[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54006-54019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20137]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NV054-081; FRL-7808-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Source 
Review; State of Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality and 
Environmental Management

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially 
disapprove revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada State 
Implementation Plan. These revisions concern rules adopted by the Clark 
County Board of County Commissioners for issuing permits for new or 
modified stationary sources in Clark County to comply with the 
applicable permitting requirements under parts C and D of title I of 
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. These provisions of the Clean Air 
Act are designed to prevent significant deterioration in attainment 
areas and to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 
nonattainment areas. EPA is also approving as a revision to the Nevada 
State Implementation Plan a State regulation prohibiting the 
construction of certain types of major new or modified power plants 
that are under exclusive State jurisdiction in the nonattainment areas 
within Clark County. The intended

[[Page 54007]]

effect of today's final action is to ensure that Clark County's 
permitting rules are consistent with a ruling by the Ninth Circuit, see 
Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) and with the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. EPA is amending the appropriate 
section of the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the outcome of 
Hall v. EPA. Lastly, under section 110(k)(6) of the Act, EPA is 
correcting or clarifying certain previous final rulemaking actions 
taken by EPA on revisions to the Clark County portion of the Nevada 
State Implementation Plan.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on October 7, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the docket for this action during 
normal business hours at the Air Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. You may also see copies of the 
State's two submittals at the Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection, 333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138, Carson City, Nevada 89706. Clark 
County's amended rules are available at the Clark County Department of 
Air Quality and Environmental Management, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, 
Las Vegas, Nevada 89155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Kohn, EPA Region IX, Air 
Division, Permits Office (AIR-3), at (415) 972-3973 or 
[email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
    A. The State's Submittal
    B. Vacature of EPA Approval of Previous Versions of these Rules
    C. Correction or Clarification of Previous EPA SIP Actions on 
Clark County Rules
    D. May 20, 2004 Federal Register Direct Final and Proposed Rule 
on CCAQR Section 11
II. Public Comments
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

A. The State's Submittal

    On June 2, 2004 (69 FR 31056), we proposed a partial approval and 
partial disapproval of the rules listed in Table 1 as revisions to the 
Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically, we proposed to 
approve submitted Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) sections 
0, 11, 12 (except subsections 12.2.18 and 12.2.20), 58 and 59 and to 
approve submitted Nevada Administrative Code section 445B.22083. We 
proposed to disapprove submitted CCAQR subsections 12.2.18 and 12.2.20 
and CCAQR subsection 52.8.

                                          Table 1.--Submitted Rules \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Agency                      Rule                  Rule title          Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAQEM.......................  0...............................  Definitions...........     10/07/03     10/23/03
DAQEM.......................  11..............................  Ambient Air Quality        10/07/03     10/23/03
                                                                 Standards.
DAQEM.......................  12..............................  Preconstruction Review     10/07/03     10/23/03
                                                                 for New or Modified
                                                                 Stationary Sources.
DAQEM.......................  52.8............................  Gasoline Dispensing        10/07/03     10/23/03
                                                                 Facilities--Section
                                                                 52 Offset Program.
DAQEM.......................  58..............................  Emission Reduction         10/07/03     10/23/03
                                                                 Credits.
DAQEM.......................  59..............................  Emission Offsets......     10/07/03     10/23/03
SEC.........................  NAC 445B.22083..................  Construction, major        03/29/94    11/20/03
                                                                 modification or
                                                                 relocation of plants
                                                                 to generate
                                                                 electricity using
                                                                 steam produced by
                                                                 burning of fossil
                                                                 fuels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In Clark County, the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for adopting, modifying, or repealing the
  Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR). Clark County's administrative departments were recently
  reorganized, and the Clark County Department of Air Quality Management (DAQM), cited in the proposed rule as
  the applicable local air pollution control agency, has been subsumed within a new county department named the
  Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM). The DAQEM, like its predecessor
  (i.e., the DAQM), is responsible for administering the Clark County Air Quality Regulations. In this final
  rule, we use the term ``DAQEM'' to refer to the local air agency, and term ``SEC'' to refer to the State
  Environmental Commission.

    We proposed a partial approval and a partial disapproval because, 
while we determined that most of the rules complied with the relevant 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements, we determined that certain 
severable subsections of the rules did not so comply. We took this 
proposed action after finding the SIP submittal dated October 23, 2003, 
containing the local New Source Review (NSR) rules, to be complete on 
November 18, 2003. The SIP submittal dated November 20, 2003, 
containing the State regulation,\2\ was deemed complete by operation of 
law on May 20, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NAC 445B.22083 prohibits new power plants or major 
modifications to existing power plants under State jurisdiction 
(i.e., plants that generate electricity using steam produced by 
burning of fossil fuels but not including any plant which uses 
technology for a simple or combined cycle combustion turbine), 
within the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area and certain other 
areas within Clark County. See the proposed rule at 69 FR 31058-
31059 for more information on this State regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our June 2, 2004 proposed action contains more information on the 
rules and our evaluation.

B. Vacature of EPA Approval of Previous Versions of These Rules

    In our June 2, 2004 proposed rule, we also proposed to delete 40 
CFR 52.1470(c)(36) and (37) in recognition of the vacature by the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals of our approval of previous versions of the 
Clark County New Source Review (NSR) rules in Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 
1146 (9th Cir. 2001).

C. Correction or Clarification of Previous EPA SIP Actions on Clark 
County Rules

    Lastly, in our June 2, 2004 proposed rule, we proposed to correct 
certain provisions of the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP that 
we approved in error and to revise certain provisions of the Clark 
County portion of the Nevada SIP that warrant clarification. 
Specifically, we proposed to delete SIP section 1, subsections 1.79 
(Significant source of total chlorides) and 1.94 (Total Chlorides); SIP 
section 15 (Prohibition of Nuisance Conditions); SIP section 29 (Odors 
in the Ambient Air); SIP section 40, subsection 40.1 (Prohibition of 
Nuisance Conditions); SIP section 42, subsection 42.2 (untitled but 
related to nuisance from open burning); and SIP section 43, subsection 
43.1 (Odors in the Ambient Air), from the appropriate paragraphs of 40 
CFR 52.1470 (``Identification of plan''). We also proposed to revise 
the appropriate paragraphs in 40 CFR 52.1470 to clarify that former SIP 
section 12 (Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance) and submitted 
section 25.1 (untitled, but related to upset, breakdown, or scheduled 
maintenance) are not approved into the Clark County portion of the 
Nevada SIP, and to clarify that SIP section 33 (Chlorine in Chemical

[[Page 54008]]

Processes) was, and continues to be, approved into the Clark County 
portion of the Nevada SIP as part of our approval of the overall post-
1982 ozone plan for Las Vegas Valley.

D. May 20, 2004 Federal Register Direct Final and Proposed Rule on 
CCAQR Section 11

    On May 20, 2004, we published a direct final rule (69 FR 29074) and 
a proposed rule (69 FR 29120) approving the same version of CCAQR 
section 11 for which we subsequently proposed approval in our June 2, 
2004 action. On our own initiative, we withdrew the direct final rule 
with respect to CCAQR section 11 in a partial withdrawal action that we 
published on July 2, 2004 (69 FR 40324). We withdrew the direct final 
action on CCAQR section 11 to avoid confusion with our subsequent 
proposed rule. EPA's May 20, 2004 proposed rule provided for a 30-day 
public comment period. We received no comments on the May 20, 2004 
proposal. In today's notice, we are finalizing action proposed both on 
May 20, 2004 and again on June 2, 2004 to approve CCAQR section 11, as 
adopted on October 7, 2003 and submitted to EPA on October 23, 2003, 
into the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.

