generally should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through
emission limitations, such language was not dispositive as to whether
or not infrastructure SIPs specifically must include enforceable limits
on sources sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. To the contrary, the CAA
provides states and EPA with other tools to address concerns that arise
with respect to purported violations of the NAAQS in a designated
attainment area, such as the authority to redesignate areas pursuant to
section 107(d)(3), the authority to issue a ``SIP Call'' pursuant to
section 110(k)(5), or the general authority to approve SIP revisions
that can address violations of the NAAQS through other appropriate
measures.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 5: The commenter cited to 40 CFR
51.112(a), providing that ``[e]ach plan must demonstrate that the
measures, rules and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide
for the timely attainment and maintenance of the [NAAQS]'' and asserted
that this regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits
necessary to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter stated their
belief that ``[a]lthough these regulations were developed before the
Clean Air Act separated infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs--a
process that began with the 1977 amendments and was completed by the
1990 amendments--the regulations apply to I-SIPs.'' Finally, the
commenter stated that EPA has not changed the regulation since 1990,
and that in the preamble to the final rule promulgating 40 CFR 51.112,
EPA expressly identified that its new regulations were not implementing
Subpart D. See Air Quality Implementation Plans; Restructuring SIP
Preparation Regulations, 51 FR 40,656, 40,656 (Nov. 7, 1986) (``It is
beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part
D of the Act. . . .''). The commenter thus concludes that 40 CFR 51.112
was intended to apply to infrastructure SIPs.
    Response: The commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its
argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits
``adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances'' and adequate or sufficient
to ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial
matter, EPA notes and the commenter recognizes this regulatory
provision was initially promulgated and ``restructured and
consolidated'' prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress
removed all references to ``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A).

And, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans
specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these
provisions to apply when states are developing ``control strategy''
SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required
under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in
1990, such as sections 175A and 191-192. The commenter suggests that
these provisions must apply to section 110 SIPs because in the preamble
to EPA's action ``restructuring and consolidating'' provisions in part
51, EPA stated that the new attainment demonstration provisions in the
1977 Amendments to the CAA were ``beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking.
It is important to note, however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to
establish new substantive planning requirements, but rather was meant
merely to consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously
been promulgated. EPA noted that it had already issued guidance
addressing the new ``Part D'' attainment planning obligations. Also, as
to maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making
any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. 51 FR 40657.
    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy:
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC,
OX and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration
of attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 6: Citing section 110(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA, the commenter contends that EPA failed to meaningfully
evaluate whether the emissions limitations and other control measures
are adequate to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in EPA's
proposed approval of the Clark County Infrastructure SIP. The commenter
further contends that ``nearly all of the legal authorities . . .
pertain only to new or additional sources . . . (and) would do nothing
to reduce existing sources.''
    Response: EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA is
reasonably interpreted to require states to submit infrastructure SIPs
that reflect the first step in their planning for attainment and
maintenance of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP revisions should
contain a demonstration that the state has the available tools and
authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the
NAAQS and show that the SIP has enforceable control measures. In light
of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding
infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure
that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a
NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state. As mentioned
above, EPA has interpreted this to mean, with regard to the requirement
for emission limitations, that states may rely on measures already in
place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures
that the state may choose to submit.
    As stated in response to Sierra Club/Earthjustice's Comment 5,
section 110 of the CAA is merely one provision within the complex,
post-1990 regulatory structure governing implementation of the NAAQS,
and must be interpreted in the context of that regulatory structure as
well as the Act's historical evolution. In light of the revisions to
section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific
planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide
for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the
SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining
and/or maintaining the NAAQS, and that the state demonstrate that it
has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS (e.g.,
adequate state personnel and an enforcement program). As discussed
above, EPA has interpreted the requirement for emission limitations in
section 110 to mean that the state may rely on measures already in
place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures
that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA stated in the
Infrastructure SIP Guidance which specifically provides guidance to
states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he conceptual
purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air
agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new
or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains
the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to
update the SIP, or both.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),
September 2013 at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the proper inquiry is whether Nevada, including
Clark County, has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate
at the point in time EPA is acting upon the infrastructure submittal.
Emissions limitations and other control measures needed to attain the
NAAQS in areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS are due on a
different schedule from the section 110 infrastructure elements. A
state, like Nevada, may reference pre-existing SIP emission limits or
other rules contained in part D plans for previous NAAQS in an
infrastructure SIP submission. For example, NDEP and Clark County
submitted a list of existing emission reduction measures in the SIP
that control emissions of ozone, which are included in the discussion
of Element A of the TSD supporting the NPRM. These provisions have the
ability to reduce ozone overall. We mention both NDEP and Clark County
because they both regulate facilities within Clark County. As mentioned
in the TSD supporting the NPRM, NDEP has the sole authority to regulate
facilities that generate energy from steam boilers burning fossil
fuels. Fuel combustion is the second largest source of NOX
emissions (16%) after (primarily EPA regulated) mobile sources (82%).
Some of the largest stationary source emitters of NOX in
Clark County, such as the Reid Gardner Generating Station, are
regulated by NDEP.
    While NOX emissions are regulated at the federal, state
and local level, the commenter specifically raised concerns with Clark
County's legal authorities. EPA disagrees that Clark County legal
authorities only pertain to new or additional sources. The County's
permitting programs and regulatory controls also apply to existing
facilities. We acknowledge that the Clark County portion of the ozone
SIP submittal does not propose new regulations for the Nevada SIP that
would reduce emissions from existing sources, such as those commonly
included in an attainment SIP, but that does not mean that existing
sources are not regulated at the state and local level.
    EPA believes it is not appropriate to bypass the attainment
planning process by imposing separate attainment planning process
requirements outside the attainment planning process and into the
infrastructure SIP process. Such

