[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68769-68778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28851]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL-7408-2]


Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 
Redesignation of Particulate Matter Unclassifiable Areas; Redesignation 
of Hydrographic Area 61 for Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, and 
Nitrogen Dioxide; State of Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is approving a request from the State of 
Nevada, pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act), to 
redesignate the current single unclassifiable area for particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 
micrometers (PM-10) into numerous individual areas to be consistent 
with the area definitions for other pollutants. EPA is also approving a 
State-requested subdivision of one of those individual areas, referred 
to as hydrographic area 61 (Boulder Flat), into two areas. EPA's 
approval of these requests establishes hydrographic areas as the 
section 107(d) unclassifiable areas for PM-10 and replaces hydrographic 
area 61 with two new section 107(d) areas for PM-10, sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2): upper area 61 
and lower area 61. In this action, EPA is also deleting certain total 
suspended particulate (TSP) area designations that are no longer 
necessary. EPA proposed these actions in the Federal Register on April 
30, 2002 (67 FR 21194). EPA received comments from several commenters 
on our proposed actions. After carefully reviewing and considering the 
issues raised by the commenters, EPA is finalizing our actions as 
proposed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on December 13, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal, and other supporting 
documentation relevant to this action, are available for inspection 
during normal business hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, Air 
Division, Permits Office (AIR-3), at (415) 972-3974 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents.

I. Background.
II. Comments received by EPA on our proposed rulemaking and EPA's 
responses.
III. EPA's final action.
IV. Administrative requirements.

I. Background

    Pursuant to the redesignation procedures of section 107(d)(3) of 
the Clean Air Act (Act), States may request EPA's approval of air 
quality planning area redesignations, including boundary changes to 
existing areas. The State of Nevada submitted two such section 107(d) 
redesignation requests to EPA. One request (dated April 16, 2002) was 
for EPA to redesignate the existing PM-10 section 107 unclassifiable 
area by establishing hydrographic areas within the State as the PM-10 
unclassifiable areas. The State's other request (dated November 6, 
2001) was to split an existing PSD baseline area, hydrographic area 61, 
into two parts: upper area 61 and lower area 61.
    On April 30, 2002, EPA proposed to approve the requests made by the 
State of Nevada, pursuant to section 107(d) of the Act. See 67 FR 
21194. Today's rule finalizes our approval of these two requests from 
the State of Nevada. EPA's approval of these requests establishes 
hydrographic areas as the section 107(d) unclassifiable areas for PM-10 
and replaces hydrographic area 61 with two new section 107(d) areas for 
PM-10, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2): upper area 61 and lower area 61. In this action, EPA 
is also deleting certain total suspended particulate (TSP) section 
107(d) area designations because they are no longer necessary.

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

    EPA received seven sets of comments on our proposal to approve the 
State of Nevada's 107(d) redesignation requests. Provided below is a 
summary of the significant comments, and EPA's responses thereto. 
Complete copies of the submitted comments are available for inspection 
during normal business hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
    Comment 1: One commenter claims that EPA's rule will result in 
significant

[[Page 68770]]