II. Public Comments

    EPA's June 2, 2004 proposed rule provided for a 30-day public 
comment period. During this period, we received comments from the 
following parties:
    (1) Ray Bacon, Executive Director, Nevada Manufacturers Association 
(``NMA''), letter dated June 28, 2004, calling for clarification of 
which DAQEM rules are proposed to be part of the SIP and which are not, 
citing inadequate public access to NSR materials, recommending that 
only an offset ratio of 1:1 be made part of the SIP, calling for 
elimination of conflicting and confusing definitions, calling for the 
redesignation of Clark County to ``attainment'' for the carbon monoxide 
(CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the revision of 
the NSR program accordingly, and calling for a revision of EPA's 
evaluation of the SIP submittals to reflect the current Federal NSR 
regulations;
    (2) Christine Robinson, Director, Clark County Department of Air 
Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM), letter dated July 1, 
2004, citing an apparent error in EPA's interpretation of the 
requirements for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) under the existing 
SIP NSR program, but supporting EPA's overall conclusions about the 
comparative stringency of the submitted NSR program relative to the 
existing SIP NSR program; and
    (3) Robert W. Hall, President, Nevada Environmental Coalition, Inc. 
(``NEC''), letter dated July 2, 2004, objecting to the proposed 
approval of the submitted NSR program as inconsistent with sections 
110(l), 116, 171(1), and 193 of the Act, particularly as those sections 
relate to the pollutants for which Las Vegas Valley has been designated 
nonattainment (i.e., particulate matter (PM-10), CO, and ozone).
    Responses to all comments can be found in the following paragraphs.
    NMA Comment #1: EPA proposes to approve all of CCAQR sections 58 
and 59 (and corresponding provisions of section 12) concerning offsets. 
However, not all of those requirements are intended to implement the 
Federal CAA NSR program, nor does DAQEM submit them for that purpose. 
DAQEM intends only subsection 59.1 (``Federal Offset Requirements'') to 
be part of the SIP revision, not subsection 59.2 (``Local Offset 
Requirements''). Similarly, subsections 59.3, 59.4, and 59.5 contain 
certain provisions that are meant to be federally enforceable (i.e., 
part of the SIP), and some that are exclusively local. Subsection 
12.2.6, or portions thereof, also appears to be a requirement, in whole 
or in part, that is not intended for CAA NSR purposes and is not 
subject to this approval. EPA and DAQEM should identify with precision 
which requirements of DAQEM NSR rules are to be federally approved and 
enforceable and which are not; this clarified rule should then be 
subject to notice and comment before final SIP approval. As a 
consequence, the approval should be suspended and subject to notice and 
comment after the clarifications are made public.
    Response to NMA Comment #1: NMA is correct in that certain 
provisions of the submitted NSR program were not intended to be 
approved as part of the Nevada SIP. By letter dated July 12, 2004, from 
Jolaine Johnson, Acting Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA--Region 
IX, DAQEM and the State requested EPA to withdraw the approval of 
subsection 59.2 as part of the SIP. As a result, we no longer have 
authority to act on subsection 59.2 (``Local Offset Requirements''), 
and subsection 59.2 will therefore not become federally enforceable. We 
do not believe that the State's withdrawal of subsection 59.2 
necessitates a new round of notice and comment under the Administrative 
Procedure Act because we did not rely on subsection 59.2 in our June 2, 
2004 proposed rule. That is, we did not rely on subsection 59.2 to 
satisfy any Federal NSR (nonattainment NSR or PSD) requirements nor to 
justify our proposed partial approval of the submitted NSR program 
under either sections 110(l) or 193 of the Act. The withdrawal of 
subsection 59.2 does not change our conclusion or the underlying 
rationale set forth in the proposed rule in any way.
    We note that the submitted NSR program contains a revised minor 
(Clark County Air Quality Regulations use a related term, ``non-
major'') stationary source review program and a revised major 
stationary source review program (nonattainment NSR and PSD) and that 
both minor and major source review programs are required under the Act. 
See sections 110(a)(2)(C), 161, and 172(c)(5) of the Act. Furthermore, 
for SIP revisions to be approved by EPA, SIP revisions must also comply 
with certain other requirements of the Act, such as section 110(l), 
which prohibits approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Thus, certain 
requirements in the submitted NSR program may not be needed to satisfy 
CAA NSR requirements for major sources and major modifications, but are 
necessary to provide EPA with the basis to approve the overall NSR 
program revision to supercede the existing SIP-approved Clark County 
NSR program under section 110(l). Thus, all of the provisions in the 
NSR submittal dated October 7, 2003, with the exception of those 
specific provisions which EPA proposed to disapprove and with the added 
exception of subsection 59.2 discussed above, are necessary to provide 
EPA with the basis to approve the updated NSR program, and, upon EPA 
approval, will become federally enforceable.
     NMA Comment #2: An additional and separate source of confusion is 
the lack of adequate posting and public access to the relevant NSR 
requirements. As of the date of these comments, DAQEM's Web site posts 
the text of its section 0, 12, 58, and 59 requirements as regulations 
adopted on December 4, 2001. The EPA proposed rule for Clark County's 
SIP approval is based on DAQEM regulations EPA states were adopted on 
October 7, 2003 and which are available only by written request. The 
problem is that the text of the Clark County rules EPA apparently 
proposes to approve into the SIP is substantially different from the 
text of the DAQEM rules posted on DAQEM's Web site. To compound the 
problem, EPA has stated ``While we can only act on the most

[[Page 54009]]

recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with 
previous submittals.'' Neither the proposed rule itself nor the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) explain what are the ``materials'' or 
``previous submittals'' on which EPA relies. As a result, public 
comment on the appropriateness of such reliance is impossible. Before 
finalizing the SIP approval, EPA and DAQEM should identify the specific 
regulatory texts which form the basis for EPA's proposed SIP approval; 
these should be made available to the public. To the extent EPA relies 
on any materials other than these regulations, the proposed SIP 
approval should identify the specific material and the nature of EPA's 
reliance on it.
    Response to NMA Comment #2: We disagree with NMA's contention that 
our proposed action lacked adequate public access to the relevant 
materials. The specific regulatory texts which form the basis for EPA's 
proposed SIP action are as follows: CCAQR sections 0, 11, 12, 52.8, 58, 
and 59 (not including subsection 59.2, as discussed above in Response 
to NMA Comment 1), as adopted by the Clark County Board of 
County Commissioners on October 7, 2003 and as submitted to EPA by NDEP 
on October 23, 2003; and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) section 
445B.22083, as adopted by the State Environmental Commission on March 
29, 1994 and submitted to EPA by NDEP on November 20, 2003. With the 
exception of subsection 59.2, this is the exact list identified in 
Table 1 of our proposed rule. See 69 FR at 31057. Also, in our proposed 
rule, at 69 FR 31056, column 3, we indicated that members of the public 
could inspect copies of the State's submittals, EPA's technical support 
documents, and other supporting documentation at EPA Region IX offices, 
could inspect copies of the State's submittals at NDEP offices in 
Carson City, or could inspect copies of the revised Clark County NSR 
rules at DAQEM offices in Las Vegas. We did not rely on DAQEM's Web 
site for public access to the relevant materials.
    In the proposed rule, at 69 FR 31057, we describe the various Clark 
County NSR submittals sent to us pursuant to the Act, as amended in 
1990, and our actions related to them. In the discussion in the 
proposed rule, we explain that our approval of previous Clark County 
NSR submittals (then contained in Clark County Health District Air 
Pollution Control Regulations sections 0, 12, and 58) was vacated in 
Hall v. EPA (273 F.3d 1146, 9th Cir. 2001), that we received a revised 
Clark County NSR program on February 25, 2003 that included the then-
current CCAQR sections 0, 11, 12, 58, and 59, as adopted on December 4, 
2001, but that this February 25, 2003 submittal was superceded by the 
Clark County NSR submittal dated October 23, 2003. Further, our 
proposed rule indicates that the October 23, 2003 submittal of the 
Clark County NSR rules is the one that forms the basis for our proposed 
action. We rely on superceded SIP submittals only to the extent that 
they inform our understanding of the evolution of the Clark County NSR 
program from the version that formed the basis for our prior SIP 
approval action (see 64 FR 25210, May 11, 1999), which was subsequently 
vacated in the Hall decision, through the adoption in October 2003 by 
Clark County of the version of the NSR program that formed the basis 
for our proposed action. We believe that we described this regulatory 
history in sufficient detail in our June 2, 2004 proposed rule to have 
allowed for informed public comment on our proposed action.
    NMA Comment #3: Clark County's NSR rules and EPA's approval 
incorporate an unnecessarily and inappropriately stringent 2 to 1 
offset ratio requirement for major sources and major modifications 
involving CO or PM-10. EPA explains in the TSD that CAA requirements to 
show noninterference with reasonable further progress would be 
satisfied at ratio of 1 to 1. Thus, the 2 to 1 offset ratio is 
unnecessarily stringent, particularly in light of the additional 
respects in which the new Clark County NSR rules have significantly 
increased the rate of progress to attainment. Accordingly, the level of 
offsets which may be ``federally enforceable'' as part of the 
applicable SIP should be limited to offsets in the ratio of 1 to 1 but 
not any higher ratio.
    Response to NMA Comment #3: In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's 
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the minimum 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and our regulations. Section 
173(c)(1) of the Act specifies that emissions ``shall be offset by an 
equal or greater reduction, as applicable, in the actual emissions of 
such air pollutant from the same or other sources in the area.'' The 
Act specifically provides discretion to establish an offset ratio in an 
amount that is greater than a ratio of 1 to 1. Accordingly, the State's 
offset program is consistent with, and meets the minimum requirements 
of, the Act. Moreover, our rationale for approval of the submitted NSR 
program (and supercession of the existing NSR program) under sections 
110(l) and 193 of the Act rely in part on the submitted program's 2 to 
1 offset ratio. See the proposed rule at 69 FR at 31061, column 3 
(section 110(l) evaluation for CO); 69 FR at 31062, column 1 (section 
110(l) evaluation for PM-10); and 69 FR 31064 (section 193 evaluations 
for CO and PM-10). In this regard, we note that the appropriate 
comparison for the purposes of sections 110(l) and 193 is between the 
submitted NSR program and the SIP-approved NSR program (from the early 
1980's), not the locally-adopted (but not SIP-approved version) of the 
NSR program (adopted in December 2001) that is being administered by 
DAQEM. (The submitted Clark County NSR program (adopted in October 
2003) will not be in effect until 30 days after we publish our final 
approval of the program in the Federal Register.)
    NMA Comment #4: EPA proposes to retain in the approved SIP 33 
definitions from section 1 (``Definitions'') of the former Clark County 
rules. EPA states that while these definitions may not affect this NSR 
action, they may be needed for other existing non-NSR SIP rules. We 
request that these definitions be deleted because retaining them may 
create confusion. Two examples include the terms ``minor source'' and 
``source of air contaminant.'' An additional and separate source of 
confusion is that the numeric citations for the defined terms do not 
correspond to the number citations currently used by DAQEM. The 
proposal to retain section 1 definitions should be withdrawn and all 
terms should be revised and consolidated into a single regulation that 
would then be made part of the SIP.
    Response to NMA Comment #4: We agree that EPA's approval of a 
second Clark County rule (i.e., CCAQR section 0) entitled 
``Definitions'' into the SIP is not ideal and may cause confusion. 
However, there should be no confusion in the NSR context because, upon 
the effective date of our final approval, new or modified sources in 
Clark County will be subject to the requirements in CCAQR sections 12 
and 59 that rely on the ambient standards in CCAQR section 11, the 
credits in section 58, and the terms defined in CCAQR section 0, such 
as ``nonmajor stationary source'' (see paragraph (c) under ``stationary 
source'' in section 0) and will not be subject to the requirements in 
the Clark County District Board of Health Air Pollution Control 
Regulations section 15 (referred to herein as ``existing SIP section 
15'' or ``SIP section 15'') that rely on the ambient standards in Board 
of Health Air Pollution Control Regulations section 11 and the terms 
defined in existing SIP section 1, such