actions would be disruptive and premature absent exceptional
circumstances and would interfere with a state's planning process. See
In the Matter of EME Homer City Generation LP and First Energy
Generation Corp., Order on Petitions Numbers III-2012-06, III-2012-07,
and III2013-01 (July 30, 2014) (hereafter, Homer City/Mansfield Order)
at 10-19 (finding that the Pennsylvania SIP did not require imposition
of SO2 emission limits on sources independent of the part D
attainment planning process contemplated by the CAA). EPA believes that
the history of the CAA, and intent of Congress for the CAA as described
above, demonstrate clearly that it is within the section 172 and
general part D attainment planning process that Nevada must include
additional limits on ozone precursor emissions in order to demonstrate
future attainment, where needed, for any areas in Nevada or other
states that may be designated nonattainment in the future, in order to
reach attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA does not agree with the commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112
to support its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission
limits adequate to provide for timely attainment and maintenance of the
standard. As explained previously in response to Sierra Club/
Earthjustice Comment 5, EPA notes this regulatory provision clearly on
its face applies to plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS and
not to infrastructure SIPs which show the states have in place
structural requirements necessary to implement the NAAQS. Therefore,
EPA finds 40 CFR 51.112 inapplicable to its analysis of the Nevada
ozone infrastructure SIP.
    Sierra Club/Earthjustice Comment 7: The commenter expressed concern
that the design values for the Clark County air quality monitors
exceeded the ozone NAAQS, yet the area remained designated attainment/
unclassifiable. The commenter also referenced a Sierra Club petition,
denied by EPA, to redesignate Clark County and other areas to
nonattainment \20\ and asserted that ``design values for monitors in
Clark County have exceeded the 2008 0.075 ppm standard for every three-
year period since 2001-2003 with the lone exception of 2009-2011.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Petition to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to Redesignate as Nonattainment 57 Areas with 2012
Design Values Violating the 2008 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone (Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0563, and included in
the docket for this rulemaking)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA's decision not to redesignate the areas identified in
the Sierra Club's petition involved many factors, which we discuss in
the next paragraph, including: the role of the declining national
NOX and VOC emissions, particularly from mobile sources,
which are primarily regulated by EPA; the limited planning requirements
associated with marginal nonattainment areas; the development of
collaborative strategies to bring newly violating areas back into
compliance as soon as possible; and the fluctuation of ozone levels
with varying weather conditions.\21\ We will discuss the factors
mentioned in EPA's response to the Sierra Club's redesignation petition
(for 57 areas in the U.S.), specifically for Clark County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In addition to the factors discussed above, EPA's response
to the petition, a letter from Gina McCarthy to Seth Johnson, Sierra
Club, dated August 14, 2014 (included in the docket for this
rulemaking), also states that 22 of the 57 areas were again
attaining the ozone NAAQS based on their 2013 design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our response to Sierra Club's petition explained, ``emissions of
NOX in the U.S. are expected to decline by 29% from 2011
through 2018, even when accounting for increases in some sectors, such
as the oil and gas industry.'' NOX emissions from on-road
mobile sources, locomotives, and non-road engines are expected to
comprise more than 90% of the reductions. The air quality of Clark
County stands to benefit even more than the rest of the country on a
relative basis, because mobile sources represent 82% of NOX
sources within Clark County, but only 58% nationally.\22\ Our letter
also noted 10% declining VOC emissions from 2011 to 2018, nearly all of
which resulted from on-road and off-road engine rules.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Nevada NOX emissions by category (e.g. mobile
sources, point sources) can be found at http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.state_1.sas&pol=NOX&stfips=32.
    \23\ EPA's August 14, 2014 letter to the Sierra Club also
discussed increases in NOX and VOC emissions from the oil
and gas sector but did not discuss the impact of biogenic VOC
emissions, which are likely to remain constant. (EPA's letter is
available in the docket for EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0563 at http://www.regulations.gov/.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Clark County's remaining sources of NOX emissions,
nearly 18% of the total NOX emissions for the 2011 Emissions
Inventory, more than 33% (3,066 tons) were generated by a single
facility, the Reid Gardner Generating Station,\24\ though Clark County
states this figure had dropped to 1,848 tons by 2013.\25\ As we
explained in the TSD for our proposed rulemaking, Reid Gardner retired
three of four coal-fired boilers at the end of 2014. The fourth unit
will be closed in 2017. Senate Bill 123, the Nevada law that required
the early retirement of 557 megawatts (MW) of electrical generating
capacity at Reid Gardner, allows for the replacement of these units
with substantially cleaner burning natural gas-fired boilers (500-550
MW) and renewable generating capacity (150 MW). The cleaner burning
facility at Reid Gardner should provide substantial air quality
benefits for Clark County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Based on an emissions query of EPA's Air Markets Division
Database (for the year 2011) at http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/, accessed
on July 15, 2015.
    \25\ Clark County Ozone Advance Submission, submitted to Ms.
Laura Bunte, from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County
Department of Air Quality, at pp. 2-4, June 23, 2014, available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clark County has joined EPA's voluntary Ozone Advance Program, a
collaborative effort between EPA, states, tribes, and local
governments. It encourages proactive efforts to improve air quality
that could better position areas to stay in attainment. The docket for
this rulemaking includes Clark County's 2014 and 2015 submittals for
the program.\26\ These documents acknowledge, as the comments note,
increasing design values of the network monitoring system. The
documents also discuss the use of grants from the (federal) Department
of Transportation's Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality Incentive
Program, non-regulatory measures to improve air quality, and the
previously mentioned reductions at the Reid Gardner Generating Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ (1) Clark County Department of Air Quality, Ozone Advance
Program, Path Forward, June 2014 and (2) Clark County Department of
Air Quality, Ozone Advance Program, Progress Report, June 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter is correct in stating that Clark County's design
value appears to have increased in the years following the county's
designation as an attainment area (which had been based on 2009-2011
data forming the 2011 design value). However, as we have noted,
NO2 and VOC estimated emissions are declining within Clark
County. Additionally, ozone is not dependent solely on the emission of
precursors.\27\ Variations in weather