deterioration of air quality in designated attainment/unclassifiable 
areas for PM-10 in violation of the PSD program requirements. The 
commenter alleges that PSD increments will be violated by EPA's 
proposed action. Their allegation is based on a belief that the State 
is a single, triggered, PSD baseline area for PM-10 and that EPA's 
action would untrigger most of the State.
    Response: EPA is promulgating this rule because we do not believe 
that the rule will result in significant deterioration of air quality 
nor that PSD increments will be violated. As such, we disagree with the 
commenter's claims. The comment, which relates to EPA's proposal to 
approve the State's request to redesignate the existing PM-10 section 
107 unclassifiable area by establishing hydrographic areas within the 
State as the PM-10 unclassifiable areas, is based on the incorrect 
belief of the commenter that prior to EPA's present action, the State 
consisted of a single PSD baseline area for PM-10. Prior to EPA's 
action, as the Agency clarified in our March 19, 2002 final rule (see 
67 FR 12474), the State's 253 hydrographic areas had already been 
established as the PSD baseline areas for particulate matter 
(originally for the indicator pollutant TSP, then for PM-10, even 
though there was a single PM-10 section 107 unclassifiable area). 
Today's rule aligns the section 107 area definitions for PM-10 with the 
established hydrographic area approach the State has used for almost 
twenty years in implementing the PSD program for particulate matter. 
Today's rule has no effect on PSD baseline areas for PM-10 in the 
State, other than in hydrographic area 61, where the rule proposes to 
split a single area into two.
    Comment 2: One commenter notes that the PM-10 redesignation request 
and the request to subdivide hydrographic area 61 were submitted by 
Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection, rather than from the Governor of Nevada. The commenter 
concludes that since EPA's regulations require that the submittals be 
made by the Governor, the requests are unlawful and cannot be acted 
upon by EPA.
    Response: The commenter is correct that the redesignation requests 
were submitted by Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of 
Environmental Protection (``NDEP''), rather than by the Governor of 
Nevada. NDEP is one of the divisions within the State Department of 
Conservation and Natural Resources (``Department''). Nevada law 
authorizes the Department to take all action necessary or appropriate 
to secure to Nevada the benefits of the Federal Clean Air Act. See 
Title 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 445B, sections 
445B.125, 445B.205, and 445B.135. The Department is a State 
administrative Agency overseen by the Governor. Therefore, EPA can 
reasonably assume that the redesignation request has been made with the 
full knowledge and endorsement of the Governor of Nevada. Thus, Allen 
Biaggi acted lawfully in submitting the State's redesignation requests 
to EPA on behalf of the Governor of Nevada.
    Comment 3: One commenter argues that neither Nevada nor EPA provide 
the required documentation that the 253 unclassifiable areas would not 
intersect the area of impact of any major stationary source or 
modification that has established the minor source baseline date.
    EPA Response: EPA's definition of ``baseline area'' at 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(15) notes that redesignated areas ``cannot intersect or be 
smaller than the area of impact of any major stationary source or major 
modification which'' establishes a minor source baseline date. Thus, if 
a State's redesignation was establishing new or different baseline 
areas, then documentation would be needed to demonstrate that the newly 
created baseline areas meet the federal regulatory definition for such 
areas by not intersecting or being smaller than the area of impact of 
any major stationary source or major modification which established a 
minor source baseline date. However, Nevada's request to create 253 PM-
10 section 107 unclassifiable areas does not establish new or different 
baseline areas for PM-10. As EPA explained in our March 19, 2002 final 
rule, the PM-10 PSD baseline areas in the State are the hydrographic 
areas and have been for many years.\1\ The State's implementation of 
the federal PSD program has been based on the hydrographic area 
approach since EPA delegated the program in 1983. Thus, contrary to the 
commenter's assertion, our action is not establishing a new or revised 
state-wide map of PSD baseline areas for PM-10, and it is not necessary 
for the State or EPA to provide the documentation requested by the 
commenter. As an example, Sierra Pacific Power's submittal of a 
complete PSD permit application on March 11, 1994 for Tracy Generating 
Station established the PM-10 minor source baseline date in 
hydrographic area 83. EPA's action today has no effect on the status of 
this basin, i.e., the basin remains triggered with the same minor 
source baseline date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1993, EPA revised its PSD regulations to address the 
transition from TSP to PM-10. Among other changes in our 1993 rule 
related to PSD, EPA retained the existing TSP baseline areas (i.e., 
the hydrographic areas in the State of Nevada) as part of the 
program for implementing the newly-promulgated PM-10 increments. See 
58 FR 31622; June 3, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: One commenter alleges that EPA's action would untrigger 
the minor source baseline date for PM-10 in the proposed lower basin 61 
(which should have been triggered by Barrick gold mine), and in many 
key areas of the State, such as Jarbidge Wilderness, the State's only 
mandatory Class I area, and on many Indian reservations and colonies. 
The commenter also states that EPA failed to conduct the required 
consultation with the Tribes who would be affected because minor source 
baseline dates on tribal reservations will be eliminated.
    EPA Response: In accordance with EPA's PSD program regulations at 
40 CFR 52.21, the PSD minor source baseline date in a given baseline 
area is established by submittal of the first complete PSD permit 
application in that area. Once the minor source baseline date has been 
established in an area, all sources consume increment in that area. 
However, in some cases, a larger area where the minor source baseline 
date has been established (or ``triggered'') can be broken up into two 
or more smaller areas and such action could potentially result in the 
elimination of the minor source baseline date in one or more of the 
smaller areas (``untrigger'' the areas) which subsequently do not 
contain the PSD source.
    EPA disagrees that today's rule would untrigger the minor source 
baseline date for PM-10 (or any other pollutant) in lower basin 61, the 
Class I-designated Jarbidge Wilderness, or on any Indian reservations 
or colonies in the State. EPA's action will not untrigger any minor 
source baseline dates in the State of Nevada. As with Comment 1, this 
comment is based on the incorrect belief of the commenter that prior to 
EPA's present action, the State consisted of a single PSD baseline area 
for PM-10 and that the effect of our action would be to create new 
baseline areas for PM-10, thereby untriggering numerous areas of the 
State where the minor source baseline date has already been 
established. As previously explained, EPA's current rule has no effect 
at all on PSD baseline areas for PM-10 in the State, other than in 
hydrographic area 61. In hydrographic area 61, our action will split a 
single PSD baseline area into two PSD baseline areas. However, the 
minor source baseline date has not been established in hydrographic 
area 61, so our action does not untrigger any established minor source 
baseline date.

[[Page 68771]]

EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim that Barrick gold mine has 
triggered the minor source baseline date in hydrographic area 61. 
Although Barrick gold mine is a ``major source'' located in 
hydrographic area 61, it has not been subject to PSD permitting 
requirements.\2\ As previously noted, the minor source baseline date in 
a given baseline area is established by submittal of the first PSD 
permit application in that area. Neither Barrick gold mine nor any 
other source in hydrographic area 61 has submitted a PSD permit 
application, so the minor source baseline date has not been established 
in that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While it is accurate that only major sources are subject to 
PSD permitting requirements, a source is not required to obtain a 
PSD permit merely because it is a major source. PSD permits are only 
required for construction of new major sources and for existing 
major sources making a modification that increases emissions above 
designated ``significance'' thresholds. See 40 CFR 52.21(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA disagrees that the Agency was required to consult with 
Indian tribes regarding the effect of this rulemaking. EPA concluded 
that the rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, in part because the rule will not untrigger the minor 
source baseline date within any tribal boundary, thus we did not 
initiate a formal consultation process.
    Comment 5: One commenter claims that EPA did not consider the 
impact of the proposed PM-10 redesignation on the State's ability to 
attain and maintain the new PM-2.5 NAAQS. The commenter states that 
such consideration is required in light of EPA's December 1997 guidance 
on implementation of the new standards, because the proposed action 
would relax the State's PSD program and allow increased degradation of 
air quality.
    EPA Response: EPA did not consider the impact of the proposed PM-10 
redesignation on the State's ability to attain and maintain the new PM-
2.5 NAAQS because the rule will not have any effect on the State's 
implementation of the new standard. Our action does not relax the 
State's PSD program and we do not believe it will result in significant 
degradation of air quality in the State. Other than in hydrographic 
area 61, EPA's action will have no effect on the State's implementation 
of the PSD program. In hydrographic area 61, the only effect will be 
that a single untriggered PM-10 PSD baseline area will become two 
separate unclassifiable/attainment areas (constituting two untriggered 
PSD baseline areas for PM-10). Subdividing one untriggered PSD baseline 
area into two untriggered PSD baseline areas conforms with EPA's 
existing regulatory criteria for such actions and is consistent with 
relevant statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act.
    Comment 6: One commenter argues that EPA cannot rely upon the March 
19, 2002 final rule as the sole basis for approving the State's PM-10 
redesignation request because EPA never approved the use of 
hydrographic areas for PM-10. The commenter also argues that the claim 
that Nevada has relied upon the hydrographic area approach for managing 
particulate emissions in Nevada is unsupported by fact.
    EPA Response: EPA is not relying upon the March 19, 2002 final rule 
as the basis for approving Nevada's PM-10 redesignation request. While 
EPA does substantially base its proposed approval of the State's PM-10 
redesignation request on the existing hydrographic area approach used 
by the State to manage particulate matter emissions, this approach was 
not effectuated by EPA's March 19, 2002 rule. EPA's March 2002 rule, 
rather than establishing hydrographic areas as the PSD baseline areas 
for particulate matter, merely clarified that several previous Agency 
rulemakings had already established hydrographic areas as the PSD 
areas. Moreover, despite the commenter's claim to the contrary, Nevada 
has an almost 20-year history of using hydrographic areas as the 
geographic basis for PSD program implementation. All of the PSD permits 
issued by the State (and the increment analyses conducted in support of 
these permits) have relied upon the hydrographic area approach for 
determining whether sources were locating in areas where the minor 
source baseline date had already been established or whether the new 
source was initially triggering the area. Some examples of permit-
related documents which demonstrate the State's reliance on the 
hydrographic area scheme have been added to the administrative record 
for this rulemaking.
    Lastly, since publication of the March 19, 2002 rule discussed 
above, EPA has discovered two additional documents which lend further 
support to the action EPA took: (1) EPA's final rule reaffirming the 
area boundaries established in our original March 3, 1978 designation 
of nonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable areas in Nevada under 
section 107(d) of the 1977 CAA Amendments; and (2) a letter from Allyn 
Davis, Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, EPA--Region 9, to 
Dick Serdoz, Air Quality Officer, Nevada Department of Conservation and 
Natural Resources, dated May 8, 1979, concerning the EPA final rule 
affirming the area designations. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978) for the 
original area designations and see 44 FR 16388, at 16391 (March 19, 
1979) for the rule re-affirming the boundaries for areas in Nevada. 
These documents have also been added to the administrative record for 
this rulemaking.
    Comment 7: One commenter argues that since the March 19, 2002 rule 
is being challenged in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, EPA should not 
rely on the rule as the basis for approving Nevada's PM-10 
redesignation request. Instead, EPA must assume that the terms ``rest 
of state'' and ``entire state'' constitute single attainment/
unclassifiable areas for which the minor source baseline date has been 
triggered until such time as the issue is resolved by the Court.
    Response: On May 17, 2002, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and Great 
Basin Mine Watch (``petitioners'') filed a petition for review in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Docket  02-71503) 
challenging those portions of EPA's final rule (parts I and II) 
clarifying the tables in 40 CFR 81.329 that identify the attainment and 
unclassifiable areas within the State of Nevada for TSP, 
SO2, and NO2 and clarifying the PSD baseline 
areas for PM-10. The petitioners reject EPA's characterization of the 
action taken on March 19, 2002 as a clarification of the existing 
regulatory framework and contend that EPA's action represents an 
unlawful redesignation of a single area referred to as ``rest of 
state'' into numerous subareas under section 107(d) of the Clean Air 
Act. The petition for review notwithstanding, the Agency continues to 
believe that its decision to clarify the meaning of the term ``rest of 
state'' in 40 CFR 81.329 as Nevada's hydrographic areas is amply 
supported by the record and that the decision to publish the March 19th 
rule as a technical correction (i.e., without notice and comment) is 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
    EPA does not agree that the Agency must interpret the terms ``rest 
of state'' and ``entire state'' as constituting single attainment/
unclassifiable areas for which the minor source baseline date has been 
triggered until such time as the issue is resolved by the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. As we have previously explained, and as clarified in 
the March 19, 2002 rulemaking, the effect of EPA's prior regulatory 
actions (finalized long ago) was to establish hydrographic areas as the 
PSD baseline areas in the State of Nevada. The current legal challenge 
to EPA's March 19, 2002 rule has no effect on the status of the

[[Page 68772]]

rule, nor, more importantly, on the already established use of 
hydrographic areas as air quality planning areas for purposes of 
implementing the PSD permitting program in Nevada. EPA will continue to 
interpret the terms ``rest of state'' and ``entire state'' as referring 
to the hydrographic areas in the State that are not designated as 
nonattainment. If this issue is ultimately resolved by the Courts in a 
manner that is inconsistent with EPA's current approach, then we will 
take all necessary steps at that time to remedy the situation, 
including, if necessary, reassessing the appropriateness of this 
rulemaking.
    Comment 8: One commenter claims that because Nevada does not have 
an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) that meets the requirements 
of CAA sections 160 through 165, then in order for EPA to redesignate 
Nevada's PM-10 unclassifiable area into hydrographic areas, and to 
redesignate hydrographic area 61, the Agency must revise Nevada's 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
    Response: Neither EPA's action to redesignate Nevada's PM-10 
unclassifiable area into hydrographic areas nor EPA's action to 
subdivide hydrographic area 61 from a single unclassifiable area into 
two unclassifiable areas represents, nor requires, a revision to 
Nevada's SIP or FIP. Rather these are EPA actions to promulgate the 
boundaries of designated attainment/unclassifiable areas in the State 
of Nevada.
    As noted by the commenter, and reflected at 40 CFR 52.1485(a), 
Nevada does not have an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 
meets the requirements of CAA sections 160 through 165. However, as 
further clarified at 40 CFR 52.1485(b), ``the provisions of Sec.  
52.21(b) through (w) are incorporated and made a part of the applicable 
State plan for the State of Nevada except for that portion applicable 
to the Clark County Health District.'' See 45 FR 52676, at 52741 
(August 7, 1980) and 47 FR 26620 (June 21, 1982). (Sections 52.21(b) 
through (w) in part 52 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
consist of the Federal PSD regulations.) Thus, the Federal PSD 
regulations, codified at 40 CFR 52.21, represent EPA's FIP for Nevada 
(for purposes of implementing the PSD program).
    However, while the part 52 Federal PSD regulations refer to section 
107 attainment and unclassifiable areas, they do not incorporate the 
section 107 area designations by reference. Thus, the regulatory 
changes effected by today's rule are located at 40 CFR 81.329, which 
describes the ``Section 107 Attainment Status Designations'' for 
Nevada; no changes are being made to 40 CFR 52.21 or to 40 CFR part 52, 
subpart DD--Nevada (Nevada's SIP). Since EPA is making no changes to 
these regulatory sections, today's action does not require a revision 
to the Nevada SIP or FIP.
    Comment 9: One commenter asserts that EPA's action to delete 
certain TSP attainment and unclassifiable areas from 40 CFR 81.329 is 
unlawful because the Agency's regulations state that ``[a]ny baseline 
area established originally for the TSP increments shall remain in 
effect and shall apply for purposes of determining the amount of 
available PM-10 increments. * * *'' The commenter also questions why 
EPA is taking action to delete TSP area designations given that the 
State of Nevada did not make a formal request for such action.
    Response: The Agency is not acting unlawfully in deleting the 
listing of certain TSP attainment and unclassifiable area designations 
from 40 CFR 81.329. Deletion of the listing of certain TSP attainment 
and unclassifiable areas does not eliminate any baseline area 
established originally for the TSP increments. Rather, the baseline 
areas originally established for the TSP increments (i.e., the 
hydrographic areas) ``remain in effect and * * * apply for purposes of 
determining the amount of available PM-10 increments.* * *'' (40 CFR 
52.21(b)(15)(iii)) As we explained in the proposed rule:

