[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68769-68778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28851]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[FRL-7408-2]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
Redesignation of Particulate Matter Unclassifiable Areas; Redesignation
of Hydrographic Area 61 for Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, and
Nitrogen Dioxide; State of Nevada
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is approving a request from the State of
Nevada, pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act), to
redesignate the current single unclassifiable area for particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10
micrometers (PM-10) into numerous individual areas to be consistent
with the area definitions for other pollutants. EPA is also approving a
State-requested subdivision of one of those individual areas, referred
to as hydrographic area 61 (Boulder Flat), into two areas. EPA's
approval of these requests establishes hydrographic areas as the
section 107(d) unclassifiable areas for PM-10 and replaces hydrographic
area 61 with two new section 107(d) areas for PM-10, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2): upper area 61
and lower area 61. In this action, EPA is also deleting certain total
suspended particulate (TSP) area designations that are no longer
necessary. EPA proposed these actions in the Federal Register on April
30, 2002 (67 FR 21194). EPA received comments from several commenters
on our proposed actions. After carefully reviewing and considering the
issues raised by the commenters, EPA is finalizing our actions as
proposed.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on December 13, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal, and other supporting
documentation relevant to this action, are available for inspection
during normal business hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, Air
Division, Permits Office (AIR-3), at (415) 972-3974 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents.
I. Background.
II. Comments received by EPA on our proposed rulemaking and EPA's
responses.
III. EPA's final action.
IV. Administrative requirements.
I. Background
Pursuant to the redesignation procedures of section 107(d)(3) of
the Clean Air Act (Act), States may request EPA's approval of air
quality planning area redesignations, including boundary changes to
existing areas. The State of Nevada submitted two such section 107(d)
redesignation requests to EPA. One request (dated April 16, 2002) was
for EPA to redesignate the existing PM-10 section 107 unclassifiable
area by establishing hydrographic areas within the State as the PM-10
unclassifiable areas. The State's other request (dated November 6,
2001) was to split an existing PSD baseline area, hydrographic area 61,
into two parts: upper area 61 and lower area 61.
On April 30, 2002, EPA proposed to approve the requests made by the
State of Nevada, pursuant to section 107(d) of the Act. See 67 FR
21194. Today's rule finalizes our approval of these two requests from
the State of Nevada. EPA's approval of these requests establishes
hydrographic areas as the section 107(d) unclassifiable areas for PM-10
and replaces hydrographic area 61 with two new section 107(d) areas for
PM-10, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2): upper area 61 and lower area 61. In this action, EPA
is also deleting certain total suspended particulate (TSP) section
107(d) area designations because they are no longer necessary.
II. Comments Received by EPA on Our Proposed Rulemaking and EPA's
Responses.
EPA received seven sets of comments on our proposal to approve the
State of Nevada's 107(d) redesignation requests. Provided below is a
summary of the significant comments, and EPA's responses thereto.
Complete copies of the submitted comments are available for inspection
during normal business hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
Comment 1: One commenter claims that EPA's rule will result in
significant
[[Page 68770]]
deterioration of air quality in designated attainment/unclassifiable
areas for PM-10 in violation of the PSD program requirements. The
commenter alleges that PSD increments will be violated by EPA's
proposed action. Their allegation is based on a belief that the State
is a single, triggered, PSD baseline area for PM-10 and that EPA's
action would untrigger most of the State.
Response: EPA is promulgating this rule because we do not believe
that the rule will result in significant deterioration of air quality
nor that PSD increments will be violated. As such, we disagree with the
commenter's claims. The comment, which relates to EPA's proposal to
approve the State's request to redesignate the existing PM-10 section
107 unclassifiable area by establishing hydrographic areas within the
State as the PM-10 unclassifiable areas, is based on the incorrect
belief of the commenter that prior to EPA's present action, the State
consisted of a single PSD baseline area for PM-10. Prior to EPA's
action, as the Agency clarified in our March 19, 2002 final rule (see
67 FR 12474), the State's 253 hydrographic areas had already been
established as the PSD baseline areas for particulate matter
(originally for the indicator pollutant TSP, then for PM-10, even
though there was a single PM-10 section 107 unclassifiable area).
Today's rule aligns the section 107 area definitions for PM-10 with the
established hydrographic area approach the State has used for almost
twenty years in implementing the PSD program for particulate matter.
Today's rule has no effect on PSD baseline areas for PM-10 in the
State, other than in hydrographic area 61, where the rule proposes to
split a single area into two.