[[Page 54010]]

as ``minor source'' and ``significant,'' since, at that time, SIP 
section 15 will be entirely superceded in the SIP by CCAQR sections 12 
and 59.
    For the reasons stated in our proposed rule, at 69 FR at 31067, we 
continue to believe that the SIP should retain 33 specific defined 
terms from existing SIP section 1 because other Clark County rules 
currently approved in the SIP continue to rely on these terms. Clark 
County and the State of Nevada have not submitted the updated versions 
(that rely on the defined terms in CCAQR section 0 rather than SIP 
section 1) of these SIP rules, and until that submittal is made and 
approved by EPA as a SIP revision, we must retain the 33 specific 
defined terms from existing SIP section 1 on which these SIP rules 
rely. Specific examples of existing SIP rules that rely on certain 
definitions in existing SIP section 1 include the following:
     Clark County District Board of Health Air Pollution 
Control Regulations (i.e., ``existing SIP'' or ``SIP'') section 2 
relies on the following terms defined in SIP section 1: ``air 
contaminant,'' ``air pollution control committee,'' ``board,'' and 
``source of air contaminant;''
     Existing SIP section 4 relies on the following terms 
defined in SIP section 1: ``air contaminant'' and ``source of air 
contaminant;''
     Existing SIP section 5 relies on the following term 
defined in SIP section 1: ``smoke;''
     Existing SIP section 18 relies on the following terms 
defined in SIP section 1: ``minor source'' and ``single source'' and 
the term ``minor source'' relies on the term ``significant;'' and
     Existing SIP section 23 relies on the following terms 
defined in SIP section 1: ``affected facility,'' and ``integrated 
sampling.''
    Lastly, while we recognize that there is a difference between the 
numeric references for specific defined terms in the version of section 
1 that DAQEM provides on its website and those cited by EPA in our June 
2, 2004 proposed rule, the numeric references from the version of 
section 1 that we cite in the proposed rule are those that we 
incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
and, as such, reflect the EPA-approved version of SIP section 1. See 40 
CFR 52.1470(c)(17)(i) and (ii) and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(24)(iii) and see 
also the rules posted for Clark County, Nevada on our Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips. The version of section 1 that 
Clark County posts on its Web site appears to be a ``cleaned-up'' 
version of SIP section 1 in which revision marks have been removed and 
for which the terms have been renumbered to reflect added and deleted 
terms. In contrast, the version of SIP section 1 cited by EPA in the 
proposed rule represents an amalgam of terms approved by EPA at 
different times in 1981 and 1982. See the related discussion in the 
proposed rule at 69 FR at 31057, column 1.
    NMA Comment #5: By operation of federal law, a portion of Clark 
County is still designated as a serious nonattainment area for CO; as a 
result, NSR requirements for nonattainment areas apply. However, the 
reality is that control of mobile and stationary sources has 
substantially improved air quality in Clark County, to the point that 
it now qualifies for redesignation as an attainment area for CO. Such 
redesignation is now in order. On January 28, 2003, EPA declared that 
no exceedances of the CO standard had been recorded in Clark County 
since 1998. Stationary sources are an insignificant source of CO 
emissions in Clark County and the burdensome nonattainment regulation 
of stationary sources is no longer necessary to show progress towards 
or to maintain air quality standards. We therefore request that EPA 
redesignate the area as expeditiously as possible and, with DAQEM, 
revise the NSR rules for stationary sources accordingly.
    Response to NMA Comment #5: We agree that certain changes in NSR 
program requirements are allowed once an area has been redesignated 
from nonattainment to attainment. However, the Las Vegas Valley CO 
nonattainment area cannot be redesignated to attainment until all of 
the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act 
have been met. In our January 28, 2003 proposed rule on the serious 
area CO plan (68 FR 4141 at 4142), we cited the record of clean data 
over recent years from the DAQEM CO monitoring network, but that action 
did not propose a finding of CO attainment (but did propose approval of 
the Las Vegas Valley CO attainment plan and vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program). We expect to propose an attainment finding for CO 
in the near future, but we note here such a finding is but one of the 
five criteria that must be met before a CO nonattainment area can be 
redesignated to attainment. Another criterion relates to approval by 
EPA of a CO maintenance plan, which EPA understands to be currently 
under development by Clark County. Upon redesignation, EPA will 
consider any submitted changes to the requirements under Clark County's 
NSR program for new or modified stationary sources of CO in light of 
the County's future CO maintenance strategy.
    NMA Comment #6: EPA proposes to evaluate the submitted Clark County 
NSR program on the basis of Federal NSR regulations that are no longer 
in effect. This approach creates completely unnecessary and unjustified 
confusion. The Clark County NSR program should be evaluated based on 
current Federal NSR regulations. Review and evaluation of Clark 
County's NSR program based on current Federal NSR regulations is 
mandated by the CAA.
    Response to NMA Comment #6: Our June 2, 2004 proposed rule explains 
that we evaluated the submitted NSR program against the Federal NSR 
regulations that were in effect when the rules were being revised to 
address issues raised by EPA in the wake of the Hall decision. See 69 
FR at 31058, column 3. We disagree that this approach creates 
unnecessary confusion, and we disagree that the Act or our regulations 
prohibits us from taking this approach. One significant, on-going 
source of confusion that will be resolved by this final rule will be 
the need by DAQEM to reconcile the NSR program requirements under the 
County's adopted (but not EPA-approved) Air Quality Regulations with 
those under the NSR program approved by EPA as part of the SIP. As it 
stands now, new or modified stationary sources in Clark County must 
comply with two sets of NSR rules: current, locally-adopted CCAQR 
sections 12 and 59 (and related provisions in sections 0, 11, and 58) 
and SIP-approved section 15 (and related provisions in SIP sections 1 
and 11). The submitted NSR program represents a comprehensive revision 
to Clark County's EPA-approved NSR program from the early-1980's (and 
contained in sections 1, 11, and 15), and as such, compliance with both 
sets of rules is at the very least challenging and at worst confounding 
for the regulated community. Today's final rule will close this ``SIP 
gap'' and thereby ease the associated regulatory confusion.
    The proposed rule indicated (69 FR 31057, column 3) that our 
approach does not establish any precedent for evaluating whether a 
proposed NSR SIP fulfills the requirements of the revised NSR 
regulations that were published on December 31, 2002. Furthermore, we 
indicated at 69 FR at 31058, that the NSR revision that is the subject 
of this action does not relieve Clark County, like other State and 
local agencies, from adopting and submitting revisions to its SIP-
approved NSR rules implementing the minimum program requirements set 
forth in the revised Federal NSR regulations (published on December 31, 
2002) no later than January 2, 2006. Today's final rulemaking simply 
means

[[Page 54011]]

