[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63188-63192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30097]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[NV 063-Pt70; FRL-7113-8]


Clean Air Act Full Approval of Title V Operating Permits 
Programs; Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, Washoe 
County District Health Department, and Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection, Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to fully approve the operating 
permits program of the Clark County Department of Air Quality 
Management (``Clark County''), the Washoe County District Health 
Department (``Washoe County''), and the Nevada Division of 
Environmental Protection (``NDEP''). These three programs were 
submitted in response to the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) 
Amendments that permitting authorities develop, and submit to EPA, 
programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources 
and to certain other sources within the permitting authorities' 
jurisdiction. EPA granted interim approval to Clark County's operating 
permits program on July 13, 1995, to Washoe County's program on January 
5, 1995, and to NDEP's program on December 12, 1995. All three 
permitting agencies revised their programs to satisfy the conditions of 
interim approval, and EPA proposed full approval in the Federal 
Register on October 10, 2001. EPA received comments on our proposed 
approval of Clark County's program from Mr. Robert Hall of the Nevada 
Environmental Coalition, and on our proposed approval of NDEP's program 
from NDEP. After carefully reviewing and considering the issues raised 
by the commenters, EPA is taking final action to give full approval to 
the Clark County and NDEP operating permits programs. EPA received no 
comments on our proposed approval of the Washoe County program and we 
are also granting full approval to that program in today's action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the three program submittals and other supporting 
information used in developing this final full approval, including the 
two comment letters on our proposed approval, are available for 
inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Albright, EPA Region 9, at 415-
972-3971 or at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section contains additional information 
about our final rulemaking, organized as follows:

I. Background on the Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP operating 
permits programs
II. Comments received by EPA on our proposed rulemaking and EPA's 
responses
III. EPA's final action
    A. Full Approval of the Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP 
Operating Permit Programs
    B. Effective date of EPA's full approval
    C. The scope of EPA's full approval
    D. Citizen comment letters

I. Background on the Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP 
Operating Permits Programs

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 required all state and 
local permitting authorities to develop operating permits programs that 
meet certain federal criteria. Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP 
submitted their operating permits programs in response to this 
directive. Because the Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP programs 
substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA 
granted interim approval to each program in three separate rulemakings, 
published on July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36070), January 5, 1995 (60 FR 1741), 
and December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63631), respectively. Each interim 
approval notice described the conditions that had to be met in order 
for the programs to receive full approval.
    After Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP revised their programs 
to address the conditions of interim approval, EPA proposed to approve 
all three title V operating permits programs on October 10, 2001 (66 FR 
51620).

II. Comments Received by EPA on Our Proposed Rulemaking and EPA's 
Responses

    EPA received two comment letters during the public comment period. 
Mr. Robert Hall, Nevada Environmental Coalition, submitted a letter on 
November 9, 2001 commenting on our proposed approval of the Clark 
County program and NDEP submitted a letter on November 9, 2001 
commenting on our proposed approval of the Nevada program. Copies of 
these letters are

[[Page 63189]]

included in the docket for this rulemaking maintained at the EPA Region 
9 office.