Comment 2: One commenter notes that the PM-10 redesignation request
and the request to subdivide hydrographic area 61 were submitted by
Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection, rather than from the Governor of Nevada. The commenter
concludes that since EPA's regulations require that the submittals be
made by the Governor, the requests are unlawful and cannot be acted
upon by EPA.
Response: The commenter is correct that the redesignation requests
were submitted by Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (``NDEP''), rather than by the Governor of
Nevada. NDEP is one of the divisions within the State Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (``Department''). Nevada law
authorizes the Department to take all action necessary or appropriate
to secure to Nevada the benefits of the Federal Clean Air Act. See
Title 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 445B, sections
445B.125, 445B.205, and 445B.135. The Department is a State
administrative Agency overseen by the Governor. Therefore, EPA can
reasonably assume that the redesignation request has been made with the
full knowledge and endorsement of the Governor of Nevada. Thus, Allen
Biaggi acted lawfully in submitting the State's redesignation requests
to EPA on behalf of the Governor of Nevada.
Comment 3: One commenter argues that neither Nevada nor EPA provide
the required documentation that the 253 unclassifiable areas would not
intersect the area of impact of any major stationary source or
modification that has established the minor source baseline date.
EPA Response: EPA's definition of ``baseline area'' at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(15) notes that redesignated areas ``cannot intersect or be
smaller than the area of impact of any major stationary source or major
modification which'' establishes a minor source baseline date. Thus, if
a State's redesignation was establishing new or different baseline
areas, then documentation would be needed to demonstrate that the newly
created baseline areas meet the federal regulatory definition for such
areas by not intersecting or being smaller than the area of impact of
any major stationary source or major modification which established a
minor source baseline date. However, Nevada's request to create 253 PM-
10 section 107 unclassifiable areas does not establish new or different
baseline areas for PM-10. As EPA explained in our March 19, 2002 final
rule, the PM-10 PSD baseline areas in the State are the hydrographic
areas and have been for many years.\1\ The State's implementation of
the federal PSD program has been based on the hydrographic area
approach since EPA delegated the program in 1983. Thus, contrary to the
commenter's assertion, our action is not establishing a new or revised
state-wide map of PSD baseline areas for PM-10, and it is not necessary
for the State or EPA to provide the documentation requested by the
commenter. As an example, Sierra Pacific Power's submittal of a
complete PSD permit application on March 11, 1994 for Tracy Generating
Station established the PM-10 minor source baseline date in
hydrographic area 83. EPA's action today has no effect on the status of
this basin, i.e., the basin remains triggered with the same minor
source baseline date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1993, EPA revised its PSD regulations to address the
transition from TSP to PM-10. Among other changes in our 1993 rule
related to PSD, EPA retained the existing TSP baseline areas (i.e.,
the hydrographic areas in the State of Nevada) as part of the
program for implementing the newly-promulgated PM-10 increments. See
58 FR 31622; June 3, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: One commenter alleges that EPA's action would untrigger
the minor source baseline date for PM-10 in the proposed lower basin 61
(which should have been triggered by Barrick gold mine), and in many
key areas of the State, such as Jarbidge Wilderness, the State's only
mandatory Class I area, and on many Indian reservations and colonies.
The commenter also states that EPA failed to conduct the required
consultation with the Tribes who would be affected because minor source
baseline dates on tribal reservations will be eliminated.
EPA Response: In accordance with EPA's PSD program regulations at
40 CFR 52.21, the PSD minor source baseline date in a given baseline
area is established by submittal of the first complete PSD permit
application in that area. Once the minor source baseline date has been
established in an area, all sources consume increment in that area.
However, in some cases, a larger area where the minor source baseline
date has been established (or ``triggered'') can be broken up into two
or more smaller areas and such action could potentially result in the
elimination of the minor source baseline date in one or more of the
smaller areas (``untrigger'' the areas) which subsequently do not
contain the PSD source.
EPA disagrees that today's rule would untrigger the minor source
baseline date for PM-10 (or any other pollutant) in lower basin 61, the
Class I-designated Jarbidge Wilderness, or on any Indian reservations
or colonies in the State. EPA's action will not untrigger any minor
source baseline dates in the State of Nevada. As with Comment 1, this
comment is based on the incorrect belief of the commenter that prior to
EPA's present action, the State consisted of a single PSD baseline area
for PM-10 and that the effect of our action would be to create new
baseline areas for PM-10, thereby untriggering numerous areas of the
State where the minor source baseline date has already been
established. As previously explained, EPA's current rule has no effect
at all on PSD baseline areas for PM-10 in the State, other than in
hydrographic area 61. In hydrographic area 61, our action will split a
single PSD baseline area into two PSD baseline areas. However, the
minor source baseline date has not been established in hydrographic
area 61, so our action does not untrigger any established minor source
baseline date.
