[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 9, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32273-32277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12918]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NV-040-0075; FRL-7663-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Nevada-Las
Vegas Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment
of the Annual and 24-Hour PM-10 Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the serious area particulate matter (PM-10)
plan for the Las Vegas Planning Area that addresses attainment of the
annual and 24-hour PM-10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and includes motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation
conformity. We are also granting Nevada's request to extend the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) deadline for attaining the 24-hour PM-10 standard
in the Las Vegas area from 2001 to 2006. Finally, we are approving into
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) fugitive dust rules adopted by
Clark County (County).
DATES: Effective Date:
July 9, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours by
appointment. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions by
appointment at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning
Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, 500 S. Grand Central
Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155;
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 333 West Nye Lane, Carson
City, NV 89710.
Electronic Availability
This document and the Response to Comments Document for this action
are also available as electronic files on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at
http://www.epa.gov/region09/air.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Office of Air Planning
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. (415) 947-4116, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This supplementary information is organized as
follows:
I. Summary of Today's Actions
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Background to Today's Actions
A. Prior PM Planning Activities in Clark County
B. Serious Area Plan for the Las Vegas Area
IV. Other Related Action in the Las Vegas Area
V. Final Actions
VI. Administrative Requirements
I. Summary of Today's Actions
We are approving the PM-10 State Implementation Plan for Clark
County (``Clark County Serious Area Plan'' or ``Plan''), submitted on
July 23, 2001.\1\ The Plan addresses attainment of the annual and 24-
hour PM-10 standards.\2\ This action is based on our determination that
this Plan complies with the CAA requirements for serious PM-10
nonattainment area plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On November 19, 2002, the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection submitted to EPA an amendment to the Plan adopted by the
Clark County Board of Commissioners on November 19, 2002. The
amendment establishes new deadlines for SIP commitments concerning
revisions to Sections 90 through 94 and adds documentation on
adopted local ordinances for fireplaces and woodstoves as Appendix R
of the Plan. EPA approved these ordinances in a separate action. 68
FR 52838 (Sept. 8, 2003).
\2\ PM-10 is particulate matter with an aerometric diameter of
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. There are two
separate NAAQS for PM-10, an annual standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\ and a
24-hour standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we are approving the following specific elements of the
Plan:
A demonstration that the Plan provides for implementation
of best available control measures (BACM); \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Because the demonstration of BACM subsumes the demonstration
of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), a separate analysis
to determine if the measures represent a RACM level of control is
not necessary. The BACM demonstration, therefore, is also a finding
that the Plan provides for the implementation of RACM as required
under CAA sections 173(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32274]]
An emissions inventory;
A demonstration of attainment of the annual standard by
the CAA deadline of December 31, 2001 and a demonstration that
attainment of the 24-hour standard by December 31, 2001 is
impracticable;
A demonstration that attainment of the 24-hour standard
will occur by the most expeditious alternative date practicable, in
this case, December 31, 2006;
A demonstration that the Plan includes to our satisfaction
the most stringent measures (MSM) found in the implementation plan of
another state or achieved in practice in another state and that can be
feasibly implemented in the area;
A demonstration that major sources of PM-10 precursors
such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide do not significantly
contribute to violations of the PM-10 standards;
A demonstration that the Plan provides for reasonable
further progress and quantitative milestones;
Transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets;
and
Contingency measures.
We are also approving the County's fugitive dust rules (Sections 90
through 94 and portions of Section 0),\4\ as well as specific
commitments by the County and local jurisdictions within the County to
implement the Plan and perform other activities. As explained in our
proposed approval, we are finding that the Plan and these rules comply
with CAA sections 110(a) and 189(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Plan included the November 16, 2000, versions of these
rules. On October 24, 2002, the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection submitted to EPA revised versions of Clark County
Sections 90 through 93, dated November 20, 2001, which supersede the
earlier versions submitted with the Plan. It is this 2001 version of
Sections 90 through 93 that we are approving in today's action. The
versions of Section 94 and the portions of Section 0 being approved
are the November 16, 2000 versions. The County has since adopted
revisions to these rules and EPA will review and act on these
changes in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action also grants Nevada's request to extend the attainment
date for the 24-hour PM-10 standard from December 31, 2001 to December
31, 2006. This approval is based on our determination that the State
has met the CAA's criteria for granting such extensions.