that the NSR revisions that are due by January 2, 2006 will be using 
CCAQR sections 0, 11, 12, 58, and 59, as submitted on October 23, 2003, 
as the SIP baseline NSR regulatory program instead of the 1980's-era 
sections 1, 11, and 15. None of the statutory or regulatory provisions 
cited by NMA require EPA to wait several more years to approve all of 
the necessary NSR revisions in a single rulemaking.
    DAQEM Comment #1: In the discussion of NOX requirements 
(69 FR 31063), the statement is made that section 12 of the Clark 
County regulations represents a relaxation of the ``control technology 
requirements for new or modified sources (from LAER to BACT).'' In 
fact, the NSR regulation in the current SIP contains no provisions for 
NOX nonattainment areas and contains no control technology 
requirements for NOX (Section 15.14). Thus, superseding that 
section with the Section 12 imposition of a BACT requirement is 
actually a strengthening of the NSR rules.
    Response to DAQEM Comment #1: We agree that the existing SIP NSR 
program (sections 1, 11, and 15) has no provisions for NOX 
nonattainment areas, but we disagree with DAQEM's conclusion that the 
existing SIP NSR program contains no control technology requirements 
for NOX. Subsection 15.13.1 sets forth the existing SIP NSR 
requirements for ``all new, reconstructed or modified sources'' of 
NOX ``throughout Clark County'' and thereby establishes a 
control technology requirement, at the very least, of best available 
control technology (BACT) (see subsection 15.13.9.2). Furthermore, we 
concluded in the proposed rule that SIP subsections 15.14.1 (``all new, 
or reconstructed, or modified stationary sources * * * of * * * 
particulate precursors * * * in the Las Vegas Valley * * *'') and 
15.14.1.3 (``Each new or modified source * * * shall incorporate * * * 
lowest achievable emission rate.'') tighten the control technology 
requirement (i.e., to the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)) for 
new or modified NOX sources in Las Vegas Valley, not on the 
basis of NOX as a precursor to nitrogen dioxide (for which 
the entire county is attainment), but rather as a ``particulate 
precursor,'' which is defined in section 1 as ``a gaseous air 
contaminant which can undergo gas-to-particle conversion processes in 
the ambient air to form particulate matter. Examples: (1) Ammonia, 
sulfur dioxide, chlorine, and nitrogen oxides can be converted to 
ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, and ammonium chloride. (2) Volatile 
organic compounds can be converted to organic and elemental carbon 
particulate.'' See the subsection entitled ``Nitrogen Dioxide SIP 
Planning Considerations,'' in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
our proposed action on the submitted Clark County NSR program.
    The difference between DAQEM's interpretation and EPA's 
interpretation of the NOX requirements in Las Vegas Valley 
under the existing SIP NSR program highlights the ambiguity of the term 
``particulate precursor.'' In our June 2, 2004 proposed rule, we did 
not recognize this existing SIP term as ambiguous, and evaluated the 
NOX control requirements in Las Vegas Valley accordingly, 
but upon reconsideration in light of DAQEM's comment, we have concluded 
that the term ``particulate precursor,'' as defined in section 1, is 
ambiguous because the term refers to examples of the types of gaseous 
air contaminants that can theoretically lead to secondary particulate 
formation (i.e., can be particulate precursors) rather than to a list 
of gaseous air contaminants that are in fact significant precursors to 
particulate under the actual ambient conditions found in Las Vegas 
Valley.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a recent final rule on the Las Vegas Valley PM-10 
attainment plan, we concluded 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. See 69 FR 32273, at 
32274, column 1 (June 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the ambiguity we now recognize in the term ``particulate 
precursor,'' as used for the purposes of the existing SIP NSR program, 
we conclude that, while it is clear that at least BACT-level of control 
is required for all new or modified NOX sources throughout 
Clark County, it is unclear whether the most stringent control 
technology requirement (LAER) applies to new or modified NOX 
sources in Las Vegas Valley under the existing SIP NSR program. 
However, this uncertainty only strengthens our conclusion from the 
proposed rule, that despite the incremental relaxation in the control 
technology requirement in Las Vegas Valley for new or modified 
NOX sources (a relaxation that we now recognize as 
uncertain), supercession of the existing SIP NSR program by the 
submitted NSR program would not interfere with continued attainment of 
the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the 
Act. See our proposed rule at 69 FR at 31063, column 1.
    NEC Comment #1: Two of the applicable requirements that would be 
violated with the approval of the submitted NSR program as a SIP 
revision are CAA sections 116 and 193. The logic of sections 116 and 
193 is very clear. When an existing plan fails to result in the 
attainment of the NAAQS, no subsequent revision of the plan's 
requirements can be less stringent than the rules that have already 
failed to result in attainment. With EPA's continued assistance, DAQEM 
is again proposing regulations that are less stringent than those that 
have already failed to result in attainment of the NAAQS. EPA has 
failed to address section 116 requirements in their entirety in the 
proposed rule and TSD and proposes approval of the submitted NSR 
program despite an admission of relaxations in its section 193 
discussion of CO and PM-10.
    Response to NEC Comment #1: NEC contends that CAA section 116 
requires that SIP revisions that would supercede pre-existing EPA-
approved SIP rules be no less stringent than those EPA-approved SIP 
rules individually or collectively. NEC contends that EPA has ignored 
the requirements of CAA section 116, but NEC misreads CAA section 116. 
Section 116 provides:

    ``Except as otherwise provided in sections 119(c), (e), and (f) 
(as in effect before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1977), 209, 211(c)(4), and 233 (preempting certain 
State regulation of moving sources) nothing in this Act shall 
preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision 
thereof to adopt or enforce (1) any standard or limitation 
respecting emissions of air pollutants or (2) any requirement 
respecting control or abatement of air pollution; except that if an 
emission standard or limitation is in effect under an applicable 
implementation plan * * * such State or political subdivision may 
not adopt or enforce any emission standard or limitation which is 
less stringent than the standard or limitation under such plan * * 
*.''

    NEC's reading of section 116 as imposing requirements for SIP 
revisions or a blanket prohibition on relaxation of SIPs would be 
inconsistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193, which specify the 
criteria to be applied in evaluating SIP revisions. In pertinent part, 
CAA section 110(l) provides:

    ``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if 
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in 
section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.''

    CAA section 110(l) does not preclude SIP relaxations but requires 
that relaxations not interfere with specified requirements of the Act 
including requirements for attainment and reasonable further progress. 
Thus, if an area can demonstrate that it will continue to attain or 
maintain the NAAQS and meet any applicable

[[Page 54012]]

reasonable further progress goals or other specific requirements, it 
may revise SIP provisions, even if the revision amounts to a 
relaxation. See Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1160 (9th Cir. 2001) 
(explaining that to make a finding under CAA section 110(l), ``EPA must 
be able to conclude that the particular plan revision before it is 
consistent with the development of an overall plan capable of meeting 
the Act's attainment requirements.''). Our proposed rule provides a 
detailed evaluation of the submitted NSR program under section 110(l). 
We have compared the submitted NSR program and the EPA-approved (i.e., 
existing SIP) NSR program that it would replace and evaluated the 
effect of the changes to the NSR program within the context of ambient 
air quality trends and compliance with CAA attainment planning 
requirements. We conclude that replacement of the existing SIP NSR 
program with the submitted NSR program would not interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See 69 FR at 
31060-31063.
    Even if a SIP revision is approvable under section 110(l), CAA 
section 193 imposes additional restrictions on modifications to certain 
SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas that were in effect 
prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (``pre-1990 control 
requirements''). In pertinent part, CAA section 193 provides:

    ``No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by 
an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the date of 
the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any area 
which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified 
after such enactment in any manner unless the modification insures 
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.''

    Thus, while NEC's interpretation of CAA section 116 as providing a 
broad prohibition against SIP relaxations is erroneous, CAA section 193 
does limit nonattainment areas from backsliding from the emissions 
reductions achieved by pre-1990 control requirements. In our proposed 
rule, we provide a detailed evaluation of the submitted NSR program 
under CAA section 193. See 69 FR at 31063-31065. In that evaluation, 
which covers the two pollutants (CO and PM-10) for which Las Vegas 
Valley was designated nonattainment at the time of the 1990 CAA 
Amendments and remains so designated, we indicate specific instances 
where the requirement under the submitted NSR program, such as the 
control technology requirement for minor sources, would be less 
stringent (BACT) than under the existing SIP NSR rules (LAER). Thus, we 
acknowledge the relaxation of certain program elements, but our 
evaluation under CAA section 193 does not end there. We evaluated the 
NSR programs as a whole taking into account all of the programs' 
elements (such as the control technology requirements, major stationary 
source thresholds, offset ratios, etc.) in concluding that the 
submitted NSR program will result in equivalent or greater mitigation 
of CO and PM-10 emissions increases due to new source growth relative 
to the existing SIP NSR program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 193 uses the phrase ``equivalent or greater 
emission reductions,'' but, in the context of NSR programs, which 
are not specifically designed to produce emissions reductions 
themselves but to assure that stationary source growth occurs in a 
manner that is consistent with an area's overall control strategy, 
the phrase means equivalent or greater mitigation of emissions 
increases due to new stationary source growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in summary, EPA concludes that although the SIP revision does 
relax certain CO and PM-10 provisions of the NSR program, the SIP 
revision as a whole satisfies section 110(l) because it is consistent 
with the area's overall control strategy, which takes into account 
ambient trends and CAA planning requirements and which was recently 
approved by EPA in separate rulemakings (see response to NEC comment 
6), and it satisfies section 193 because the submitted NSR 
program provides equivalent or greater mitigation of emissions 
increases compared to the existing SIP NSR program.
    NEC Comment #2: Clark County was recently declared a nonattainment 
area for ozone. The relaxations in proposed controls for the ozone 
precursor pollutants (volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 
NOX) that are in the proposed SIP are a relaxation from the 
existing SIP. The situation is similar to the relaxations for CO and 
PM-10. Instead of dealing with the issue, EPA has chosen to keep that 
relaxation from the discussion.
    Response to NEC Comment #2: Contrary to NEC's contention, the 
regulatory context for review of the submitted Clark County NSR program 
is different for ozone than for CO or PM-10. For the latter pollutants, 
the nonattainment designations were re-affirmed by the 1990 CAA 
Amendments and continue to the present day. In contrast, for ozone, 
prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments, implementation of an effective 
control strategy for the only ozone NAAQS then in existence (the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS) led to our redesignation of Las Vegas Valley from 
nonattainment to attainment. Las Vegas Valley continues to attain the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS to the present day. In 1997, EPA promulgated a 
revised NAAQS for ozone based on an 8-hour average. Following 
significant legal challenges to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we promulgated 
designations earlier this year for all areas of the country for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, and Clark County was one of the areas that we 
designated as nonattainment. (The 1-hour ozone NAAQS continues to be in 
effect until June 2005 when it will be revoked.) In our proposed rule, 
we acknowledge this recent designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at 69 
FR 31062, column 3. More recently, we deferred the effective date of 
the designation until September 13, 2004 to allow the State the 
opportunity to provide us with information that would support a 
nonattainment area boundary other than the county boundary. See 69 FR 
34076 (June 18, 2004). A nonattainment designation triggers certain CAA 
requirements and will lead to future SIP revisions that must be 
submitted prior to dates yet to be established by EPA.
    We provide a section 110(l) evaluation in our June 2, 2004 proposed 
rule of the submitted NSR program with respect to the ozone NAAQS. See 
69 FR at 31062-31063. In that discussion, we acknowledge certain 
incremental relaxations in the VOC control technology requirement but, 
similar to our discussion of PM-10 and CO, we conclude that other 
aspects of the overall NSR submittal provide us with the basis to 
conclude that the submitted NSR program (and supercession of the 
existing SIP NSR program) would not interfere with attainment and 
reasonable further progress towards attainment of the ozone NAAQS, or 
any other requirement under the Act. In support of this conclusion in 
the case of the ozone NAAQS, we point to the following: (1) The 
submitted NSR program would replace a ``potential-to-potential'' test 
with the ``actual-to-potential'' test for evaluating proposed 
stationary source modifications with the result that a greater number 
of modifications would be subject to new source review (and thereby to 
the control technology requirements, etc.) under the submitted NSR 
program than under the existing SIP NSR program (see 69 FR 31061, 
column 1); (2) significant Clark County non-NSR SIP rules and EPA motor 
vehicle tailpipe and fuel regulations that regulate VOC emissions would 
be unaffected by this action (see 69 FR 31062, column 3); (3) the