conditions play an important role in determining ozone levels and thus
design values can fluctuate from year to year, which EPA also noted in
our response to the Sierra Club's petition for redesignation. Recent
EPA modeling, which included Clark County, estimated a 2017 Clark
County ozone maximum design value of 72.8 parts per billion (or 0.0728
parts per million (ppm)), below the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA notes that two monitors identified by the commenter
(Spring Mountain Youth Camp monitor (AQS ID 32-003-7771) and Las
Vegas Paiute Tribal monitor (AQS ID 32-003-8000)) are considered
non-regulatory and not comparable to the NAAQS. The Spring Mountain
monitor is not operated per FEM specifications and cannot be
considered a State/Local Air Monitoring Station and therefore, the
collected data, while usable for research purposes, is not
comparable to the NAAQS. Similarly, The Las Vegas Paiute Tribal
monitor is designated as non-regulatory monitor operated for
informational purposes only.
    \28\ 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) also at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ozonetransportNAAQS.html, Design Values listed in Ozone
Design Values_Transport NODA.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and
rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSDs, and this
final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part Nevada's
Infrastructure Submittal for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS. We are also taking final action on other
regulatory changes discussed in our proposed rule. In the following
subsections, we list the elements for which we are finalizing
Infrastructure SIP approval or disapproval and provide a summary of the
basis for those elements that are partially disapproved. We also
describe the consequences of our disapprovals and discuss finalizing
the other regulatory changes in our proposed rule.