A. Letter From Mr. Robert Hall, Nevada Environmental Coalition (NEC) 
Dated November 9, 2001

    Mr. Hall, president of the NEC, raised numerous issues in his 
comment letter with respect to DAQM's implementation of the Clean Air 
Act. EPA responds below to those comments that are germane to EPA's 
proposal on October 10, 2001, to approve the Clark County DAQM 
operating permits program based upon the specific revisions made to the 
Clark County program addressing their interim approval deficiencies. 
However, many of Mr. Hall's comments relate to non-title V air 
permitting issues or to title V program issues that were not the 
subject of EPA's proposed action. Both categories of comments are 
beyond the scope of EPA's proposed action, which pertained specifically 
to whether Clark County had corrected the issues identified as 
deficiencies when EPA granted the program interim approval. In this 
notice, EPA is not responding to comments submitted by Mr. Hall that 
are beyond the scope of our present rulemaking. Nevertheless, many of 
the concerns raised by Mr. Hall are similar to issues that he raised in 
his comment letter submitted in response to EPA's 90-day public comment 
period that provided members of the public an opportunity to identify 
and bring to EPA's attention alleged programmatic and/or implementation 
deficiencies in title V programs. (65 FR 77376, December 11, 2000) The 
90-day comment period was made available as part of EPA's settlement of 
a lawsuit over EPA's extension of all title V operating permits program 
interim approvals. As described in section III.D of this notice, EPA 
expects to respond in writing to Mr. Hall's earlier comments by 
December 14, 2001.
    Set out below are the relevant issues raised by Mr. Hall in his 
comment letter and EPA's responses to the issues.
1. Program Submittal by the Clark County Department of Air Quality 
Management
    Mr. Hall argues that because the title V program interim approval 
was originally granted to the Clark County Health District and 
revisions to the interim approved program were submitted by the Health 
District, EPA cannot grant full approval of the title V program to the 
Clark County Department of Air Quality Management. Mr. Hall contends 
that the Clark County program submittal is legally insufficient unless 
the revised program is re-written and re-submitted in the name of the 
Clark County Department of Air Quality Management.
    As EPA noted in our proposed approval of the Clark County title V 
program (66 FR 51620, October 10, 2001), on August 7, 2001, the 
Governor of Nevada officially transferred responsibility for air 
quality management in Clark County from the County's Health District to 
the newly created Department of Air Quality Management, overseen by the 
Board of County Commissioners of Clark County. In a letter dated June 
21, 2001 to the Clark County Commission, Governor Guinn designates 
``the Board of County Commissioners as the regulatory, enforcement and 
permitting authority for implementing applicable provisions of the 
federal Clean Air Act, any amendments to that Act, and any regulations 
adopted pursuant to that Act within Clark County.'' The change is 
essentially a shift in the organizational location of the County's air 
quality management program and all rules, regulations, and policies of 
the Health District that comprise Clark County's title V operating 
permits program were carried over to the new Department, pursuant to 
the Governor's designation.
    In addition, the revised Clark County title V operating permits 
program was submitted by Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada 
Division of Environmental Protection, on behalf of Nevada Governor 
Kenny C. Guinn, as his appointed designee. Thus, the commenter's 
suggestion that the revised Clark County program submittal was made by 
an entity lacking the necessary legal authority under part 70 is 
clearly not the case. Moreover, DAQM has assured EPA that it assumes 
all air quality management commitments made by the County's Health 
District. For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate that full 
title V program approval is granted to the Clark County Department of 
Air Quality Management.
2. Clark County Regulations Are Not SIP-Approved
    Mr. Hall also comments that the applicant submitted, as part of its 
revised title V operating permits program, local regulations that are 
not approved into the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP), and that 
the submittal should have contained only rules that are SIP-approved. 
The commenter also claims that the applicant does not identify the 
versions (by date of adoption) of the rules submitted.
    The rules revised by Clark County to address interim approval 
deficiencies are Sections 0 (``Definitions'') and 19 (``Part 70 
Operating Permits''). Mr. Hall is correct that neither of these two 
rules are currently SIP-approved. However, Mr. Hall is mistaken in his 
belief that the rules constituting an agency's title V operating 
permits program need to be approved into the SIP. The establishment of 
operating permits programs is separate and distinct from the state 
implementation plan process. The statutory requirements for operating 
permit programs are contained in title V of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7661-
7661f), whereas the statutory requirements for state implementation 
plans are contained in title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7410). Nothing in 
the Act requires the local regulations relied upon by agencies for 
establishing permitting programs under title V of the Act to be 
incorporated into the state implementation plans required under title I 
of the Act.
    Further, EPA's regulations implementing title V, which are codified 
at 40 CFR part 70, require that submitted operating permits programs 
include identification of ``the specific statutes, administrative 
regulations, and, where appropriate, judicial decisions that 
demonstrate adequate authority'' to carry out all aspects of the 
program, and that the statutes and regulations cited ``shall be in the 
form of lawfully adopted State statutes and regulations. * * *'' (See 
40 CFR 70.4). While these statutes and regulations clearly need to be 
consistent with the requirements of title V and 40 CFR part 70, they do 
not need to be part of the State's implementation plan. EPA has 
determined that the revisions Clark County made to Sections 0 and 19 
are consistent with the requirements of part 70, which makes the 
revisions approvable as part of Clark County's title V operating 
permits program.
    As for Mr. Hall's assertion that the revised Clark County submittal 
does not identify the versions of the rules upon which it is based, EPA 
disagrees. The revised Clark County program submittal clearly 
identifies the versions of Sections 0 and 19 (the two regulations 
revised specifically to address interim approval deficiencies) as being 
those adopted by Clark County on May 24, 2001.
3. Clark County's Definitions Rule
    Mr. Hall further comments that Clark County's revised title V 
program submittal contains a revision to a regulation (Clark County 
Section 0--Definitions) that was recently vacated by the 9th Circuit 
Court of Appeals. The commenter claims that since the date of EPA's 
proposed approval of the Clark County title V program (October 10,