[[Page 68771]]
EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim that Barrick gold mine has
triggered the minor source baseline date in hydrographic area 61.
Although Barrick gold mine is a ``major source'' located in
hydrographic area 61, it has not been subject to PSD permitting
requirements.\2\ As previously noted, the minor source baseline date in
a given baseline area is established by submittal of the first PSD
permit application in that area. Neither Barrick gold mine nor any
other source in hydrographic area 61 has submitted a PSD permit
application, so the minor source baseline date has not been established
in that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While it is accurate that only major sources are subject to
PSD permitting requirements, a source is not required to obtain a
PSD permit merely because it is a major source. PSD permits are only
required for construction of new major sources and for existing
major sources making a modification that increases emissions above
designated ``significance'' thresholds. See 40 CFR 52.21(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA disagrees that the Agency was required to consult with
Indian tribes regarding the effect of this rulemaking. EPA concluded
that the rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, in part because the rule will not untrigger the minor
source baseline date within any tribal boundary, thus we did not
initiate a formal consultation process.
Comment 5: One commenter claims that EPA did not consider the
impact of the proposed PM-10 redesignation on the State's ability to
attain and maintain the new PM-2.5 NAAQS. The commenter states that
such consideration is required in light of EPA's December 1997 guidance
on implementation of the new standards, because the proposed action
would relax the State's PSD program and allow increased degradation of
air quality.
EPA Response: EPA did not consider the impact of the proposed PM-10
redesignation on the State's ability to attain and maintain the new PM-
2.5 NAAQS because the rule will not have any effect on the State's
implementation of the new standard. Our action does not relax the
State's PSD program and we do not believe it will result in significant
degradation of air quality in the State. Other than in hydrographic
area 61, EPA's action will have no effect on the State's implementation
of the PSD program. In hydrographic area 61, the only effect will be
that a single untriggered PM-10 PSD baseline area will become two
separate unclassifiable/attainment areas (constituting two untriggered
PSD baseline areas for PM-10). Subdividing one untriggered PSD baseline
area into two untriggered PSD baseline areas conforms with EPA's
existing regulatory criteria for such actions and is consistent with
relevant statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act.
Comment 6: One commenter argues that EPA cannot rely upon the March
19, 2002 final rule as the sole basis for approving the State's PM-10
redesignation request because EPA never approved the use of
hydrographic areas for PM-10. The commenter also argues that the claim
that Nevada has relied upon the hydrographic area approach for managing
particulate emissions in Nevada is unsupported by fact.
EPA Response: EPA is not relying upon the March 19, 2002 final rule
as the basis for approving Nevada's PM-10 redesignation request. While
EPA does substantially base its proposed approval of the State's PM-10
redesignation request on the existing hydrographic area approach used
by the State to manage particulate matter emissions, this approach was
not effectuated by EPA's March 19, 2002 rule. EPA's March 2002 rule,
rather than establishing hydrographic areas as the PSD baseline areas
for particulate matter, merely clarified that several previous Agency
rulemakings had already established hydrographic areas as the PSD
areas. Moreover, despite the commenter's claim to the contrary, Nevada
has an almost 20-year history of using hydrographic areas as the
geographic basis for PSD program implementation. All of the PSD permits
issued by the State (and the increment analyses conducted in support of
these permits) have relied upon the hydrographic area approach for
determining whether sources were locating in areas where the minor
source baseline date had already been established or whether the new
source was initially triggering the area. Some examples of permit-
related documents which demonstrate the State's reliance on the
hydrographic area scheme have been added to the administrative record
for this rulemaking.
Lastly, since publication of the March 19, 2002 rule discussed
above, EPA has discovered two additional documents which lend further
support to the action EPA took: (1) EPA's final rule reaffirming the
area boundaries established in our original March 3, 1978 designation
of nonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable areas in Nevada under
section 107(d) of the 1977 CAA Amendments; and (2) a letter from Allyn
Davis, Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, EPA--Region 9, to
Dick Serdoz, Air Quality Officer, Nevada Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, dated May 8, 1979, concerning the EPA final rule
affirming the area designations. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978) for the
original area designations and see 44 FR 16388, at 16391 (March 19,
1979) for the rule re-affirming the boundaries for areas in Nevada.
These documents have also been added to the administrative record for
this rulemaking.