    In our 1993 PSD rule, we indicated that the replacement of the 
TSP increments with PM10 increments (which operate 
independently from the section 107 area designations for TSP) 
negates the need for the TSP attainment or unclassifiable area 
designations to be retained. We also indicated that we would delete 
such TSP designations in 40 CFR part 81 upon the occurrence of one 
of the following events: EPA's approval of a State's revised PSD 
program containing the PM10 increments; EPA's 
promulgation of the PM10 increments into a State's SIP 
where the State chooses not to adopt the increments on their own; or 
EPA's approval of a State's request for delegation of PSD 
responsibility under 40 CFR 52.21(u). See 58 FR 31622, 31635 (June 
3, 1993). [Emphases added]

Thus, the listing of designated TSP attainment and unclassifiable areas 
in Nevada became unnecessary upon the effective date of the Agency's 
1993 rule in areas where EPA had delegated the PSD program (i.e., the 
entire State of Nevada except for Clark County.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The PSD program delegation does not apply in Clark County, 
Nevada. Clark County administers an EPA-approved PSD program (rather 
than administering a delegated federal PSD program) for PSD sources 
in Clark County. Therefore, as noted in our proposal, EPA is not 
deleting the TSP attainment and unclassifiable area designations in 
Clark County at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, although the commenter is correct that the State of Nevada 
did not make a formal request to EPA to eliminate their unnecessary TSP 
area designations, such a request was not needed for EPA to act. EPA 
had already noted, in our 1993 rulemaking, that the Agency's intention 
was to delete the TSP area designations in 40 CFR part 81 once they 
were no longer necessary. Moreover, section 107 of the Act authorizes 
EPA to eliminate a section 107 designation for particulate matter 
(measured as TSP), when ``the Administrator determines that such 
designation is no longer necessary.'' See CAA section 107(d)(4)(B). In 
today's action, the Agency is merely following through on a prior 
commitment to eliminate TSP designations based on a determination that 
they are no longer necessary. EPA's action in this regard is consistent 
with prior rulemakings by EPA to delete TSP area designations in other 
States. See, e.g., 59 FR 28480 (June 2, 1994) (EPA action to delete TSP 
area designations in response to a State's request to redesignate TSP 
nonattainment areas to attainment).
    Comment 10: Two commenters question whether the Agency's 
redesignation of hydrographic area 61 is in the public's interest 
because, they contend, the action merely splits an area into two pieces 
so that the air pollution in the region can be doubled and EPA's PSD 
requirements can be avoided. They further assert that continued 
subdivision of hydrographic areas to allow sources to avoid the PSD 
program will pollute the entire State.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the effect of splitting 
hydrographic area 61 into upper and lower basins will be to allow air 
pollution in the region to be doubled. Area 61 is currently designated 
attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants and the minor 
source baseline date has not been triggered for any pollutant. Thus, 
the ``allowable'' amount of air pollution, and consequent level of air 
quality degradation, is presently constrained only by the NAAQS. After 
area 61 is split into upper and lower basins, the ``allowable'' amount 
of air pollution and level of air quality degradation in each of the 
two basins will also be constrained only by the NAAQS (i.e., the 
overall level of air quality protection will be exactly the same) 
unless and until a PSD permit application triggers one or both areas. 
The commenter does not provide any justification for their contention 
that the

[[Page 68773]]