[[Page 54013]]

relaxation under the submitted NSR program with respect to the VOC 
control technology requirement for minor VOC sources in Las Vegas 
Valley would be incremental (LAER to BACT) instead of total (LAER to 
uncontrolled) (see, generally, 69 FR at 31064, column 2); and (4) there 
would be an incremental strengthening (BACT to LAER) under the 
submitted NSR program of the VOC control technology requirement for new 
or modified major VOC sources in areas generally upwind of Las Vegas 
Valley (see 69 FR 31062).
    Although the CAA section 110(l) evaluation summarized above was 
prepared in connection with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the same rationale 
also applies to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, in summary, EPA concludes 
that although the SIP revision does relax certain VOC provisions of the 
NSR program, the SIP revision as a whole satisfies section 110(l) 
because it is consistent with the area's EPA-approved ozone control 
strategy, and because, given the trade-offs concerning VOC requirements 
between the two programs as discussed above and the inherent difficulty 
in determining with precision the net effect on VOC emissions of 
replacement of the existing SIP NSR program with the submitted NSR 
program (which would depend upon assumptions regarding the number and 
potential-to-emit of future new and modified sources in addition to 
their proposed locations within Clark County), we believe that it is 
reasonable to conclude that the submitted NSR program provides 
equivalent or greater mitigation of VOC emissions increases compared to 
the existing SIP NSR program.
    The State and Clark County developed the approved ozone control 
strategy to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but it also serves as the 
base control strategy from which the State and Clark County will 
develop an 8-hour ozone control strategy. EPA will be establishing the 
schedule that the State and Clark County must follow to develop an 8-
hour control strategy in a final rule implementing the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
    NEC Comment #3: EPA accepts relaxations in control technology 
requirements by discussing NSR offset requirements. Offset requirements 
are completely different than control requirements. Over the past 20+ 
years since approval of the existing SIP NSR program, neither EPA nor 
DAQEM have required or enforced the offset requirement in Clark County, 
despite numerous sources that have triggered the requirement, and for 
that reason, the public does not have much confidence that either will 
now start enforcing it. As a result, the offsets requirements that EPA 
relies on in the proposed approval amount to ``paper only'' emissions 
reductions.
    Response to NEC Comment #3: In our proposed rule, we rely on the 
offset requirements in the submitted NSR program to mitigate the higher 
level of emissions from new or modified sources that might otherwise 
occur from a more stringent control technology requirement (e.g., LAER 
for minor sources) than the submitted program (BACT for minor sources). 
We also note the improved regulatory structure of the new NSR rule that 
clearly specifies the ``quality'' of offsets required. By ``quality,'' 
we refer to the requirements, such as those set forth in CCAQR section 
59, subsection 59.4, that emission reductions used to satisfy a Federal 
offset requirement must be surplus, permanent, quantifiable and 
federally enforceable, as those terms are defined in CCAQR section 
0.\5\ From a practical standpoint, the added regulatory clarity should 
enhance compliance with the requirements by permit applicants as well 
as enforcement of those requirements by DAQEM and EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 15, subsection 15.14.4.3.3, appears to establish 
certain requirements for creation and use of offsets under the 
existing SIP NSR program. However, a typographical error in the 
listing of this particular subsection in both our proposed 
rulemaking (see 47 FR 7267, February 18, 1982), and final rulemaking 
(see 47 FR 26620, June 21, 1982) cast doubt on the validity of EPA's 
approval of that subsection into the SIP. Also, see 40 CFR 
52.1470(c)(24)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEC Comment #4: The discussion regarding Clark County's local, road 
paving, and offset credit program fails to discuss the fact that the 
program has been a misleading program all along. The offset credits 
under the local program cannot be replicated because they are not real. 
The local offset program was never intended to reduce air pollution. 
Despite this, the EPA and DAQEM continue to support the local emission 
reduction credit program used by favored sources to evade Federal 
offset requirements that EPA and DAQEM say are part of the submitted 
NSR rules.
    Response to NEC Comment #4: As discussed above in response to NMA 
comment 1, DAQEM and the State requested EPA to withdraw the 
approval of subsection 59.2 as part of the SIP. As a result, we no 
longer have authority to act on subsection 59.2 (``Local Offset 
Requirements''), and subsection 59.2 will therefore not be approved 
into the SIP. Subsection 59.2 (specifically, subsection 59.2.7.1) 
contains the provisions allowing use of Road Paving Credits as PM-10 
offsets. In accordance with CCAQR regulations (see CCAQR subsection 
59.2.1), the Road Paving Credits are not available for use by new major 
sources or major modifications of PM-10 to comply with Federal offset 
requirements. We are therefore not addressing the issue of whether 
those credits would hypothetically be valid in meeting Federal offset 
requirements. As we state in response to NEC comment 4, we 
expect that the more detailed specifications in submitted CCAQR section 
59, subsection 59.4 (and the related definitions set forth in CCAQR 
section 0) regulating the creation and use of emissions reductions for 
the purposes of satisfying the offset requirements will enhance both 
compliance and enforcement efforts compared to the existing SIP NSR 
program.
    NEC Comment #5: One way to ascertain if reasonable further progress 
has been made is to review air quality in 1980 and compare it to today. 
The Las Vegas Valley was in nonattainment for particulate matter, 
ozone, and CO in 1980. As of the writing of this comment, some of the 
rules were changed, but the valley remains in nonattainment for all 
three pollutants.
    Response to NEC Comment #5: The Clean Air Act defines ``reasonable 
further progress'' as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions 
of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may 
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring 
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by 
the applicable date.'' See CAA section 171(1). Thus, reasonable further 
progress (RFP) is judged from an emissions standpoint and does not 
correlate directly to ambient concentrations, which reflect 
meteorological conditions that vary from year to year as well as 
emissions trends. However, over the long term, as NEC suggests, the 
trend in concentrations should be downward if there has in fact been 
``reasonable further progress.'' In Las Vegas Valley, as discussed on a 
pollutant-by-pollutant basis in the following paragraphs, the 
monitoring data shows improvement for all three pollutants for which 
Las Vegas Valley is, or was, nonattainment, i.e., CO, particulate 
matter (TSP and PM-10), and (one-hour) ozone, relative to conditions 
that prevailed in the valley in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
    Carbon Monoxide. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the 1982 Air 
Quality Implementation Plan Update (June 1, 1982) indicates that the 
number of days per year during which an exceedance of the CO NAAQS was 
recorded was about

[[Page 54014]]