Comment 7: One commenter argues that since the March 19, 2002 rule
is being challenged in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, EPA should not
rely on the rule as the basis for approving Nevada's PM-10
redesignation request. Instead, EPA must assume that the terms ``rest
of state'' and ``entire state'' constitute single attainment/
unclassifiable areas for which the minor source baseline date has been
triggered until such time as the issue is resolved by the Court.
Response: On May 17, 2002, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and Great
Basin Mine Watch (``petitioners'') filed a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Docket 02-71503)
challenging those portions of EPA's final rule (parts I and II)
clarifying the tables in 40 CFR 81.329 that identify the attainment and
unclassifiable areas within the State of Nevada for TSP,
SO2, and NO2 and clarifying the PSD baseline
areas for PM-10. The petitioners reject EPA's characterization of the
action taken on March 19, 2002 as a clarification of the existing
regulatory framework and contend that EPA's action represents an
unlawful redesignation of a single area referred to as ``rest of
state'' into numerous subareas under section 107(d) of the Clean Air
Act. The petition for review notwithstanding, the Agency continues to
believe that its decision to clarify the meaning of the term ``rest of
state'' in 40 CFR 81.329 as Nevada's hydrographic areas is amply
supported by the record and that the decision to publish the March 19th
rule as a technical correction (i.e., without notice and comment) is
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
EPA does not agree that the Agency must interpret the terms ``rest
of state'' and ``entire state'' as constituting single attainment/
unclassifiable areas for which the minor source baseline date has been
triggered until such time as the issue is resolved by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. As we have previously explained, and as clarified in
the March 19, 2002 rulemaking, the effect of EPA's prior regulatory
actions (finalized long ago) was to establish hydrographic areas as the
PSD baseline areas in the State of Nevada. The current legal challenge
to EPA's March 19, 2002 rule has no effect on the status of the
[[Page 68772]]
rule, nor, more importantly, on the already established use of
hydrographic areas as air quality planning areas for purposes of
implementing the PSD permitting program in Nevada. EPA will continue to
interpret the terms ``rest of state'' and ``entire state'' as referring
to the hydrographic areas in the State that are not designated as
nonattainment. If this issue is ultimately resolved by the Courts in a
manner that is inconsistent with EPA's current approach, then we will
take all necessary steps at that time to remedy the situation,
including, if necessary, reassessing the appropriateness of this
rulemaking.
Comment 8: One commenter claims that because Nevada does not have
an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) that meets the requirements
of CAA sections 160 through 165, then in order for EPA to redesignate
Nevada's PM-10 unclassifiable area into hydrographic areas, and to
redesignate hydrographic area 61, the Agency must revise Nevada's
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
Response: Neither EPA's action to redesignate Nevada's PM-10
unclassifiable area into hydrographic areas nor EPA's action to
subdivide hydrographic area 61 from a single unclassifiable area into
two unclassifiable areas represents, nor requires, a revision to
Nevada's SIP or FIP. Rather these are EPA actions to promulgate the
boundaries of designated attainment/unclassifiable areas in the State
of Nevada.
As noted by the commenter, and reflected at 40 CFR 52.1485(a),
Nevada does not have an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
meets the requirements of CAA sections 160 through 165. However, as
further clarified at 40 CFR 52.1485(b), ``the provisions of Sec.
52.21(b) through (w) are incorporated and made a part of the applicable
State plan for the State of Nevada except for that portion applicable
to the Clark County Health District.'' See 45 FR 52676, at 52741
(August 7, 1980) and 47 FR 26620 (June 21, 1982). (Sections 52.21(b)
through (w) in part 52 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
consist of the Federal PSD regulations.) Thus, the Federal PSD
regulations, codified at 40 CFR 52.21, represent EPA's FIP for Nevada
(for purposes of implementing the PSD program).
However, while the part 52 Federal PSD regulations refer to section
107 attainment and unclassifiable areas, they do not incorporate the
section 107 area designations by reference. Thus, the regulatory
changes effected by today's rule are located at 40 CFR 81.329, which
describes the ``Section 107 Attainment Status Designations'' for
Nevada; no changes are being made to 40 CFR 52.21 or to 40 CFR part 52,
subpart DD--Nevada (Nevada's SIP). Since EPA is making no changes to
these regulatory sections, today's action does not require a revision
to the Nevada SIP or FIP.
Comment 9: One commenter asserts that EPA's action to delete
certain TSP attainment and unclassifiable areas from 40 CFR 81.329 is
unlawful because the Agency's regulations state that ``[a]ny baseline
area established originally for the TSP increments shall remain in
effect and shall apply for purposes of determining the amount of
available PM-10 increments. * * *'' The commenter also questions why
EPA is taking action to delete TSP area designations given that the
State of Nevada did not make a formal request for such action.