effect of EPA's action in area 61 will be a doubling of the allowable 
air pollution in the region. However, it is true that if one area is 
triggered before the other, then there could be additional minor growth 
in the baseline of the untriggered area relative to the newly triggered 
area, because the triggered area would then be constrained by the PSD 
increments.
    In addition, the commenter's concern that EPA's approval of the 
subdivision of area 61 portends a larger state-wide effort to split 
hydrographic areas is unwarranted. The Agency has not received any 
other request for such action by Nevada. Moreover, EPA's actions on 
requests for area redesignations under section 107(d) that affect PSD 
baseline areas are handled on a case-by-case basis in light of relevant 
statutory and regulatory requirements. The Agency's approval of the 
State's request to subdivide hydrographic area 61 does not assure EPA 
approval of any potential future requests the State might make to 
redesignate other existing section 107(d) attainment or unclassifiable 
areas, if the circumstances of the request, including any impact on the 
State's ability to effectively manage air quality, warrants denial.
    Comment 11: Two commenters question the rationale provided by EPA 
for splitting area 61. They claim that the upper and lower basins are 
not self-contained, that the split will not promote the State's ability 
to effectively manage their air quality, and that Nevada has only 
limited and supervised authority to manage EPA's PSD program, so it is 
extremely unlikely that the redesignation would reduce the complexity 
of Nevada's PSD program. They further allege that the objective of the 
hydrographic area 61 redesignation, based on articles in the Nevada 
Press, appears to be to ensure that a new source in lower basin 61 
(i.e., a proposed power plant) will not trigger the PSD minor source 
baseline date in upper basin 61 where there are mining operations. 
Thus, they claim, EPA's approval of the redesignation would help the 
mines circumvent PSD requirements and is inconsistent with the goals 
and intent of the PSD provisions of the Act.
    Response: As stated in our proposed rule, EPA is approving Nevada's 
request to subdivide hydrographic area 61 into upper and lower basins 
because the request complies with the existing federal standards for 
approval of section 107(d) redesignations and we do not believe the 
redesignation will interfere with the State's ability to manage air 
quality. As we further explained in our proposal, EPA's policy is to 
provide States with a fair degree of autonomy to balance air quality 
management with economic planning considerations. It is not necessary 
for EPA to make a finding that Nevada's redesignation request will 
improve air quality management by the State; rather, the Agency has to 
ensure that the request complies with the regulatory standards for 
section 107(d) redesignations and that the redesignation will not 
interfere with the State's management of air quality. Our proposed rule 
clearly describes how the State's request to split hydrographic area 61 
complies with the Federal standards for section 107(d) and PSD baseline 
area redesignations, and provides the Agency's basis for concluding 
that the redesignation will not interfere with the State's management 
of air quality. See 67 FR 21194, at 21196-21197 (April 30, 2002).
    Comment 12: One commenter claims that EPA has not shown that 
hydrographic areas are PSD baseline areas. They assert that EPA's 
notice aims to ``replace the single unclassifiable area designated for 
Nevada for PM-10 with 253 unclassifiable areas'' which, they contend, 
disagrees with a footnote in the proposal saying that these areas are 
``already established as the PSD baseline areas.''
    Response: The Federal PSD regulations define ``baseline area'' in 
terms of 107(d) attainment or unclassifiable areas. See 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(15) and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15). However, as EPA explained in our 
proposal, the transition from TSP to PM-10 resulted in a difference 
between the section 107(d) and PSD baseline areas for PM-10 in Nevada. 
Specifically, the TSP baseline areas (based upon the State's 
hydrographic areas) became PM-10 baseline areas pursuant to our 1993 
rulemaking; however, the State of Nevada has a single section 107(d) 
unclassifiable area for PM-10. Thus, our current action represents 
another step in the transition from TSP to PM-10. This step re-aligns 
the section 107(d) areas with the PSD baseline areas by approving a 
request for establishing hydrographic areas, which had been the basis 
for TSP attainment and unclassifiable areas pursuant to our 1978 
rulemaking, as the attainment and unclassifiable areas under section 
107(d) of the Act for PM-10.
    Comment 13: One commenter argues that even if EPA had the intention 
of establishing 253 hydrographic areas as section 107(d) areas in 1978, 
that is not what the Agency actually did, nor is it what the Agency 
codified in the CFR. The commenter asserts that the public has been 
misled by what is in the CFR as opposed to what EPA is now saying it 
meant, and that all of this was done under the guise of a ``technical 
correction'' with no opportunity for public comment.
    Response: Our March 19, 2002 clarifying rule indicates that, in our 
1978 rulemaking establishing the first nonattainment, attainment and 
unclassifiable areas, we stated that some States provided long lists of 
individual attainment and unclassifiable areas and that we were not 
listing each such area for those States. See 67 FR 12474, at 12475. 
Through our 1978 rulemaking, we did in fact designate those areas as 
individual attainment and unclassifiable areas for the purposes of 
section 107(d), but used the short-hand term ``rest of state'' or 
``entire state'' to denote them rather than listing each separate area. 
The commenter did not provide any evidence to the contrary. Moreover, 
at the time of our 1978 rulemaking, there was no compelling reason for 
EPA to list each and every attainment and unclassifiable area. The need 
for specificity arose in 1980 with our promulgation of changes to the 
PSD regulations that established the link between PSD baseline areas 
and section 107(d) areas. Since 1978, hydrographic areas have 
represented the 107(d) attainment and unclassifiable areas, and the 
tables in 40 CFR 81.329 have continued to describe the areas for Nevada 
using the short-hand terms, ``rest of state'' and ``entire state.'' Our 
March 2002 rule added footnotes clarifying the connection between 
``rest of state''/``entire state'' and hydrographic areas.
    Comment 14: One commenter notes that Nevada's request for the PM-10 
107(d) redesignation was made on April 16, 2002 and that EPA has 18 
months to act on the request (until October 2003). The commenter 
questions why EPA is taking action so quickly, especially when the 
Agency is currently evaluating the existing regulatory and policy 
framework for PSD baseline area redesignations.
    Response: EPA's action approving the State's April 16, 2002 request 
to redesignate the single PM-10 unclassifiable area in Nevada into 
multiple unclassifiable areas (based on hydrographic areas) under 
section 107(d), is simply another step in the regulatory transition 
from TSP to PM-10. This particular type of section 107(d) action does 
not create new PSD baseline areas because the PM-10 baseline areas were 
established by operation of law through our 1993 PSD rulemaking as the 
PSD baseline areas originally established for TSP. (See our March 19, 
2002 Technical Correction at

[[Page 68774]]