This preamble describes our actions on the Clark County Serious
Area Plan. We have not repeated the evaluation of the Plan that we
provided in the proposal for today's action. See 68 FR 2954, January
22, 2003.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following parties:
1. Jennifer Anderson, Sierra Club; letter dated February 21, 2003.
2. Robert Hall, Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc.; letter dated
February 21, 2003.
Responses to all comments can be found in our Response to Comments
Document that accompanies this final action. A copy of this document
can be downloaded from our website or obtained by calling or writing
the contact person listed above.
III. Background to Today's Action
A. Prior PM Planning Activities in Clark County
The 1977 Amendments to the CAA required States to revise their SIPs
for all areas that did not meet the NAAQS. At that time, EPA's
particulate matter NAAQS were measured in terms of total suspended
particulates (TSP). The Las Vegas Valley was designated nonattainment
for TSP. As a result, Nevada submitted, and EPA approved, a
nonattainment area plan and a series of revisions with state and local
control measures. See 46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981), 46 FR 43141 (August
27, 1981) and 47 FR 26386 (June 18, 1982).
In 1987, EPA promulgated NAAQS for PM-10, 52 FR 24643 (July 1,
1987), and the approach by which areas would be designated. 52 FR 24672
(July 1, 1987). In accordance with these rulemakings, EPA categorized
areas based on the likelihood that the SIP existing at the time would
need to be revised to meet the PM-10 standards. 52 FR 29383 (August 7,
1987). Clark County was placed in ``Group I'', meaning EPA found there
was a strong likelihood that the area would violate the PM-10 NAAQS and
that SIP revisions would be required. Id.; see also 55 FR 45799
(October 31, 1990) (refining definition of area to be the Hydrographic
Area 212). EPA concluded that actual attainment and nonattainment
designations with respect to the new PM-10 NAAQS were not required
under the Act and retained the TSP designations in place at the time.
In 1990 Congress amended the Clean Air Act. Under section
107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the amended Act, all areas identified as Group I
areas with respect to the PM-10 NAAQS were designated nonattainment by
operation of law on November 15, 1990--the enactment date of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. Section 188(a) of the amended Act further
required that all areas designated nonattainment by operation of law be
classified as moderate nonattainment areas. Thus, EPA designated Clark
County a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15,
1991) (announcing designation of areas) and 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991) (codifying designations). CAA section 189(a)(2) required moderate
areas designated by operation of law to submit plans by November 15,
1991. The County submitted its moderate area plan on December 6, 1991.
In 1993, EPA found, in accordance with CAA section 188(b)(1)(A),
that the Clark County area could not practicably attain the PM-10
standard by the applicable moderate area attainment date of December
31, 1994, and therefore should be reclassified to a serious PM-10
nonattainment area. 58 FR 3334 (January 8, 1993). EPA concluded that
implementation of the control measures included in Clark County's
moderate area plan would not result in emission reductions sufficient
to attain the 24-hour standard. EPA also found that a substantial
portion of PM-10 emissions in the area were due to fugitive dust and
additional controls would be required. Id.