Response: The Agency is not acting unlawfully in deleting the
listing of certain TSP attainment and unclassifiable area designations
from 40 CFR 81.329. Deletion of the listing of certain TSP attainment
and unclassifiable areas does not eliminate any baseline area
established originally for the TSP increments. Rather, the baseline
areas originally established for the TSP increments (i.e., the
hydrographic areas) ``remain in effect and * * * apply for purposes of
determining the amount of available PM-10 increments.* * *'' (40 CFR
52.21(b)(15)(iii)) As we explained in the proposed rule:
In our 1993 PSD rule, we indicated that the replacement of the
TSP increments with PM10 increments (which operate
independently from the section 107 area designations for TSP)
negates the need for the TSP attainment or unclassifiable area
designations to be retained. We also indicated that we would delete
such TSP designations in 40 CFR part 81 upon the occurrence of one
of the following events: EPA's approval of a State's revised PSD
program containing the PM10 increments; EPA's
promulgation of the PM10 increments into a State's SIP
where the State chooses not to adopt the increments on their own; or
EPA's approval of a State's request for delegation of PSD
responsibility under 40 CFR 52.21(u). See 58 FR 31622, 31635 (June
3, 1993). [Emphases added]
Thus, the listing of designated TSP attainment and unclassifiable areas
in Nevada became unnecessary upon the effective date of the Agency's
1993 rule in areas where EPA had delegated the PSD program (i.e., the
entire State of Nevada except for Clark County.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The PSD program delegation does not apply in Clark County,
Nevada. Clark County administers an EPA-approved PSD program (rather
than administering a delegated federal PSD program) for PSD sources
in Clark County. Therefore, as noted in our proposal, EPA is not
deleting the TSP attainment and unclassifiable area designations in
Clark County at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, although the commenter is correct that the State of Nevada
did not make a formal request to EPA to eliminate their unnecessary TSP
area designations, such a request was not needed for EPA to act. EPA
had already noted, in our 1993 rulemaking, that the Agency's intention
was to delete the TSP area designations in 40 CFR part 81 once they
were no longer necessary. Moreover, section 107 of the Act authorizes
EPA to eliminate a section 107 designation for particulate matter
(measured as TSP), when ``the Administrator determines that such
designation is no longer necessary.'' See CAA section 107(d)(4)(B). In
today's action, the Agency is merely following through on a prior
commitment to eliminate TSP designations based on a determination that
they are no longer necessary. EPA's action in this regard is consistent
with prior rulemakings by EPA to delete TSP area designations in other
States. See, e.g., 59 FR 28480 (June 2, 1994) (EPA action to delete TSP
area designations in response to a State's request to redesignate TSP
nonattainment areas to attainment).
Comment 10: Two commenters question whether the Agency's
redesignation of hydrographic area 61 is in the public's interest
because, they contend, the action merely splits an area into two pieces
so that the air pollution in the region can be doubled and EPA's PSD
requirements can be avoided. They further assert that continued
subdivision of hydrographic areas to allow sources to avoid the PSD
program will pollute the entire State.
Response: EPA does not agree that the effect of splitting
hydrographic area 61 into upper and lower basins will be to allow air
pollution in the region to be doubled. Area 61 is currently designated
attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants and the minor
source baseline date has not been triggered for any pollutant. Thus,
the ``allowable'' amount of air pollution, and consequent level of air
quality degradation, is presently constrained only by the NAAQS. After
area 61 is split into upper and lower basins, the ``allowable'' amount
of air pollution and level of air quality degradation in each of the
two basins will also be constrained only by the NAAQS (i.e., the
overall level of air quality protection will be exactly the same)
unless and until a PSD permit application triggers one or both areas.
The commenter does not provide any justification for their contention
that the
[[Page 68773]]
effect of EPA's action in area 61 will be a doubling of the allowable
air pollution in the region. However, it is true that if one area is
triggered before the other, then there could be additional minor growth
in the baseline of the untriggered area relative to the newly triggered
area, because the triggered area would then be constrained by the PSD
increments.
In addition, the commenter's concern that EPA's approval of the
subdivision of area 61 portends a larger state-wide effort to split
hydrographic areas is unwarranted. The Agency has not received any
other request for such action by Nevada. Moreover, EPA's actions on
requests for area redesignations under section 107(d) that affect PSD
baseline areas are handled on a case-by-case basis in light of relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements. The Agency's approval of the
State's request to subdivide hydrographic area 61 does not assure EPA
approval of any potential future requests the State might make to
redesignate other existing section 107(d) attainment or unclassifiable
areas, if the circumstances of the request, including any impact on the
State's ability to effectively manage air quality, warrants denial.