67 FR 12474 for further explanation.) Further, because this type of 
section 107(d) action does not create new PSD baseline areas, it is not 
the type that could theoretically be affected by a change in the 
regulatory criteria for evaluating PSD baseline area redesignations.
    In contrast, EPA's action approving the State's November 6, 2001 
request to redesignate hydrographic area 61 does create new PSD 
baseline areas and is the type that could potentially be affected by a 
change in the regulatory criteria. EPA's approval of this request is 
occurring roughly one year after the State of Nevada submitted its 
redesignation request related to area 61. EPA has 18 months under the 
Act to take final action on State redesignation requests, and the re-
evaluation of the regulatory criteria is not likely to be completed by 
May 6, 2003 (18 months from the November 2001 request); thus, EPA can 
not wait and must finalize action based on the current statutory and 
regulatory criteria.
    Comment 15: Several commenters urged EPA to expeditiously finalize 
our approval of Nevada's area 61 redesignation request.
    Response: Section 107(d)(3)(D) allows EPA 18 months from receipt of 
a complete State redesignation submittal to approve or deny such 
redesignation. In today's notice, EPA is finalizing its proposal to 
approve Nevada's November 6, 2001 request to redesignate area 61 into 
two areas. In so doing, EPA is acting well within the 18-month review 
period allowed by the Act.
    Comment 16: One commenter argues that redesignation of area 61 is 
necessary because of the way in which EPA's PSD program forces areas 
with air quality better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) to further limit source emissions of PM-10, NO2 and 
SOx to levels at only 20-35% of the NAAQS. The commenter 
asserts that these more stringent limits, the PSD increments, were set 
by EPA as a simple percentage of the NAAQS and are not health or 
welfare-based.
    Response: Since 1967, Congress has declared that one of the 
purposes of the Clean Air Act is ``to protect and enhance the quality 
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and 
welfare and the productive capacity of its population.'' See section 
101(b)(1) of the Act. Originally, EPA did not interpret the 1967 Act as 
granting authority to the Agency to promulgate regulations designed to 
prevent ``significant deterioration'' of air quality in those areas 
which have air that already is cleaner than the NAAQS. However, EPA's 
narrow interpretation of its own authority was overruled by the Court 
in Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D.D.C. 1972), aff'd 
per curiam, 4 E.R.C. 1815 (D.C. Cir. 1972), aff'd by an equally divided 
Court, sub nom. Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541, 37 L. Ed. 2d 140, 93 
S. Ct. 2770 (1973). Pursuant to Court order, EPA promulgated the 
initial PSD regulations in 1974 and these early PSD regulations 
identified increments for total suspended particulate and sulfur 
dioxide.
    In 1977, Congress clarified its purposes in this regard and 
explicitly endorsed the increment approach for preventing significant 
deterioration by enacting increments for total suspended particulate 
and sulfur dioxide (see section 163 of the Act). For nitrogen dioxide 
and PM-10, EPA promulgated increments that are of equivalent stringency 
as those established by Congress in section 163, as required under 
sections 166(d) and 166(f) of the Act. See 53 FR 40656 (October 17, 
1988) with respect to nitrogen dioxide PSD increments and 58 FR 31622 
(June 3, 1993) with respect to PM-10 PSD increments. The EPA does not 
agree that the redesignation of area 61 is necessary because of the 
statutory and regulatory limits on increases in concentrations of these 
pollutants. Congress's clearly expressed objective in Part C of the 
Clean Air Act is to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in 
clean air areas within the United States.
    Comment 17: One commenter claims that EPA must review and consider 
comments submitted on the proposed rule in light of what its PSD 
regulations currently provide--State discretion in redesignating PSD 
baseline areas--and not what some commenters want the rules to provide. 
The commenter argues that to delay final approval of the proposed rule 
for consideration of comments that could only be described as a request 
for change to EPA's current rules and policies would be to deny the 
State of Nevada the discretion accorded it under the Clean Air Act, 
Alabama Power and established by EPA in its PSD regulations.
    Response: As described in the proposed rule and above, EPA reviewed 
the request by the State of Nevada to subdivide hydrographic area 61 on 
the basis of general statutory language from section 107(d)(3) of the 
Act, which addresses redesignations, and EPA's PSD regulations, 
specifically 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15). See 67 FR 21194, at 21196. In the 
proposed rule, EPA acknowledges concerns about the existing regulatory 
criteria for redesignations, but indicates that, unless and until those 
criteria are revised, the Agency will continue to evaluate State-
initiated section 107(d) redesignation requests based on the language 
of the statute itself and the regulatory criteria in 40 CFR part 52. In 
so doing, EPA has not delayed final action on this particular 
redesignation request but is acting well within the 18-month period 
allowed for such actions under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act.
    Comment 18: One commenter argues that the court in Alabama Power 
Co. v Costle, 636 F. 2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) held that the Clean Air 
Act delegated decisions on increment consumption and allocation thereof 
by baseline area designations to the States. They further claim that 
based on the decision in Alabama Power and EPA's 1980 PSD regulations, 
EPA's discretion to review redesignation requests by States involving 
boundaries of areas designated attainment or unclassifiable is limited 
to consideration of two criteria: (1) The boundaries of any area 
redesignated by a State cannot intersect the area of impact of any 
major stationary source or major modification that established or would 
have established a baseline date for the areas proposed for 
redesignation; and (2) the area redesignation can be no smaller than 
the area of impact of such sources. In this proposed rule, they assert 
that EPA has attempted to change its redesignation policy by adding a 
statutorily-derived standard of ``appropriate air quality-related 
considerations,'' including review to ensure that the PSD baseline area 
redesignation ``does not interfere with the State's management of air 
quality'' and, in doing so, has identified the types of redesignations 
that may not be approvable even though the examples that EPA lists in 
the proposed rule are precisely the type of redesignations that have 
been approved by EPA in the past. The commenter states that EPA cannot 
change its redesignation policy except through notice and comment 
rulemaking.
    Response: Among many PSD issues, the court in Alabama Power 
addressed the issue of how the increments were to be protected, but did 
not address the specific issue of whether section 107(d) redesignations 
are an appropriate means by States to manage the increments. In the 
section of the opinion entitled ``Protection of the Increments,'' the 
court held: ``We rule that EPA has authority under the statute to 
prevent or to correct a violation of the increments, but the agency is 
without authority to dictate to the States their policy for management 
of the consumption of allowable increments.'' See 636 F.2d 323, at 361. 
The court also recognized that: ``The fundamentals of the statutory