A. Summary of Infrastructure SIP Approvals and Partial Approvals

    EPA is approving Nevada's Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Ozone,
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS with respect to the
following requirements:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new stationary sources (full approval for
Clark County).
     110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution
Transport.
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (in part)--significant contribution to
nonattainment, or prongs 1 and 2 (full approval of NDEP, Clark County
and Washoe County for the NO2 NAAQS).
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)--interstate transport--
prevention of significant deterioration, or prong 3 (full approval for
Clark County).
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (full approval)--visibility transport,
or prong 4.
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution abatement
and international air pollution (full approval for Clark County).
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection (full approval for Clark
County).
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of
modeling data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
EPA is taking no action on Interstate Transport--significant
contribution to nonattainment for NDEP, Clark County and Washoe County
on the Ozone and SO2 NAAQS [Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)].

B. Summary of Infrastructure SIP Partial Disapprovals

    EPA is disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure Submittal with respect
to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources
(disapproved for all NAAQS addressed by this rule and covered by the
NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting programs).
     110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution
Transport.
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part): interstate transport--
prevention of significant deterioration, or prong 3 (disapproval for
all NAAQS addressed by this rule and covered by the NDEP and Washoe
County PSD permitting programs).
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution abatement
and international air pollution (disapproved for all NAAQS addressed by
this rule and covered by the NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting
programs).
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection
(disapproval for all NAAQS addressed by this rule and covered by the
NDEP and Washoe County PSD permitting programs).
    As explained in our proposed rule, TSD, and section II of this
final rule, we are disapproving Nevada's Infrastructure Submittal for
the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP with respect to the PSD-
related requirements of CAA 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
implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated new
source review (NSR) pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with
EPA.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 40 CFR 52.1485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consequences of Partial Disapprovals

    EPA takes disapproval of a state plan seriously. 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 in accordance with its obligations
under section 110(k). Further, EPA's oversight role requires that it
assure consistent implementation of Clean Air Act requirements by
states across the country, even while acknowledging that individual
decisions from source to source or state to state may not have
identical outcomes. EPA believes these disapprovals are the only path
that is consistent with the Act at this time.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittals were
not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, our
partial disapproval of Nevada's Infrastructure Submittals does 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 SIP 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 final rule and in our TSD, we are finalizing several partial
disapprovals. These disapprovals do not result in new FIP obligations,
because EPA has already promulgated FIPs to address the identified
deficiencies.