Comment 11: Two commenters question the rationale provided by EPA
for splitting area 61. They claim that the upper and lower basins are
not self-contained, that the split will not promote the State's ability
to effectively manage their air quality, and that Nevada has only
limited and supervised authority to manage EPA's PSD program, so it is
extremely unlikely that the redesignation would reduce the complexity
of Nevada's PSD program. They further allege that the objective of the
hydrographic area 61 redesignation, based on articles in the Nevada
Press, appears to be to ensure that a new source in lower basin 61
(i.e., a proposed power plant) will not trigger the PSD minor source
baseline date in upper basin 61 where there are mining operations.
Thus, they claim, EPA's approval of the redesignation would help the
mines circumvent PSD requirements and is inconsistent with the goals
and intent of the PSD provisions of the Act.
Response: As stated in our proposed rule, EPA is approving Nevada's
request to subdivide hydrographic area 61 into upper and lower basins
because the request complies with the existing federal standards for
approval of section 107(d) redesignations and we do not believe the
redesignation will interfere with the State's ability to manage air
quality. As we further explained in our proposal, EPA's policy is to
provide States with a fair degree of autonomy to balance air quality
management with economic planning considerations. It is not necessary
for EPA to make a finding that Nevada's redesignation request will
improve air quality management by the State; rather, the Agency has to
ensure that the request complies with the regulatory standards for
section 107(d) redesignations and that the redesignation will not
interfere with the State's management of air quality. Our proposed rule
clearly describes how the State's request to split hydrographic area 61
complies with the Federal standards for section 107(d) and PSD baseline
area redesignations, and provides the Agency's basis for concluding
that the redesignation will not interfere with the State's management
of air quality. See 67 FR 21194, at 21196-21197 (April 30, 2002).
Comment 12: One commenter claims that EPA has not shown that
hydrographic areas are PSD baseline areas. They assert that EPA's
notice aims to ``replace the single unclassifiable area designated for
Nevada for PM-10 with 253 unclassifiable areas'' which, they contend,
disagrees with a footnote in the proposal saying that these areas are
``already established as the PSD baseline areas.''
Response: The Federal PSD regulations define ``baseline area'' in
terms of 107(d) attainment or unclassifiable areas. See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(15) and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15). However, as EPA explained in our
proposal, the transition from TSP to PM-10 resulted in a difference
between the section 107(d) and PSD baseline areas for PM-10 in Nevada.
Specifically, the TSP baseline areas (based upon the State's
hydrographic areas) became PM-10 baseline areas pursuant to our 1993
rulemaking; however, the State of Nevada has a single section 107(d)
unclassifiable area for PM-10. Thus, our current action represents
another step in the transition from TSP to PM-10. This step re-aligns
the section 107(d) areas with the PSD baseline areas by approving a
request for establishing hydrographic areas, which had been the basis
for TSP attainment and unclassifiable areas pursuant to our 1978
rulemaking, as the attainment and unclassifiable areas under section
107(d) of the Act for PM-10.
Comment 13: One commenter argues that even if EPA had the intention
of establishing 253 hydrographic areas as section 107(d) areas in 1978,
that is not what the Agency actually did, nor is it what the Agency
codified in the CFR. The commenter asserts that the public has been
misled by what is in the CFR as opposed to what EPA is now saying it
meant, and that all of this was done under the guise of a ``technical
correction'' with no opportunity for public comment.
Response: Our March 19, 2002 clarifying rule indicates that, in our
1978 rulemaking establishing the first nonattainment, attainment and
unclassifiable areas, we stated that some States provided long lists of
individual attainment and unclassifiable areas and that we were not
listing each such area for those States. See 67 FR 12474, at 12475.
Through our 1978 rulemaking, we did in fact designate those areas as
individual attainment and unclassifiable areas for the purposes of
section 107(d), but used the short-hand term ``rest of state'' or
``entire state'' to denote them rather than listing each separate area.
The commenter did not provide any evidence to the contrary. Moreover,
at the time of our 1978 rulemaking, there was no compelling reason for
EPA to list each and every attainment and unclassifiable area. The need
for specificity arose in 1980 with our promulgation of changes to the
PSD regulations that established the link between PSD baseline areas
and section 107(d) areas. Since 1978, hydrographic areas have
represented the 107(d) attainment and unclassifiable areas, and the
tables in 40 CFR 81.329 have continued to describe the areas for Nevada
using the short-hand terms, ``rest of state'' and ``entire state.'' Our
March 2002 rule added footnotes clarifying the connection between
``rest of state''/``entire state'' and hydrographic areas.