Reclassification to a serious PM-10 nonattainment area triggered,
among other requirements, the requirement to implement more stringent
control measures (i.e., BACM) and the requirement to submit a revised
plan demonstrating that the area would attain the PM-10 NAAQS by a new
attainment date of December 31, 2001. See CAA section 189(b). The
County submitted a serious area PM-10 plan in 1997 to demonstrate
attainment in accordance with section 189(b). EPA, however, found this
attainment demonstration, along with previously submitted plans for
RACM and BACM,\5\ failed to meet the requirements of the CAA and
therefore proposed to disapprove these submittals. 65 FR 37324 (June
14, 1998). Prior to EPA taking final action on the proposed
disapproval, the State of Nevada withdrew the moderate and serious area
plans for Clark County. See Letter from Allen Biaggi, Administrator,
Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Department of
Conservation, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator,
[[Page 32275]]
EPA Region 9 (December 5, 2000). On January 5, 2001, EPA issued a
``finding of nonsubmittal'' for failure to submit the required PM-10
plans. See 66 FR 1046. This finding was made effective December 20,
2000, and began an 18-month ``clock'' for mandatory application of
sanctions and a 2-year clock for promulgation of a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in accordance with CAA section 179. Id. Under
the sanctions clock, mandatory sanctions (i.e., tighter offset ratios
for new and modified major sources and, six months later, highway
funding restrictions) would be imposed unless and until EPA found the
State had made a ``complete'' submittal of a plan addressing the
applicable PM-10 requirements for the Las Vegas Valley. See id. at 1047
(citing 40 CFR 52.31 and CAA section 179). Under the FIP clock, EPA was
to promulgate a FIP in place of a SIP unless and until EPA approved a
SIP for the area.\6\ CAA section 110(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Clark County's February 15, 1995 submittal, ``Addendum
to the '' ``Moderate Area''' PM-10 State Implementation Plan for the
Las Vegas Valley'' (The 1995 RACM Addendum) and December 1994
submittal ``Providing for the Evaluation, Adoption and
Implementation of Best Available Control Measures and Best Available
Control Technology to Improve PM-10 Air Quality'' (1994 BACM Plan).
\6\ While the FIP Clock expired in December 2002, EPA pursued
review and approval of the SIP submitted in 2001 rather than
preparation of a FIP. Today's approval removes the obigation to
prepare a FIP for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Serious Area Plan for the Las Vegas Area
Following EPA's proposed disapproval of the 1997 PM-10 Plan, the
County began revising its fugitive dust control measures. On June 22,
2000, the County adopted dust controls for open areas and vacant lots
(Section 90), dust controls for unpaved roads (Section 91), dust
controls for unpaved parking lots (Section 92), dust controls for paved
roads and street sweepers (Section 93), and dust controls for
construction activities (Section 94 and Construction Activities
Notebook Including Section 94 Handbook).\7\ On November 16, 2000, the
County revised Section 0 governing regulatory definitions to include a
number of definitions related to fugitive dust control measures. These
rules provide the backbone for the Clark County Serious Area Plan,
which was adopted by the Clark County Board of Commissioners on June
19, 2001.\8\ The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection submitted
Sections 90 through 94 and Section 0, along with the June 19, 2001,
Plan to EPA on July 25, 2001.\9\ On January 11, 2002, we determined the
conformity budgets in the Plan were adequate (67 FR 1461) and on
January 22, 2003, we proposed approval of the Plan and the associated
rules (68 FR 2954). The Technical Support Document associated with our
proposed approval is available on EPA's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These new fugitive dust rules generally supplement the
existing PM-10 measures previously approved into the SIP in 1981 and
1982. The two exceptions are: (1) Section 17 (``Permission to
Disturb Topsoil''), which is being removed from the SIP by this
action and replaced with the new Sections 90 through 94; and (2) the
definitions in sections 1.35 (``Fugitive Dust'') and 1.64 (``Off-
road Vehicle''), which are being replaced by the new definitions in
Sections 0.70 and 0.114, respectively.
\8\ In 2001, the Clark County Department of Air Quality
Management (DAQM) was created to handle both the permitting and
enforcement functions of the Clark County Health District along with
the planning functions previously managed by the Clark County
Department of Comprehensive Planning. Because of the shifting
organization of the local air agencies, we refer generally to the
``County'' for both the new DAQM and its predecessor agencies.
\9\ On October 24, 2002, the State submitted revised versions of
Sections 90 through 93, dated November 20, 2001, to replace the
November 16, 2000 versions included with the Plan submittal. In
addition, on November 19, 2002, the State submitted amendments to
the Plan regarding SIP commitment deadlines and adoption of local
ordinances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan supports the County's strategy of focusing controls on
sources of fugitive dust. The Plan includes a detailed inventory of PM-
10 emissions in the nonattainment area and uses modeling and monitoring
data to determine the effect these emissions have on ambient
concentrations and to identify the significant contributors to
violations in the area. The Plan and PM-10 monitoring data show the
area met and continues to meet the annual PM-10 standard but was not
able to meet the 24-hour standard by the statutory deadline of December
31, 2001. The Plan further demonstrates that the County has adopted
control measures meeting the CAA requirements for BACM and MSM and that
implementation of these measures will result in reductions in the
inventory of emissions to levels that ensure the area will attain the
24-hour standard by the extended attainment date of December 31, 2006.