30. In contrast, since 1998, there have been no recorded exceedances of 
the CO NAAQS. See our proposed approval of the 2000 Las Vegas Valley 
serious area CO SIP at 68 FR 4141, at 4142, column 1 (January 28, 
2003). The carbon monoxide control strategy has relied primarily on 
Federal motor vehicle emissions standards, wintertime State and local 
fuel specifications, and an ``enhanced'' vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program to improve CO conditions in Las Vegas Valley. In 
our June 2, 2004 proposed rule, we discuss how the submitted NSR 
program is consistent with the CO control strategy and the serious area 
CO SIP (which we recently approved). See 69 FR at 31061, column 3 and 
31062, column 1.
    Particulate Matter. During the 1977 through 1979 period, the number 
of days per year during which an exceedance of the particulate matter 
NAAQS (then defined in terms of total suspended particulate (TSP)) was 
recorded averaged 14 based on summaries of monitoring data compiled for 
the Revised Air Quality Implementation Plan (November 18, 1980). The 
particulate matter NAAQS was revised to refer to PM-10, rather than 
TSP, in 1987, so a direct comparison between current conditions and 
those in the late 1970's is not possible. Nonetheless, a comparison 
between the older TSP data and the current PM-10 data provides a rough, 
if imprecise, basis for evaluating relative progress in reducing 
particulate matter concentrations in the valley over time. In that 
regard, we note that, during the 1997 through 1999 period, the number 
of days per year during which an exceedance of the PM-10 NAAQS was 
recorded averaged 10 based on data compiled for the PM-10 State 
Implementation Plan for Clark County (June 2001). Thus, while progress 
in attaining the particulate matter NAAQS has been slow, the approved 
2001 PM-10 attainment plan is the first Las Vegas Valley plan to 
contain a comprehensive set of regulations addressing fugitive dust 
sources, the predominant sources of ambient PM-10 in the valley. We 
approved the fugitive dust regulations, CCAQR sections 90 through 94, 
as part of the final rule approving the 2001 Las Vegas Valley PM-10 
attainment plan. See 69 FR 32273 at 32276 (June 9, 2004). Also as part 
of the 2001 PM-10 attainment plan approval, we approved the 
demonstration of attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley by 
the end of 2006. In our June 2, 2004 proposed rule, we discuss how the 
submitted NSR program is consistent with the PM-10 control strategy and 
serious area PM-10 attainment plan (which we recently approved). See 69 
FR at 31062, columns 1 and 2.
    Ozone. During the 1980 through 1983 period, the number of days per 
year in which an exceedance was recorded varied from 1 to 14 based on 
data contained in the Air Quality Implementation Plan, Post 1982 Update 
(July 1984). By the mid-1980's, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS had been 
attained in Las Vegas Valley, and EPA redesignated the area as an 
``attainment'' area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1986. See 51 FR 41788 
(November 19, 1986). The ozone control strategy relied primarily on 
Federal motor vehicle emissions standards and local stationary source 
regulations, including, among others, Clark County District Board of 
Health Air Pollution Control Regulation Section 33 (``Chlorine in 
Chemical Processes''). Our proposed rule on the submitted NSR program, 
at 69 FR at 31062, column 3, notes that, since 1986, peak ozone levels 
have remained relatively constant at 0.09 parts per million (ppm) to 
0.10 ppm, but peak levels in recent years have approached the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS of 0.12 ppm. In our proposed rule, we discuss how the 
submitted NSR program is consistent with the 1980's-era 1-hour ozone 
control strategy. See 69 FR at 31062, columns 2 and 3, and 31063, 
column 1.
    As noted in response to NEC comment 2, EPA recently 
designated Clark County as a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS (promulgated by EPA in 1997) but deferred the effective date for 
that designation until September 13, 2004. Upon the effective date of 
the new designation, certain changes in the Clark County NSR program 
will be required under either the submitted or existing SIP NSR program 
(e.g., LAER and offsets for VOC and NOX major sources and 
major modifications throughout Clark County or designated subportion 
thereof).
    NEC Comment #6: DAQEM has yet to produce an accurate and 
comprehensive emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. DAQEM 
uses air quality calculations that are not credible in order to justify 
the desired paper-only end result. For example, the emissions inventory 
from the ``moderate area'' plans from the mid-1990's show little 
resemblance to the current ``serious area'' plans. A specific instance 
is demonstrated by the PM-10 emissions estimates from vacant land that 
doubled between the ``moderate area'' PM-10 plan, which was withdrawn, 
and the ``serious area'' PM-10 plan. It is also not credible that the 
plans project lower emissions despite a population that has tripled in 
20 years. Also, certain emissions sources are completely missing from 
the inventories, such as new power plants and a proposed airport.
    The amount of industry emissions has increased since 1979 and for 
that reason alone, LAER triggers should not be relaxed. We cannot go 
from LAER to less than that without having an impact on attainment. PM-
10 emissions have not been reduced in reality. DAQEM has utilized 
drastically lower emission factors to estimate emissions. There is no 
justification for the data presented in the proposed approval. Industry 
has grown but the emissions inventory does not show the same increase 
in emissions since the emission factors have been reduced.
    Another trick DAQEM has mastered over the years is the manipulation 
of the choice of monitoring sites and management's ability to shut down 
monitors just as they appear to reach the level of NAAQS exceedances. 
DAQEM places only the official monitors in areas of the valley that 
have proven through previous monitoring to rarely report exceedances.
    According to CAA section 188(e), the ``serious area'' PM-10 
attainment date may also be extended if the rules are followed. Clark 
County has not followed the rules. One criteria for an extension is 
that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that 
are included in the implementation plan of any State or are achieved in 
practice in any State. The EPA has admitted that many of the control 
and offset requirements of the proposed plan are not as stringent as 
the existing plan. DAQEM has noted that most sources in the 
nonattainment area are non-major sources. It is these non-major sources 
that represent the majority of emissions whose emissions are being 
relaxed the most by the proposed regulation. For all of the reasons 
herein, we object to the proposed 5-year extension to 2006 for 
attainment.
    Response to NEC Comment #6: NEC objects to several aspects of the 
Las Vegas Valley CO and PM-10 attainment plans, including the 
characterizations of baseline ambient conditions based on data from the 
monitoring network, the emissions inventories, the control measures, 
and the attainment demonstrations. We are taking no action today 
related to these plans but do recognize that, in our June 2, 2004 
proposed rule on the submitted NSR program, our rationale for 
determining that the submitted NSR program would not interfere with 
attainment of the CO and PM-10 NAAQS under section

[[Page 54015]]

110(l) of the Act was based in part on our evaluations, and proposed 
approvals (in separate notices published in January 2003), of the CO 
and PM-10 attainment plans. See 68 FR 4141 (January 28, 2003) (CO plan 
proposed approval) and 68 FR 2954 (January 22, 2003) (PM-10 plan 
proposed approval).
    Specifically, in our section 110(l) evaluation for CO, we based our 
conclusion in part on our previous evaluation and proposed approval (in 
the January 28, 2003 notice) of the CO attainment plan's inventories, 
including how those inventories account for stationary sources, our 
proposed approval of the plan's conclusion that stationary sources are 
not a significant contributor to CO levels in the valley, and our 
proposed approval of the attainment demonstration with reliance on on-
road motor vehicle measures (e.g., emissions standards, fuels, an 
inspection and maintenance program, and transportation control 
measures) not stationary source controls. See 69 FR at 31061-31062 and 
the related discussion in the TSD on our proposal on the submitted NSR 
program at pages 31 through 37.
    With respect to PM-10, we based our conclusion in part on our 
evaluation and proposed approval (in the January 22, 2003 notice) of 
the PM-10 attainment plan's inventories, including how those 
inventories account for stationary source emissions, the plan's 
conclusion that stationary sources are not a significant contributor to 
PM-10 NAAQS violations in the valley, and the plan's attainment 
demonstration based on implementation of new fugitive dust controls, 
not stationary source controls.
    Subsequent to publication of our June 2, 2004 proposed rule on the 
submitted NSR program, we took final actions, after due consideration 
of public comments, to approve the inventories and strategies in the CO 
and PM-10 attainment plans, and thus, our continued reliance on those 
plan elements in support of today's final approval of the submitted NSR 
program under section 110(l) is appropriate. (The final rule approving 
the CO plan was signed on July 23, 2004 but has not yet been published 
in the Federal Register; the final rule approving the PM-10 plan was 
published at 69 FR 32273 (June 9, 2004).)
    Most of the specific issues raised by NEC on the attainment plans 
in this comment were raised previously in the context of our January 
2003 proposed approvals on the CO and PM-10 plans, and thus, we rely 
primarily on our consideration of those comments as documented in the 
Response to Comments Documents prepared in conjunction with our final 
actions on the plans but also address newly-raised issues in the 
following paragraphs, which are organized by general subject matter.
    Lack of Accurate and Comprehensive Emissions Inventories for the 
Nonattainment Area: We disagree with this contention and believe that 
the baseline inventories in these plans represent comprehensive, 
accurate, and current estimates of actual emissions in the 
nonattainment area for the reasons set forth in our Response to 
Comments Documents for the CO and PM-10 attainment plan approvals. See 
CO Plan Final Rule Response to Comments Document, responses to NEC 
comments 12, 14, and 17 through 23; and PM-10 Plan Final Rule Response 
to Comments Document, pages 7 through 13.
    Emissions Trends Inversely Proportional to Population Growth: For 
CO, through 2010, the beneficial effect of motor vehicle and fuel-
related CO control measures on CO emissions will more than offset 
region-wide increases in vehicle-miles-traveled and thereby provide for 
a net downward trend in CO emissions. See CO Plan Final Rule Response 
to Comments Document, response to NEC comment 6. For PM-10, 
the explanation lies in the adoption, implementation, and enforcement 
of a comprehensive set of regulations (Clark County sections 90 through 
94) that address the sources of approximately 90% of the PM-10 
emissions inventory in Las Vegas Valley, i.e., fugitive dust sources, 
including open areas, vacant lots, unpaved roads, unpaved alleys, and 
unpaved easement roads, unpaved parking lots, paved roads and street 
sweeping equipment, and construction activities. See the TSD for our 
proposed rulemaking on the submitted NSR program under the subsection 
entitled ``PM-10 SIP Planning Considerations.''
    Significant Differences in Current Emissions Estimates Compared to 
Estimates Published in Previous Plans: Changes in EPA-approved 
emissions calculation procedures and models necessitate a re-figuring 
of emissions in updated plans, and the emissions estimates in the 
current CO and PM-10 plans are well documented and represent an 
improvement over the corresponding estimates in previous submitted 
plans. See CO Plan Final Rule Response to Comments Document, response 
to NEC comment 12; and PM-10 Plan Final Rule Response to 
Comments Document, responses to comments 7, 8 and 
11.
    Stationary Source Trends: For CO, the attainment plan reasonably 
assumes that emissions from major sources would remain unchanged after 
the baseline date (1996) due to the offset requirement for such sources 
but assumes that emissions from minor sources would increase in 
proportion to growth projections for the manufacturing sector. See CO 
Plan Final Rule Response to Comments Document, response to NEC comment 
22. For PM-10, the attainment plan reasonably assumes that 
emissions from stationary sources would remain relatively constant from 
1998 through the attainment year (2006) as the growth in PM-10 
emissions that would otherwise be expected to occur roughly in 
proportion to population is offset by the combination of the 
application of LAER (all new major stationary sources and major 
modifications) or BACT (all other new stationary sources and 
modifications) and the expected downturn in two important PM-10 
stationary source categories (sand and gravel operations and asphalt 
concrete manufacturing) due to declining rates of population growth and 
associated construction activity. See the TSD for our proposed 
rulemaking on the submitted NSR program under the subsection entitled 
``PM-10 SIP Planning Considerations.''
    Inadequate Monitoring Network: We disagree with this contention and 
conclude in our final actions on the CO and PM-10 plans that the data 
from the monitoring network were sufficient for development of the 
attainment plans although we acknowledge certain deficiencies in the 
monitoring network that Clark County is in the process of fixing. See 
CO Plan Final Rule Response to Comments Document, responses to NEC 
comment 8; and PM-10 Plan Final Rule Response to Comments 
Document, pages 2 through 7.
    Extension of PM-10 Attainment Date and Most Stringent Measures 
(MSM) Evaluation: We believe that Clark County has adequately 
identified the significant source categories for which best available 
control measures (BACM) and most stringent measures (MSM) must be 
provided, has demonstrated that adopted BACM and MSM are being 
implemented as expeditiously as practicable, and has provided adequate 
technological or economic justifications for rejecting additional 
control measures that theoretically could have provided for a 2001 
attainment date. See PM-10 Plan Final Rule Response to Comments 
Document, pages 30 through 37 and pages 40 through 42. Finally, we note 
that NSR itself is not a ``measure'' that need be considered as a 
``most stringent measure'' under section 188(e). NSR affects new or 
modified sources whereas BACM and MSM represent measures to reduce 
emissions from existing sources. We note that any revisions to an NSR