Comment 14: One commenter notes that Nevada's request for the PM-10
107(d) redesignation was made on April 16, 2002 and that EPA has 18
months to act on the request (until October 2003). The commenter
questions why EPA is taking action so quickly, especially when the
Agency is currently evaluating the existing regulatory and policy
framework for PSD baseline area redesignations.
Response: EPA's action approving the State's April 16, 2002 request
to redesignate the single PM-10 unclassifiable area in Nevada into
multiple unclassifiable areas (based on hydrographic areas) under
section 107(d), is simply another step in the regulatory transition
from TSP to PM-10. This particular type of section 107(d) action does
not create new PSD baseline areas because the PM-10 baseline areas were
established by operation of law through our 1993 PSD rulemaking as the
PSD baseline areas originally established for TSP. (See our March 19,
2002 Technical Correction at
[[Page 68774]]
67 FR 12474 for further explanation.) Further, because this type of
section 107(d) action does not create new PSD baseline areas, it is not
the type that could theoretically be affected by a change in the
regulatory criteria for evaluating PSD baseline area redesignations.
In contrast, EPA's action approving the State's November 6, 2001
request to redesignate hydrographic area 61 does create new PSD
baseline areas and is the type that could potentially be affected by a
change in the regulatory criteria. EPA's approval of this request is
occurring roughly one year after the State of Nevada submitted its
redesignation request related to area 61. EPA has 18 months under the
Act to take final action on State redesignation requests, and the re-
evaluation of the regulatory criteria is not likely to be completed by
May 6, 2003 (18 months from the November 2001 request); thus, EPA can
not wait and must finalize action based on the current statutory and
regulatory criteria.
Comment 15: Several commenters urged EPA to expeditiously finalize
our approval of Nevada's area 61 redesignation request.
Response: Section 107(d)(3)(D) allows EPA 18 months from receipt of
a complete State redesignation submittal to approve or deny such
redesignation. In today's notice, EPA is finalizing its proposal to
approve Nevada's November 6, 2001 request to redesignate area 61 into
two areas. In so doing, EPA is acting well within the 18-month review
period allowed by the Act.
Comment 16: One commenter argues that redesignation of area 61 is
necessary because of the way in which EPA's PSD program forces areas
with air quality better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) to further limit source emissions of PM-10, NO2 and
SOx to levels at only 20-35% of the NAAQS. The commenter
asserts that these more stringent limits, the PSD increments, were set
by EPA as a simple percentage of the NAAQS and are not health or
welfare-based.
Response: Since 1967, Congress has declared that one of the
purposes of the Clean Air Act is ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population.'' See section
101(b)(1) of the Act. Originally, EPA did not interpret the 1967 Act as
granting authority to the Agency to promulgate regulations designed to
prevent ``significant deterioration'' of air quality in those areas
which have air that already is cleaner than the NAAQS. However, EPA's
narrow interpretation of its own authority was overruled by the Court
in Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D.D.C. 1972), aff'd
per curiam, 4 E.R.C. 1815 (D.C. Cir. 1972), aff'd by an equally divided
Court, sub nom. Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541, 37 L. Ed. 2d 140, 93
S. Ct. 2770 (1973). Pursuant to Court order, EPA promulgated the
initial PSD regulations in 1974 and these early PSD regulations
identified increments for total suspended particulate and sulfur
dioxide.
In 1977, Congress clarified its purposes in this regard and
explicitly endorsed the increment approach for preventing significant
deterioration by enacting increments for total suspended particulate
and sulfur dioxide (see section 163 of the Act). For nitrogen dioxide
and PM-10, EPA promulgated increments that are of equivalent stringency
as those established by Congress in section 163, as required under
sections 166(d) and 166(f) of the Act. See 53 FR 40656 (October 17,
1988) with respect to nitrogen dioxide PSD increments and 58 FR 31622
(June 3, 1993) with respect to PM-10 PSD increments. The EPA does not
agree that the redesignation of area 61 is necessary because of the
statutory and regulatory limits on increases in concentrations of these
pollutants. Congress's clearly expressed objective in Part C of the
Clean Air Act is to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in
clean air areas within the United States.
Comment 17: One commenter claims that EPA must review and consider
comments submitted on the proposed rule in light of what its PSD
regulations currently provide--State discretion in redesignating PSD
baseline areas--and not what some commenters want the rules to provide.