[[Page 68775]]

approach include differentiation within the clean air areas of Class I, 
II, and III areas, and specification for each class of areas of maximum 
allowable increases (``increments'') in pollution concentrations for 
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, with provision for the 
Administrator to promulgate allowable increments or similar limitations 
for other pollutants governed by NAAQS.'' Id. at 361, 362. In Alabama 
Power, environmental groups had petitioned the court to require EPA to 
promulgate guidelines detailing the manner in which States may permit 
consumption of the available increments and also to have EPA set aside 
some portion of the available increments to ensure that current 
development does not inadvertently cause a violation of the maximum 
thresholds. The court declined to do so, and it was in this context 
that the court held that the Agency may not prescribe the manner in 
which States will manage their allowed internal growth. Id. At 363, 
364.
    The commenter cites the Alabama Power decision as endorsing a 
State's use of section 107(d) redesignations to create new PSD baseline 
areas and untrigger minor source baseline dates, but the court in 
Alabama Power did not address this specific issue. The court emphasized 
the State's authority to manage the increment, the size of which is 
based on an area's designation as Class I, II, or III, but did not rule 
on States' use of section 107(d) redesignations as a means to create 
new PSD baseline areas (e.g., additional Class II areas), or to 
untrigger minor source baseline dates and thereby ``baseline'' the 
portion of the increment consumed prior to the redesignation. This 
practice has been allowed under EPA regulations but was not one of the 
issues before the court in the Alabama Power case. Thus, while EPA 
acknowledges that States have the right to make increment management 
decisions, States also have the responsibility to do so in such as way 
as to prevent significant deterioration of their clean air resources 
and thereby achieve the fundamental statutory purposes of the PSD 
program as set forth in section 160 of the Act:

    ``(1) To protect public health and welfare from any actual or 
potential adverse effect which in the Administrator's judgment may 
reasonably be anticipated to occur from air pollution or from 
exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate 
as emissions to the ambient air, notwithstanding attainment and 
maintenance of all national ambient air quality standards; (2) to 
preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, 
national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, 
and other areas of special national or regional natural, 
recreational, scenic or historic value; (3) to insure that economic 
growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of 
existing clean air resources; (4) to assure that emissions from any 
source in any State will not interfere with any portion of the 
applicable implementation plan to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality for any other State; and (5) to assure that any 
decision to permit increased air pollution in any area to which this 
section applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the 
consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural 
opportunities for informed public participation in the 
decisionmaking process.

EPA's role is to ensure that States fulfill these responsibilities 
under the Act. See Alaska v. EPA, 298 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2002).
    In reviewing a redesignation request under section 107(d)(3) of the 
Act, EPA looks to the statute and to relevant regulations and policies. 
As noted in the proposed rule, section 107(d)(3) does not provide 
specific criteria for EPA to use in evaluating a State redesignation 
request that involves changing the boundaries of existing attainment or 
unclassifiable areas, as opposed to redesignations that involve changes 
in status (e.g., ``nonattainment'' to ``attainment'' or 
``nonattainment'' to ``unclassifiable''). See 67 FR 21194, at 21196. As 
explained in the proposed rule, EPA concluded that the considerations 
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(A) provide EPA with a statutory basis 
with which to evaluate State-initiated redesignation requests in 
addition to the existing regulatory criteria, and in this context 
(i.e., a request to change the boundaries of attainment or 
unclassifiable areas), EPA concluded that one appropriate ``air-quality 
related consideration'' is whether the redesignation would interfere 
with a State's management of air quality.
    The Act provides support for application of this consideration in a 
context where boundaries or PSD class designations of existing 
attainment or unclassifiable areas would be affected (rather than 
changes in attainment status). See section 107(e) (State is authorized 
with EPA approval to redesignate air quality control regions ``for 
purposes of efficient and effective air quality management'') and 
section 164(e) (resolution of disputes between State and Indian tribes 
arising from area redesignations from one PSD increment class to 
another: ``In resolving such disputes relating to area redesignation, 
the Administrator shall consider the extent to which the lands involved 
are of sufficient size to allow effective air quality management or 
have air quality related values of such an area'').
    The proposed rule indicates that EPA did not intend through this 
rulemaking to revise PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) or redesignation 
policies. See 67 FR 21194, at 21196. If and when EPA decides to revise 
the redesignation criteria in the PSD regulations or to change its 
practice with regard to its evaluation of redesignation requests, the 
Agency will take the appropriate steps. Furthermore, even if one were 
to interpret the application of the statutorily-derived consideration 
discussed above to State redesignation requests as a change in policy, 
EPA clearly indicated in the proposed rule the criteria the Agency used 
to evaluate this State's request, including the statutorily-derived 
consideration, and is acting through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    Comment 19: Several commenters express support for our proposed 
action and imply a connection between the State's redesignation request 
for area 61 and the construction of a natural gas pipeline, 
construction of a power plant in the area, the State's electric power 
needs, electric rates, and economic viability of the affected area.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support for our action, 
but note that we do not share the opinion that the subdivision of area 
61 under section 107(d) of the CAA is necessary for the subsequent 
construction of a natural gas pipeline, the development of a power 
plant, or the energy and economic benefits that flow from those 
projects. We also note that a power plant proposal for area 61 could 
proceed, in full accordance with all applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements, regardless of EPA's action to redesignate 
hydrographic area 61. The PSD permit process and regulatory 
requirements for any future power plant development will be essentially 
the same with or without the redesignation of area 61 into two areas.