The Plan also includes demonstrations of reasonable further progress
between now and the 2006 attainment deadline, a demonstration of the
need for an extension, a description of contingency measures and
enforceable commitments, and motor vehicle emissions budgets for
ensuring transportation projects conform to the Plan.
We received comments on several aspects of the Plan and our
responses to these comments are provided in a separate document. See
Response to Comments Document (April 2004). While the comments led us
to look more carefully at certain demonstrations and, in some cases,
request additional information from the County, we have not changed our
conclusions from the proposal that the rules and Plan comply with the
requirements of the Act and reasonably support the County's
demonstration of attainment.
IV. Other Related Action in the Las Vegas Area
In addition to working on this PM-10 Plan and the associated
fugitive dust rulemakings, the County is in the process of updating air
control requirements on several other fronts. The County has revised
its stationary source permitting regulations for new and modified
sources in Sections 12, 58 and 59 (and portions of Section 0). These
regulations will ensure that new and modified major sources of PM-10
and other nonattainment criteria pollutants will be subject to offset
and control requirements. In addition EPA is in the final stages of
reviewing the Las Vegas carbon monoxide (CO) attainment plan. EPA
proposed approval of this plan, which includes inspection and
maintenance and gasoline and transportation control measure provisions,
on January 28, 2003 (68 FR 4141). These actions may provide incidental
PM-10 benefits for the area and will be reviewed to ensure consistency
with today's action.
V. Final Actions
With this final action, we are incorporating by reference the
following portions of the Clark County Serious Area Plan for the Las
Vegas Planning Area, adopted June 19, 2001, with amendments adopted
November 19, 2002, into the Nevada SIP:
(1) The demonstration in Chapter 4 and Appendices G and J that the
Plan provides for implementation of BACM as required under CAA section
189(b)(1)(B).
(2) The baseline and projected emissions inventories provided in
Chapter 3 and Appendices B through E and L as required under CAA
section 172(c)(3).
(3) The demonstration in Chapters 5 and 7 of attainment of the
annual standard by the CAA deadline of December 31, 2001 and that
attainment of the 24-hour standard by December 31, 2001 is
impracticable as required under CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).
(4) The demonstration in Chapter 7 and Appendix A that attainment
of the 24-hour standard will occur by the most expeditious alternative
date practicable, in this case, December 31, 2006, as required under
CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e).
(5) The demonstration in Chapter 6 that the Plan includes MSM as
required under CAA section 188(e).
[[Page 32276]]
(6) The demonstration in Chapter 4 that major sources of PM-10
precursors such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide do not
significantly contribute to violations of the PM-10 standards as
required under CAA section 189(e).
(7) The demonstration in Chapter 5 and Appendix M that the Plan
provides for reasonable further progress and quantitative milestones as
required under CAA sections 189(c) and 172(c)(2).
(8) The contingency measures in Chapter 4 as required under CAA
section 172(c)(9).
We are also approving the following transportation conformity motor
vehicle emissions budgets in Appendix N \10\ as required under CAA
section 176(c):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA notified Clark County that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets were adequate by letter from Jack Broadbent, EPA, to Allen
Biaggi, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, November 9,
2001. Public notice of EPA's adequacy determination was provided on
January 11, 2002 (67 FR 1461).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle
Year emissions budget (tons
PM-10 per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................... 201.75
2003........................................... 155.77
2006........................................... 141.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, today's final approval includes additions to and removals
from the SIP of specific local measures as follows:
(1) We are approving into the SIP Clark County Sections 90, 91, 92
and 93, adopted on November 20, 2001, which supersede earlier versions
submitted in Appendix G of the Plan.