[[Page 54016]]

program, such as the replacement of a LAER requirement by a BACT 
requirement for non-major (minor) sources, applies only prospectively, 
and that, for example, air permits that apply LAER level of control for 
non-major sources and issued prior to the change in the NSR program 
would not be affected by the change in the NSR program. That is, the 
permit condition or conditions that apply LAER to the given source 
remain enforceable after the change in the NSR program. Only new 
sources and source modifications that receive permits after the 
effective date of the change in the NSR program would be affected.
    NEC Comment #7: If actual credible data was reported, the Apex 
Valley would have been declared a nonattainment area years ago. 
Instead, the EPA is helping DAQEM develop another relaxation of the 
regulations in the form of process called a ``Natural Events Action 
Plan'' (NEAP). The NEAP's sole purpose to cast out data that does not 
fit the pre-conceived outcome that the EPA and DAQEM have projected for 
health-based NAAQS. We do not believe that the NEAP has any lawful 
statutory basis and the practice is highly misleading. We reaffirm our 
request for full NEAP disclosure without further delay.
    Response to NEC Comment #7: In light of this comment, we have 
reconsidered our evaluation of the submitted NSR program under section 
110(l) as it relates to PM-10 emissions in Apex Valley, and we now 
believe that our conclusion in the proposed rule that there would be an 
incremental relaxation in NSR requirements under the submitted NSR 
program (relative to the existing SIP NSR program) in that area with 
respect to PM-10 but that such relaxation would be acceptable in part 
because of the future development of a Natural Events Action Plan was 
in error. We no longer believe it appropriate to rely on the 
development of a Natural Events Action Plan for Apex Valley to support 
our revised evaluation. As explained further below, our evaluation of 
the submitted NSR program was predicated on a mistaken interpretation 
of the PM-10 requirements for new or modified sources in Apex Valley 
under the existing SIP NSR program. Our revised interpretation of the 
existing SIP NSR requirements in Apex Valley has not changed our basic 
conclusion, i.e., that the submitted NSR program would not interfere 
with attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS under section 110(l) of the Act, but 
it has changed the underlying rationale for that conclusion.
    In the proposed rule, we relied solely on existing SIP subsection 
15.14.1 to conclude that the requirements of subsection 15.14 (such as 
LAER and, for some sources, offsets) apply to new or modified sources 
of PM-10 in Apex Valley. In pertinent part, subsection 15.14.1 states: 
``This section applies to all new, or reconstructed, or modified 
stationary sources of * * * particulate * * * proposing to locate: (1) 
in the Las Vegas Valley, or * * * (3) in any other area in Clark County 
in which the air quality standards are exceeded'' (emphasis added). We 
interpreted subsection 15.14.1 as extending the requirements of that 
subsection (i.e., LAER, and in some cases, offsets) outside of the 
designated nonattainment area (i.e., Las Vegas Valley) to Apex Valley 
because Apex Valley had become an area in Clark County in which the air 
quality standards are exceeded by virtue of the fact that PM-10 NAAQS 
exceedances have been recorded in that area in recent years. (The 
current designations under section 107(d) of the Act for the two 
hydrographic areas (216 and 217) that comprise Apex 
Valley are ``unclassifiable'' for the PM-10 NAAQS, see 40 CFR 81.329, 
and EPA has not initiated the process to redesignate either one of the 
areas to ``nonattainment.'')
    Upon reconsideration, we now believe that our sole reliance on 
subsection 15.14.1 was mistaken. We should have also considered 
existing SIP subsection 15.13.1, and the definition of ``nonattainment 
area'' in existing SIP section 1, and in so doing, we find that the 
phrase ``in any other area in Clark County in which the air quality 
standards are exceeded'' in subsection 15.14.1 is correctly interpreted 
to refer to an area that has been established as a ``nonattainment 
area'' by the Governor of Nevada and not just any area in which a 
monitor has recorded exceedances of the standard.
    Existing SIP subsection 15.13 requires BACT level of control but 
does not require offsets. In pertinent part, existing SIP subsection 
15.13.1 specifies that subsection 15.13 ``applies to all new, 
reconstructed, or modified sources of * * * particulate * * * in the 
attainment areas of Clark County'' (emphasis added). Existing SIP 
section 1 (``Definitions'') does not define the term ``attainment 
area'' but does so by negative implication by defining the term, ``non-
attainment area,'' to be ``an area which has been determined to exceed 
any national ambient air quality limit for any pollutant for which 
there is a standard. The Non-attainment Area for Clark County, Nevada 
has been established by the Governor of the State of Nevada and such 
area coincides with the boundaries of the Hydrographic Area 212 (Las 
Vegas Valley) as reported in the document ``Water Resources--
Information Series--Report 6'' issued by the Nevada State Engineer's 
Office in September, 1968. By negative implication, an ``attainment 
area'' then is an area that has not been determined to exceed a given 
NAAQS through a process involving the Governor. As such, subsection 
15.13, rather than subsection 15.14, applies to new or modified PM-10 
sources in Apex Valley under the existing SIP NSR program because it is 
comprised by two areas that remain designated as ``unclassifiable'' for 
the PM-10 NAAQS (in this context, ``unclassifiable'' and ``attainment'' 
represent designations with equivalent regulatory requirements), and 
although exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS have been measured there, Apex 
Valley has not been ``determined to exceed'' through any process 
involving the State of Nevada or, more specifically, the Governor and 
thus does not represent an ``area in Clark County in which the air 
quality standards are exceeded'' for the purposes of subsection 15.14.
    This revised interpretation is supported by the recognition of some 
of the enforceability problems that flow from our previous 
interpretation. These problems include lack of fair notice to regulated 
sources as to when the requirements under subsection 15.14 (i.e., LAER 
and, in some cases, offsets) are triggered for new sources and 
modifications (e.g., it could be upon one exceedance, or sufficient 
exceedances to constitute a violation of the NAAQS, or some other 
triggering event), when the requirements no longer apply (e.g., after a 
year of clean data or some other indication that the area no longer is 
exceeding the standard), and what area is affected (e.g., the immediate 
area surrounding the monitoring station, the section 107(d) area 
(codified in 40 CFR part 81, subpart C) in which the monitor is 
located, or the entire valley in which the monitor is located, which in 
this case involves two section 107(d) areas, or some other geographic 
area). Any process under which the Governor makes a determination that 
a NAAQS is exceeded in a given area would invariably identify an 
effective date, identify criteria for ``attaining'' the standard once 
again, and delineate boundaries for the affected area, and thereby 
avoid the enforceability problems associated with our previous 
interpretation.
    With the revised interpretation of the requirements for new or 
modified PM-10 sources in Apex Valley under the

[[Page 54017]]

existing SIP NSR program, we now find that there would be no relaxation 
in either the control technology requirement (BACT applies under both 
the existing SIP and submitted NSR programs) or offset requirement 
(none under either program) and thus approval of the submitted NSR 
program would not interfere with attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS in Apex 
Valley. Since our revised rationale for approving the submitted NSR 
program under section 110(l) as it relates to PM-10 in Apex Valley 
rests fundamentally on an interpretation of existing regulatory 
requirements, we are not required to conduct supplemental notice and 
comment due to the exemption for interpretive rules under section 
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    If, and when, EPA redesignates Apex Valley, or some portion 
thereof, to nonattainment for PM-10 under section 107(d) of the Act, 
then the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP will need to be revised 
to provide for, among other things, implementation of reasonably 
available control measures (RACM) to reduce emissions from existing PM-
10 sources. In addition, the Clark County NSR program will need to be 
revised to require LAER and offsets for new major sources and major 
modifications proposing to locate in the area so designated.
    NEC Comment #8: We object to EPA's failure to implement a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) under section 110(c)(1).
    Response to NEC Comment #8: We acknowledge that our deadlines for 
promulgating CO and PM-10 ``serious area'' FIPs under section 
110(c)(1)(A) of the Act have passed, but our authority to promulgate 
them under that section has also now expired, with the exception of CO 
contingency provisions, due to our recent final actions approving the 
CO and PM-10 plans for Las Vegas Valley. Our decision not to take final 
action on the CO contingency provisions has no effect on our final 
action today on the submitted NSR program.