[[Page 63190]]

2001) is well after the date of the court's decision to vacate EPA's 
approval of Clark County's Section 0 (August 29, 2001), EPA has erred 
in its proposal to grant full approval to the Clark County program, 
which relies, in part, on this vacated rule section.
    The commenter is correct that EPA's final rulemaking approving 
Clark County Section 0 (``Definitions'') and other rules into the Clark 
County portion of the Nevada SIP was recently vacated by the court. Mr. 
Hall is also correct that the revised Clark County operating permits 
program relies, in part, on the definitions in Section 0. However, the 
commenter is incorrect in his evaluation of the impact of the court's 
action relative to the County's title V program. While the court did 
vacate EPA's approval of Section 0 into the SIP, this action does not 
vacate Section 0 as a valid Clark County regulation. Section 0 remains 
valid and legally enforceable by Clark County. As noted in our response 
to issue 2 above, EPA regulations require that the rules comprising 
programs submitted for approval under part 70 must be enforceable by 
the State (or local entity), not EPA, and must meet the requirements of 
part 70. The Clark County title V program was granted only interim 
approval, in part, because the definition of ``applicable requirement'' 
in Section 0 did not match the definition in 40 CFR 70.3. EPA is now 
granting full approval to the revised Clark County operating permits 
program because all of its interim approval deficiencies have been 
fixed, including Clark County's modification of the definition of 
``applicable requirement'' in Section 0. Since Clark County's revised 
definition of applicable requirement is consistent with part 70 and is 
contained in a rule (Section 0) that is valid and legally enforceable 
by Clark County, EPA believes that this interim program deficiency 
previously identified by the Agency has been fully resolved.
4. EPA Unlawfully Extended Interim Approval
    The commenter also cites his belief that the requirements of the 
CAA and 40 CFR part 70 were not met when EPA extended interim approval 
of the Clark County title V operating permits program more than two 
years beyond the August 14, 1995 initial interim approval date. Mr. 
Hall further claims that EPA is required to implement a federal 
permitting program in Clark County and to impose sanctions as set forth 
in 40 CFR 70.10.
    On August 29, 1997, EPA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register extending interim approval of operating permits programs 
nationwide to October 1, 1998 (62 FR 45732). In further rulemakings, 
EPA extended interim approvals again, ultimately promulgating a final 
rule on May 22, 2000 extending all operating permits program interim 
approvals up to December 1, 2001 (65 FR 32035). Section 307(b)(1) of 
the CAA requires in pertinent part that ``[a]ny petition for review 
under this subsection shall be filed within sixty days from the date 
notice of such promulgation, approval, or action appears in the Federal 
Register.* * *'' The sixty day window for filing challenges to the 
current interim approval extension closed on July 21, 2000. Clearly, 
Mr. Hall's current claim that EPA unlawfully extended interim approval 
of the Clark County operating permits program and his request that EPA 
impose a federal part 71 program and sanctions against Clark County is 
not within the statutorily-mandated timeframe for such appeals.
    Moreover, a timely challenge to EPA's subsequent extension of all 
operating permits program interim approvals was brought in the Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit against EPA, and a settlement agreement 
resolving this challenge was entered November 21, 2000, in Sierra Club 
and the New York Public Interest Research Group v EPA. A component of 
that settlement agreement was that EPA would amend 40 CFR part 70 to 
clarify that all existing interim approved programs expire on December 
1, 2001 and cannot be extended. EPA is, therefore, acting in accordance 
with existing regulations in granting final title V operating permits 
program approval to Clark County, effective November 30, 2001, based on 
Clark County's revisions to their program which adequately addressed 
all interim approval deficiencies.
    After carefully reviewing and considering the issues raised by Mr. 
Hall, EPA is taking final action to give full approval to the Clark 
County operating permits program.