(2) We are approving the following portions of Section 0, adopted
on November 16, 2000, into the SIP: \11\
\11\ Clark County included all of Section 0 in Appendix G of the
Plan. In this action, we are approving only definitions relevant to
Sections 90 through 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 0.25 ``Best Management Practices''
Section 0.33 ``Commercial and Residential Construction''
Section 0.36 ``Construction Activity''
Section 0.37 ``Control Measure''
Section 0.43 ``Disturbed Surface Area''
Section 0.45 ``Dust Palliative''
Section 0.46 ``Dust Suppressant''
Section 0.47 ``Easement''
Section 0.48 ``Easement Holder''
Section 0.51 ``Emergency''
Section 0.58 ``EPA or Administrator''
Section 0.65 ``Flood Control Construction''
Section 0.70 ``Fugitive Dust''
Section 0.81 ``Hearing Officer''
Section 0.84 ``Highway Construction''
Section 0.110 ``Nonroad Easement''
Section 0.111 ``Normal Farm Cultural Practice''
Section 0.114 ``Offroad Vehicle''
Section 0.117 ``Open Areas and Vacant Lots''
Section 0.120 ``Owner and/or Operator''
Section 0.127 ``Pave''
Section 0.132 ``PM-10 Nonattainment Area''
Section 0.133 ``PM-10''
Section 0.140 ``Public Road''
Section 0.141 ``Reclaimed Water''
Section 0.147 ``Road Easement''
Section 0.162 ``Trench''
Section 0.164 ``Unpaved Parking Lot''
Section 0.166 ``Vacant Lot''
(3) We are approving into the SIP the commitments contained in
Chapter 4, section 4.8.
(4) We are approving into the SIP Clark County Section 94, adopted
on November 16, 2000, along with the associated August 24, 2000,
``Construction Activities Notebook including the Section 94 Handbook''
(Appendix G).
(5) We are removing from the SIP Clark County Section 17
``Permission to Disturb Topsoil'' and Sections 1.35 (defining
``Fugitive Dust'') and 1.64 (defining ``Off-road Vehicle'') because
these sections are replaced by the overlapping provisions in Sections 0
and 90 through 94 being approved today.
VI. 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 32111,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
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 approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 action 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 action merely approves a state plan
and rules implementing a Federal standard, and 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.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 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. 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.
[[Page 32277]]
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 August 9, 2004. 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 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 3, 2004.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD--Nevada
0
2. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(16)(viii)(B),
(c)(24)(iv)(B), and (c)(42) to (c)(44) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(16) * * *
(viii) * * *
(B) Previously approved on August 27, 1981 at (c)(16)(viii) and now
deleted Section 17, Rules 17.1-17.8.
* * * * *
(24) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Previously approved on June 18, 1982 at (c)(24)(iv) and now
deleted Section 17, Rules 17.2.1 and 17.6.1.
* * * * *
(42) The following plan was submitted on July 23, 2001, by the
Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Clark County Department of Air Quality Management.
(1) PM-10 State Implementation Plan for Clark County including:
Chapter 3, Chapter 4 (excluding pages 4-125 and 4-126), Chapters 5
through 7, Appendices A through E, Appendix G (excluding pages 90-1
through 90-10, 91-1 through 91-9, 92-1 through 92-7, 93-1 through 93-8,
and the following paragraphs of pages 0-1 through 0-46: 0.1-0.24, 0.26-
0.32, 0.34, 0.35, 0.38-0.42, 0.44, 0.49, 0.50, 0.52-0.57, 0.59-0.64,
0.66-0.69, 0.71-0.80, 0.82, 0.83, 0.85-0.109, 0.112, 0.113, 0.115,
0.116, 0.118, 0.119, 0.121-0.126, 0.128-0.131, 0.134-0.139, 0.142-
0.146, 0.148-0.161, 0.163, 0.165, and 0.167-0.172), Appendix J, and
Appendices L through N adopted on June 19, 2001.
(43) The following regulations were submitted on October 24, 2002,
by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Clark County Department of Air Quality Management.
(1) Sections 90, 91, 92 and 93 adopted on November 20, 2001.
(44) The following plan amendments were submitted on November 19,
2002, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Clark County Department of Air Quality Management.
(1) Pages 4-125 and 4-126 and Appendix R adopted on November 19,
2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-12918 Filed 6-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P