III. EPA Action

    As authorized under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is partially 
approving and partially disapproving the revised Clark County NSR 
program. Our final action is a partial approval because we are 
approving submitted CCAQR sections 0, 11, 12 (except subsections 
12.2.18 and 12.2.20), 58, and 59 (except subsection 59.2, which was 
withdrawn) and submitted State regulation NAC 445B.22083, based on our 
determination that these rules comply with relevant CAA requirements 
for permitting of new or modified stationary sources in Clark County 
and that supercession of related existing SIP provisions (i.e., parts 
of section 1 and all of sections 11 and 15) is consistent with section 
110(l) and 193 of the CAA. That is, we have determined that 
supercession of the existing SIP Clark County NSR program with the 
submitted NSR program will not interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or 
any other applicable requirement of the Act, consistent with section 
110(l) as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit in Hall v. EPA, and will 
provide for equivalent or greater emission reductions of nonattainment 
pollutants as called for in CAA section 193. This action incorporates 
the rules, or portions of rules, that we are approving into the Nevada 
SIP. Furthermore, our approval of the submitted NSR program provides us 
with the basis to withdraw EPA's nonattainment area visibility FIP 
authority as it relates to new source review by DAQEM in Clark County 
(see 40 CFR 52.1488(b)).
    This final approval of section 0 (``Definitions''), as submitted on 
October 23, 2003, in its entirety results in the supercession of all of 
the definitions in existing SIP section 1 (``Definitions'') except for 
the following 33 terms: Affected Facility (1.1), Air Contaminant (1.3), 
Air Pollution Control Committee (1.6), Area Source (1.11), Atmosphere 
(1.12), Board (1.16), Commercial Off-Road Vehicle Racing (1.23), Dust 
(1.26), Existing Facility (1.28), Existing Gasoline Station (1.29), 
Fixed Capital Cost (1.30), Fumes (1.36), Health District (1.40), 
Hearing Board (1.41), Integrated Sampling (1.44), Minor Source (1.50), 
Mist (1.51), New Gasoline Station (1.57), New Source (1.58), NIC 
(1.60), Point Source (1.70), Shutdown (1.78), Significant (unnumbered), 
Single Source (1.81), Smoke (1.83), Source of Air Contaminant (1.84), 
Special Mobile Equipment (1.85), Standard Commercial Equipment (1.87), 
Standard Conditions (1.88), Start Up (1.89), Stop Order (1.91), 
Uncombined Water (1.95), and Vapor Disposal System (1.97). Also, this 
final approval of section 0 results in the supercession of all 29 of 
the section 0 definitions that were submitted to EPA on July 23, 2001 
as part of the Las Vegas PM-10 attainment plan and approved by EPA on 
June 9, 2004 (see 69 FR 32273, at 32277).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In our TSD (dated April 23, 2004) for the proposed action on 
the Clark County NSR rules, we compared the definitions in section 
0, as adopted locally on December 4, 2001 and submitted to EPA on 
February 25, 2003, with the corresponding definitions in a previous 
version of section 0 that had been submitted as part of the Las 
Vegas PM-10 attainment plan and concluded that there were no 
substantive differences between the two sets of definitions. In this 
final rule, we recognize that the February 25, 2003 submittal was 
superceded by the October 23, 2003 submittal, but we have concluded 
that there are no substantive differences between the set of 
definitions in the October 23, 2003 submittal and the corresponding 
set of definitions submitted as part of the Las Vegas PM-10 
attainment plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our action also constitutes a partial disapproval because we are 
disapproving submitted CCAQR section 12, subsections 12.2.18 and 
12.2.20, and submitted CCAQR section 52, subsection 52.8. We are 
disapproving submitted CCAQR section 12, subsections 12.2.18 and 
12.2.20, which relate to regulation of hazardous air pollutants, as 
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP.\7\ We are disapproving 
submitted CCAQR subsection 52.8 because it cannot be evaluated properly 
in the absence of a SIP submittal of the entire rule (i.e., CCAQR 
section 52). These disapproved rules are not incorporated into the SIP. 
No sanctions flow from this partial disapproval action under section 
179 of the Act because the disapproved provisions do not constitute 
required SIP submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ HAP regulations are not inappropriate for approval as part 
of a SIP in every instance, see, e.g., 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, 
IV. C.6, but in this instance, CCAQR subsections 12.2.18 and 12.2.20 
do not apply to sources subject to the criteria pollutant provisions 
contained in other subsections of CCAQR section 12 and thus are 
inappropriate because they would not contribute to attainment of a 
NAAQS nor are they needed to satisfy the non-criteria pollutant 
requirements of the Federal NSR regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in recognition of the vacature of our approval of previous 
versions of the Clark County NSR rules in Hall v. EPA, we are deleting 
40 CFR 52.1470(c)(36) and (37).
    Third, under section 110(k)(6), we are correcting certain 
provisions of the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP that we 
approved in error and are revising certain provisions of the Clark 
County portion of the Nevada SIP that warrant clarification. 
Specifically, we are deleting SIP section 1, subsections 1.79 
(Significant source of total chlorides) and 1.94 (Total Chlorides); SIP 
section 15 (Prohibition of Nuisance Conditions); SIP section 29 (Odors 
in the Ambient Air); SIP section 40, subsection 40.1 (Prohibition of 
Nuisance Conditions); SIP section 42, subsection 42.2 (untitled but 
related to nuisance from open burning); and SIP section 43, subsection 
43.1 (Odors in the Ambient Air), from the appropriate paragraphs of 
section 1470 (``Identification of plan'') of 40 CFR part 52, subpart DD 
(Nevada). This action deletes these rules from the federally 
enforceable SIP. We are adding

[[Page 54018]]

paragraphs to 40 CFR 52.1483 (``Malfunction regulations'') to clarify 
that former SIP section 12 (Upset, Breakdown, or Scheduled Maintenance) 
and submitted section 25.1 (untitled, but related to upset, breakdown, 
or scheduled maintenance) have been disapproved and are not part of the 
applicable SIP.\8\ Lastly, we are revising the 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(33) to 
clarify that SIP section 33 (Chlorine in Chemical Processes) was, and 
continues to be, approved into the Nevada SIP as part of our approval 
of the overall post-1982 ozone plan for Las Vegas Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We had indicated in our June 2, 2004 proposed rule that we 
would clarify the disapproval status of these rules by revising the 
appropriate paragraphs in 40 CFR 52.1470, but we are instead adding 
text to 40 CFR 52.1483, which is a specific section of 40 CFR part 
52, subpart DD (Nevada) that lists regulations that address upset 
conditions and that have been submitted to EPA as revisions to the 
Nevada SIP but that have been specifically disapproved by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 
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 rule 
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. 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 November 8, 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compound.

    Dated: August 25, 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 as follows:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (c)(5)(i), (c)(16)(viii)(C), (c)(17)(ii)(A), 
(c)(53), and (c)(54);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(33)(i)(A); and
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(36) and (c)(37).


Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Previously approved on May 14, 1973 in paragraph (c)(5) of this 
section and now deleted without replacement: Section 15 (Prohibition of 
Nuisance Conditions) and Section 29 (Odors in the Ambient Air).
* * * * *
    (16) * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on August 27, 1981 in paragraph 
(c)(16)(viii) of this section and now deleted without replacement: 
Section 40, Rule 40.1 (Prohibition of Nuisance Conditions); Section 42, 
Rule 42.2 (open burning); and Section 43, Rule 43.1 (Odors in the 
Ambient Air).
    (17) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Previously approved on August 27, 1981 in paragraph (c)(17)(ii) 
of this

[[Page 54019]]

section and now deleted without replacement: Section 1, Rules 1.79, 
1.94.
* * * * *
    (33) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Las Vegas Valley Air Quality Implementation Plan, Post 1982 
Update for Ozone adopted on October 16, 1984 (including section 33 
(Chlorine in Chemical Processes)), adopted May 18, 1984).
* * * * *
    (53) The following plan revision was submitted on October 23, 2003, 
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental 
Management.
    (1) New or amended rules adopted on October 7, 2003 by the Clark 
County Board of County Commissioners: Clark County Air Quality 
Regulations section 0 (Definitions), section 11 (Ambient Air Quality 
Standards), section 12 (Preconstruction Review for New or Modified 
Stationary Sources), excluding subsection 12.2.18 and 12.2.20, section 
58 (Emission Reduction Credits), and section 59 (Emission Offsets), 
excluding subsection 59.2 (``Local Offset Requirements'').
    (54) The following plan revision was submitted on November 20, 2003 
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
    (1) Nevada Administrative Code section 445B.22083, adopted March 3, 
1994 (effective March 29, 1994), by the State Environmental Commission.

0
3. Section 52.1483 is amended as follows:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(i) as paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii); and
0
c. Revising newly designated paragraph (a)(1)(iii).


Sec.  52.1483  Malfunction regulations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Previously approved on May 14, 1973 and deleted without 
replacement on August 27, 1981: Section 12 (Upset, Breakdown, or 
Scheduled Maintenance).
    (ii) Section 25, Rule 25.1, submitted by the Governor on July 24, 
1979.
    (iii) Section 25, Rules 25.1-25.1.4, submitted by the Governor on 
November 17, 1981.

0
4. Section 52.1488 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1488  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (b) Regulation for visibility monitoring and new source review. The 
provisions of Sec.  52.26 are hereby incorporated and made a part of 
the applicable plan for the State of Nevada. The provisions of Sec.  
52.28 are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable plan 
for the State of Nevada except for that portion applicable to the Clark 
County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-20137 Filed 9-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P