B. Letter From Colleen Cripps, Bureau of Air Quality, NDEP Dated 
November 9, 2001

    NDEP submitted a letter commenting on EPA's October 10, 2001 
notice, in which the Agency proposed to take no action on four rule 
changes made by the State that were not required as conditions for 
receiving full program approval. Specifically, EPA proposed to take no 
action on the State's changes to Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 
sections 445B.094, 445B.187, 445B.290, and 445B.294 because EPA deemed 
these changes to be unapprovable.
    In its letter, NDEP requested that EPA reconsider approval of 
sections 445B.094 and 445B.290 in our final rulemaking. As noted in the 
technical support document (TSD) for our proposed action, EPA was 
concerned that NAC section 445B.094 (the definition of ``major 
source'') did not provide a major source threshold for PM10 
sources in attainment areas nor in PM10 nonattainment areas 
that are not classified as ``serious'' because of an exclusion in 
section 445B.094. NDEP clarified in their comments that the exclusion 
in section 445B.094 applies only to particulate matter greater than 10 
microns in size. Thus, there is no exclusion for PM10, which 
is particulate matter less than 10 microns in size. EPA's concern about 
NAC section 445B.290 (``Class I-B application for Class I operating 
permit; filing requirement'') was that it appeared to not require 
certain nonmajor affected sources to apply for a Class I permit. NDEP's 
comments clarified that when section 445B.290 is read together with the 
``Class I source'' definition at NAC 445B.036, there is a clear 
requirement that all affected sources apply for and obtain Class I 
operating permits.
    EPA agrees with NDEP that the revisions to NAC sections 445B.094 
and 445B.290 are consistent with the requirements of part 70 and 
today's action grants approval to these two additional changes as part 
of our full approval of the NDEP operating permits program.

III. EPA's Final Action

A. Full Approval of the Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP Operating 
Permit Programs

    EPA is granting full approval to the operating permits programs 
submitted by Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP based on the 
revisions submitted on June 1, 2001, May 8, 2001, and May 30, 2001, 
respectively. The revisions submitted by the three agencies 
satisfactorily address the program deficiencies identified in EPA's 
interim approvals published on July 13, 1995 for Clark County (60 FR 
36070), January 5, 1995 for Washoe County (60 FR 1741), and December 
12, 1995 for NDEP (60 FR 63631).
    In addition, EPA is approving, as a revision to NDEP's title V 
program, several additional rule changes made by the State, including 
the revisions described in section II.B above to sections 445B.094 
(definition of major source) and 445B.290 (class I operating permit 
filing requirement) upon which EPA had proposed to take no action. As 
discussed in greater detail in the

[[Page 63191]]

proposal, EPA also approves a revision to NAC section 445B.138, the 
definition of potential to emit (``PTE''), based on NDEP's 
representations that it will implement the PTE definition in a manner 
that is consistent with judicial decisions and EPA policies. In the 
future, if NDEP does not implement the PTE definition consistent with 
our guidance, and/or has not established a sufficient compliance 
incentive absent federal and citizen's enforceability, EPA could find 
that the State has failed to administer or enforce its program and may 
take action as authorized by 40 CFR 70.10(b). Finally, EPA also 
finalizes the other rule revisions listed in Table 1 of EPA's October 
10, 2001 proposed rulemaking.

B. Effective Date of Full Approval

    EPA is using the good cause exception under the Administrative 
Procedures Act (APA) to make the full approval of the Clark County, 
Washoe County, and NDEP programs effective on November 30, 2001. In 
relevant part, the APA provides that publication of ``a substantive 
rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, 
except--. . . (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Section 
553(b)(3)(B) of the APA provides that good cause may be supported by an 
agency determination that a delay in the effective date is 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. EPA 
finds that it is necessary and in the public interest to make this 
action effective sooner than 30 days following publication. In this 
case, EPA believes that it is in the public interest for the program to 
take effect before December 1, 2001. EPA's interim approval of the 
Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP programs expires on December 1, 
2001. In the absence of this full approval of the amended programs 
taking effect on November 30, the federal program under 40 CFR part 71 
would automatically take effect statewide in Nevada and would remain in 
place until the effective date of fully-approved programs. EPA believes 
it is in the public interest for sources, the public and the State and 
local permitting authorities to avoid any gap in coverage of the part 
70 program, as such a gap could cause confusion regarding permitting 
obligations. Furthermore, a delay in the effective date is unnecessary 
because Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP have been administering 
title V permit programs for 6 years under an interim approval. Through 
this action, EPA is approving a few revisions to the existing and 
currently operational programs. The change from the interim approved 
programs which substantially met the part 70 requirements, to the fully 
approved programs is relatively minor, in particular if compared to the 
changes between state and locally-established and administered programs 
and the federal program.