D. Summary of Other Regulatory Actions

    EPA is finalizing the other regulatory actions discussed in the
proposed rule: Defining the term Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region; reclassifying the Nevada Intrastate and Las Vegas Intrastate
Air Quality Control Regions from priority IA to priority III for
emergency episodes; removing historic language from the Nevada SIP,
which refers to a facility no longer in existence.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP revisions
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply approves certain State
requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for
inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose
any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP
approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-
and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain
State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements,
for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for
EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of
the rule. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the partial approval and partial
disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
action approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves
certain other pre-existing requirements, under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves certain
State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements,
for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. In addition, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In
those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This partial approval and partial disapproval
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and
disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on December 3, 2015.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur
dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, air pollution control, incorporation by
reference, Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
    Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. In Sec.  52.1470, paragraph (e), the table is amended by adding four
entries after the entry for ``Small Business Stationary Source
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Applicable
                               geographic or        State
    Name of SIP provision      nonattainment   submittal date          EPA Approval date           Explanation
                                    area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.   State-wide.....      12/20/2012  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
  110(a)(1) and (2) State                                       citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
 Implementation Plan for the                                                                      NDEP, Clark
 2008 ozone NAAQS, excluding                                                                      County and
 appendices A-F for NDEP;                                                                         Washoe County
 excluding the cover letter                                                                       for the 2008 8-
 to NDEP and attachments A                                                                        hour ozone
 and B for Clark County; and                                                                      standard.
 excluding the cover letter
 to NDEP and Attachments A
 and B for Washoe County.

Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.   NDEP                  1/18/2013  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
  110(a)(1) and (2) State      jurisdiction                     citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
 Implementation Plan for the   and Clark                                                          NDEP and Clark
 2010 nitrogen dioxide         County.                                                            County for the
 NAAQS, excluding appendices                                                                      2010 1-hour
 A-G for NDEP; excluding the                                                                      nitrogen
 cover letter to NDEP and                                                                         dioxide
 attachments A-C for Clark                                                                        standard.
 County; and excluding the
 cover letter to NDEP,
 Washoe County portion of
 Nevada's State
 Implementation Plan for the
 2010 nitrogen dioxide
 NAAQS, and attachments A
 and B for Washoe County.
Washoe County Portion of      Washoe County..       3/15/2013  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
 Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.                                    citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
   110(a)(1) and (2) State                                                                        Washoe County
 Implementation Plan for the                                                                      for the 2010 1-
 2010 nitrogen dioxide                                                                            hour nitrogen
 NAAQS, excluding cover                                                                           dioxide
 letter to NDEP and                                                                               standard.
 attachments A-B.
Nevada's Clean Air Act Sec.   State-wide.....        6/3/2013  [Insert Federal Register          ``Infrastructur
  110(a)(1) and (2) State                                       citation] 11/3/2015.              e'' SIP for
 Implementation Plan for the                                                                      NDEP, Clark
 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS,                                                                       County and
 excluding the cover letter                                                                       Washoe County
 and appendices A-E for                                                                           for the 2010 1-
 NDEP; excluding the cover                                                                        hour sulfur
 letter to NDEP and                                                                               dioxide
 attachments A-C for Clark                                                                        standard.
 County; and excluding the
 cover letter to NDEP,
 attachments A-C, and public
 notice information for
 Washoe County.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1471 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1471  Classification of regions.

    The Nevada plan is evaluated on the basis of the following
classifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pollutant
     Air quality control region     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Particulate matter         Sulfur oxides         Nitrogen dioxide       Carbon monoxide             Ozone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Intrastate...............  I.....................  III...................  III..................  I....................  I
Northwest Nevada Intrastate........  I.....................  III...................  III..................  III..................  III
Nevada Intrastate..................  IA....................  III...................  III..................  III..................  III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
4. Section 52.1472 is amended by adding paragraphs (h),(i) and (j) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1472  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (h) 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on December 20,
2012 are partially disapproved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of
the Nevada SIP; no action is taken for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    (i) 2008 1-hour nitrogen dioxide NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on
January 18, 2013 are partially disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the Nevada
Division of Environmental Quality (NDEP) and Washoe County portions of
the Nevada SIP.
    (j) 2008 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on
June 3, 2013 are disapproved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), and (J) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada
SIP; no action is taken for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) .