III. EPA's Final Action

    After considering all of the factors described in the above 
sections, EPA is taking action to approve the State of Nevada's two 
section 107(d) redesignation requests. Specifically, we are approving 
the State's request to establish the statewide hydrographic areas 
(previously established for TSP) as the PM-10 unclassifiable areas 
under section 107(d) of the Act.\4\ This action

[[Page 68776]]

replaces the single unclassifiable area designated for Nevada for PM-10 
with 253 unclassifiable areas. These 253 areas are defined as the 
hydrographic areas delineated by the Nevada Division of Water Resources 
in 1971, as adjusted in 1980 to recognize an additional hydrographic 
area (101A) referred to as Packard Valley. Together with the two PM-10 
nonattainment areas in Nevada (Las Vegas and Reno planning areas), the 
total number of PM-10 section 107 areas in the State is now 255; these 
are the same 255 section 107 areas that have previously been designated 
for TSP. Thus, the effect of today's final rule approving the State's 
request to establish the hydrographic areas as the section 107 
unclassifiable areas for PM-10 is to synchronize the classification of 
designated PM-10 section 107 areas with the current and longstanding 
approach the State has used to manage its air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ It is important to once again note that hydrographic areas 
are already established as the PSD baseline areas for PM-10 (and 
other pollutants), so today's action regarding the state-wide 
designation for PM-10 does not effect any change in how the State 
manages their federally-delegated PSD program. For example, pursuant 
to 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(iv), minor source baseline dates originally 
established for the TSP increments are not rescinded by today's 
rule; they remain in effect and continue to apply for purposes of 
determining the amount of available PM-10 increment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the State's other section 107(d) request, we are 
redesignating hydrographic area 61 (Boulder Flat) by dividing the basin 
into two new section 107(d) areas for PM-10, sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2): upper area 61 
and lower area 61.
    Finally, we are updating the TSP table in 40 CFR 81 for Nevada to 
delete those designations that are no longer necessary. In particular, 
we are deleting the TSP attainment and unclassifiable area designations 
statewide, except for those in Clark County. We will delete the 
appropriate TSP designations for Clark County at such time as we 
approve revisions to their PSD program that include the PM-10 
increments.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
redesignates areas for air quality planning purposes and does not 
impose additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any 
enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    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 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does 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 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule does not alter the relationship 
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    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. 
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. This rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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).
    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 13, 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 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: November 6, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

    Part 81, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    2. In Sec.  81.329, the tables for Nevada--TSP, Nevada--
SO2, Nevada--PM-10, and Nevada--NO2 are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  81.329  Nevada.

[[Page 68777]]



                                                   Nevada--TSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Does not meet                          Better than
           Designated area              Does not meet        secondary          Cannot be           national
                                      primary standards      standards          classified         standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Township Range):
    Clark County:
        Las Vegas Valley (212)(15-                   X   .................  .................  .................
         24S, 56-64E)...............
        Colorado River Valley (213)   .................  .................             X \1\   .................
         (22-33S, 63-66E)...........
        Rest of County \2\..........  .................  .................  .................                 X
    Carson Desert (101)(15-24.5N, 25-                X   .................  .................  .................
     35E)...........................
    Winnemucca Segment (70)(34-38N,                  X   .................  .................  .................
     34-41E)........................
    Lower Reese Valley (59)(27-32N,   .................                 X   .................  .................
     42-48E)........................
    Fernley Area (76)(19-21N, 23-                    X   .................  .................  .................
     26E)...........................
    Truckee Meadows (87)(17-20N, 18-                 X   .................  .................  .................
     21E)...........................
    Mason Valley (108)(9-16N, 24-                    X   .................  .................  .................
     26E)...........................
    Clovers Area (64)(32-39N, 42-     .................                 X   .................  .................
     46E)...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA designation replaces State designation.
\2\ Rest of County refers to 27 hydrographic areas either entirely or partially located within Clark County as
  shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows
  (September 1971), excluding the two designated areas in Clark County specifically listed in the table.


                                                   Nevada--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Does not meet                          Better than
           Designated area              Does not meet        secondary          Cannot be           national
                                      primary standards      standards          classified         standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Township Range):
    Steptoe Valley (179) (10-29N, 61-
     67E):
        Central.....................  .................  .................  .................                 X
        Northern (area which is       .................  .................                 X   .................
         north of Township 21 North
         and within the drainage
         basin of the Steptoe
         Valley)....................
        Southern (area which is       .................  .................                 X   .................
         south of Township 15 North
         and within the drainage
         basin of the Steptoe
         Valley)....................
    Boulder Flat (61) (31-37N, 45-
     51E):
        Upper Unit 61...............  .................  .................  .................                 X
        Lower Unit 61...............  .................  .................  .................                 X
    Rest of State \1\...............  .................  .................  .................                X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest of State refers to hydrographic areas as shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map
  titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows (September 1971), excluding the designated areas specifically
  listed in the table.

* * * * *

                                                  Nevada--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation                          Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date            Type            Date                   Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washoe County:
    Reno planning area............        11/15/90   Nonattainment        02/07/01  Serious.
        Hydrographic area 87
Clark County:
    Las Vegas planning area.......        11/15/90   Nonattainment        02/08/93  Serious.
        Hydrographic area 212
Boulder Flat (61) (31-37N, 45-
 51E):
    Upper Unit 61.................        11/15/90  Unclassifiable
    Lower Unit 61.................        11/15/90  Unclassifiable
Rest of State \1\.................        11/15/90  Unclassifiable
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest of State refers to hydrographic areas as shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map
  titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows (September 1971), as revised to include a division of Carson
  Desert (area 101) into two areas, a smaller area 101 and area 101A, and excluding the designated areas
  specifically listed in the table.


[[Page 68778]]


                                                   Nevada-NO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Cannot be
                                                                               Does not meet     classified or
                              Designated area                                     primary         better than
                                                                                 standards          national
                                                                                                   standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Flat (61)(31-37N, 45-51E):
    Upper Unit 61..........................................................  ................                 X
    Lower Unit 61..........................................................  ................                 X
Rest of State \1\..........................................................  ................                X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest of State refers to hydrographic areas as shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map
  titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows (September 1971), excluding the designated areas specifically
  listed in the table.

[FR Doc. 02-28851 Filed 11-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P