C. The Scope of EPA's Full Approval

    In their program submissions, Clark County, Washoe County, and NDEP 
did not assert jurisdiction over Indian country. To date, no tribal 
government in Nevada has applied to EPA for approval to administer a 
title V program in Indian country within the state. EPA regulations at 
40 CFR part 49 govern how eligible Indian tribes may be approved by EPA 
to implement a title V program on Indian reservations and in non-
reservation areas over which the tribe has jurisdiction. EPA's part 71 
regulations govern the issuance of federal operating permits in Indian 
country. EPA's authority to issue permits in Indian country was 
challenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. No. 99-1151). On October 30, 
2001, the court issued its decision in the case, vacating a provision 
that would have allowed EPA to treat areas over which EPA determines 
there is a question regarding the area's status as if it is Indian 
country, and remanding to EPA for further proceedings. EPA will respond 
to the court's remand and explain EPA's approach for further 
implementation of part 71 in Indian country in a future action.

D. Citizen Comment Letters

    On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a rulemaking that extended the 
interim approval period of 86 operating permits programs until December 
1, 2001. (65 FR 32035) The action was subsequently challenged by the 
Sierra Club and the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). 
In settling the litigation, EPA agreed to publish a notice in the 
Federal Register that would alert the public that they may identify and 
bring to EPA's attention alleged programmatic and/or implementation 
deficiencies in title V programs and that EPA would respond to their 
allegations within specified time periods if the comments were made 
within 90 days of publication of the Federal Register notice.
    Two individuals commented on what they believe to be deficiencies 
with respect to the Clark County title V program. As stated in the 
Federal Register notice published on October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51620) 
proposing to fully approve Clark County's operating permits program, 
EPA takes no action on those comments in today's action. Rather, EPA 
expects to respond by December 14, 2001 to timely public comments on 
programs that have obtained interim approval, and by April 1, 2002 to 
timely comments on fully approved programs. We will publish a notice of 
deficiency (NOD) when we determine that a deficiency exists, or we will 
notify the commenter in writing to explain our reasons for not making a 
finding of deficiency. In addition, we will publish a notice of 
availability in the Federal Register notifying the public that we have 
responded in writing to these comments and how the public may obtain a 
copy of our response. An NOD will not necessarily be limited to 
deficiencies identified by citizens and may include any deficiencies 
that we have identified through our program oversight. Furthermore, in 
the future, EPA may issue an additional NOD if EPA or a citizen 
identifies other deficiencies.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final approval is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the Administrator certifies that this final 
approval will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because it merely approves state law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. This rule does not contain any 
unfunded mandates and does not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4) because it approves pre-existing requirements under 
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duties beyond 
that required by state law. This rule also does not have tribal 
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, 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, as 
specified by Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 
rule also does not have Federalism implications because it will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national

[[Page 63192]]

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999). This rule merely approves existing requirements under state law, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the State and the Federal government 
established in the Clean Air Act. This final approval also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) or Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. This action will not impose any collection of 
information subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than those previously approved and 
assigned OMB control number 2060-0243. For additional information 
concerning these requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.
    In reviewing State operating permit programs submitted pursuant to 
title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve State programs provided 
that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's 
regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence 
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State 
operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating 
permit program , to use VCS in place of a State program that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 November 30, 2001.
    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 February 4, 2002. 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 in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 29, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

    40 CFR part 70, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) (b), 
and (c) under Nevada to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Nevada

* * * * *
    (a) Nevada Division of Environmental Protection:
    (1) Submitted on February 8, 1995; interim approval effective on 
January 11, 1996; interim approval expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on May 30, 2001. Full approval is 
effective on November 30, 2001.
    (b) Washoe County District Health Department:
    (1) Submitted on November 18, 1993; interim approval effective 
on March 6, 1995; interim approval expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on May 8, 2001. Full approval is 
effective on November 30, 2001.
    (c) Clark County Department of Air Quality Management:
    (1) Submitted on January 12, 1994 and amended on July 18 and 
September 21, 1994; interim approval effective on August 14, 1995; 
interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions submitted on June 1, 2001. Full approval is 
effective on November 30, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-30097 Filed 12-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P