Sec.  52.1475  [Removed and Reserved]

0
5. Section 52.1475 is removed and reserved.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
6. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Designation of Air Quality Control Regions

0
7. Section 81.276 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  81.276  Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

    The Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region consists of the
territorial area encompassed by the boundaries of the following
jurisdictions or described area (including the territorial area of all
municipalities (as defined in section 302(f) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 1857h(f)) geographically located within the outermost boundaries
of the area so delimited):
    In the State of Nevada: Churchill County, Elko County, Esmeralda
County, Eureka County, Humboldt County, Lander County, Lincoln County,
Mineral County, Nye County, Pershing County, and White Pine County.

[FR Doc. 2015-27029 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


HOME MANUFACTURER

                   OMB Control No. xxxx-xxxx

Company																												Contact																				Home
serial number

Address																												City										State			Zip
Telephone

Instructions for manufacturer's field representative:

1. Fill in retailer and homeowner contact information.

2. Verify that all ENERGY STAR CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS listed below
have been successfully completed.

3. Confirm that the blue EPA ENERGY STAR label and gray quality
assurance (QA) label are affixed to the home (near the HUD data plate or
the main electrical panel).

4. When all ENERGY STAR construction requirements have been successfully
completed:

• Sign and date this form.

• Sign and date the QA label.

• Promptly return this completed form to the manufacturer.

If there are any discrepancies, contact the manufacturer immediately.

RETAILER*

Company																												Contact																				Email
address

Address																												City										State			Zip
Telephone

HOMEOWNER*

Name																																																					Telephone

Address																												City										State			Zip
County

ENERGY STAR CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

A. Marriage Line Seal

The marriage line areas must be filled with a continuous non-porous
insulating gasket creating a permanent air barrier at joints in the
ceiling, walls and floor. Acceptable gaskets can be one or two-part
systems, including proprietary gaskets, foams, insulation wrapped in
poly, and insulation covered by butyl or other long-life tape on one
side. In addition, there must be no visible signs of gaps or tears.

B. Tears in Bottom Board Material Repaired

All tears in the bottom board material must be covered and sealed with a
durable, permanent patch to prevent air leakage. (Foam sealant can be
used on lag bolt and other small holes.)

C. Exterior (Including Crossover) Duct Installation

For multi-section homes, the exterior ducts must be sealed with a
permanent connection per the Manufacturer's Installation Manual.
Identify that the following items are completed:

All exterior ducts have been installed and wrapped with insulation.

Crossover collar is secured to the trunk with at least three screws and
cannot rotate or move.

All exterior duct insulation is a minimum of R-_______.

Nylon or metal straps and saddles are used to support the exterior duct;
duct does not touch the ground.

Three or more screws are placed below the straps through the flexible
duct and into the crossover collar.

Exterior duct insulation is pushed into the floor cavity and sealed with
tape or foam sealant at all bottom board penetrations.

D. Field Installed Heat Pump

Heating equipment efficiency meets or exceeds the following
specification: HSPF-_______.

E. For Homes Installed Over Basements (One of the following must be
checked)

This home has an UNHEATED BASEMENT. All interior stairwells from the
heated space into the basement are constructed in the same manner as an
exterior wall with full insulation and a weather-stripped, insulated
exterior door.

This home has a HEATED BASEMENT. The basement wall insulation level is a
minimum of: R-_______.

Signature (Manufacturer's Representative) 											Print Name
									Date

Fax this completed form to 				 or mail to the home manufacturer at the
address above.

Fax Number

* The retailer and/or homeowner may be contacted as part of the ENERGY
STAR for Homes quality assurance program.

EPA Form 5900-172

The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form
is 0.25 hours and welcomes suggestions for reducing this effort. Send
comments (referencing OMB Control Number) to the Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.

Site Installation Checklist

for ENERGY STAR® Qualified Manufactured Homes