The commenter argues that to delay final approval of the proposed rule
for consideration of comments that could only be described as a request
for change to EPA's current rules and policies would be to deny the
State of Nevada the discretion accorded it under the Clean Air Act,
Alabama Power and established by EPA in its PSD regulations.
Response: As described in the proposed rule and above, EPA reviewed
the request by the State of Nevada to subdivide hydrographic area 61 on
the basis of general statutory language from section 107(d)(3) of the
Act, which addresses redesignations, and EPA's PSD regulations,
specifically 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15). See 67 FR 21194, at 21196. In the
proposed rule, EPA acknowledges concerns about the existing regulatory
criteria for redesignations, but indicates that, unless and until those
criteria are revised, the Agency will continue to evaluate State-
initiated section 107(d) redesignation requests based on the language
of the statute itself and the regulatory criteria in 40 CFR part 52. In
so doing, EPA has not delayed final action on this particular
redesignation request but is acting well within the 18-month period
allowed for such actions under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act.
Comment 18: One commenter argues that the court in Alabama Power
Co. v Costle, 636 F. 2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) held that the Clean Air
Act delegated decisions on increment consumption and allocation thereof
by baseline area designations to the States. They further claim that
based on the decision in Alabama Power and EPA's 1980 PSD regulations,
EPA's discretion to review redesignation requests by States involving
boundaries of areas designated attainment or unclassifiable is limited
to consideration of two criteria: (1) The boundaries of any area
redesignated by a State cannot intersect the area of impact of any
major stationary source or major modification that established or would
have established a baseline date for the areas proposed for
redesignation; and (2) the area redesignation can be no smaller than
the area of impact of such sources. In this proposed rule, they assert
that EPA has attempted to change its redesignation policy by adding a
statutorily-derived standard of ``appropriate air quality-related
considerations,'' including review to ensure that the PSD baseline area
redesignation ``does not interfere with the State's management of air
quality'' and, in doing so, has identified the types of redesignations
that may not be approvable even though the examples that EPA lists in
the proposed rule are precisely the type of redesignations that have
been approved by EPA in the past. The commenter states that EPA cannot
change its redesignation policy except through notice and comment
rulemaking.
Response: Among many PSD issues, the court in Alabama Power
addressed the issue of how the increments were to be protected, but did
not address the specific issue of whether section 107(d) redesignations
are an appropriate means by States to manage the increments. In the
section of the opinion entitled ``Protection of the Increments,'' the
court held: ``We rule that EPA has authority under the statute to
prevent or to correct a violation of the increments, but the agency is
without authority to dictate to the States their policy for management
of the consumption of allowable increments.'' See 636 F.2d 323, at 361.
The court also recognized that: ``The fundamentals of the statutory
[[Page 68775]]
approach include differentiation within the clean air areas of Class I,
II, and III areas, and specification for each class of areas of maximum
allowable increases (``increments'') in pollution concentrations for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, with provision for the
Administrator to promulgate allowable increments or similar limitations
for other pollutants governed by NAAQS.'' Id. at 361, 362. In Alabama
Power, environmental groups had petitioned the court to require EPA to
promulgate guidelines detailing the manner in which States may permit
consumption of the available increments and also to have EPA set aside
some portion of the available increments to ensure that current
development does not inadvertently cause a violation of the maximum
thresholds. The court declined to do so, and it was in this context
that the court held that the Agency may not prescribe the manner in
which States will manage their allowed internal growth. Id. At 363,
364.
The commenter cites the Alabama Power decision as endorsing a
State's use of section 107(d) redesignations to create new PSD baseline
areas and untrigger minor source baseline dates, but the court in
Alabama Power did not address this specific issue. The court emphasized
the State's authority to manage the increment, the size of which is
based on an area's designation as Class I, II, or III, but did not rule
on States' use of section 107(d) redesignations as a means to create
new PSD baseline areas (e.g., additional Class II areas), or to
untrigger minor source baseline dates and thereby ``baseline'' the
portion of the increment consumed prior to the redesignation. This
practice has been allowed under EPA regulations but was not one of the
issues before the court in the Alabama Power case. Thus, while EPA
acknowledges that States have the right to make increment management
decisions, States also have the responsibility to do so in such as way
as to prevent significant deterioration of their clean air resources
and thereby achieve the fundamental statutory purposes of the PSD
program as set forth in section 160 of the Act:
``(1) To protect public health and welfare from any actual or
potential adverse effect which in the Administrator's judgment may
reasonably be anticipated to occur from air pollution or from
exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate
as emissions to the ambient air, notwithstanding attainment and
maintenance of all national ambient air quality standards; (2) to
preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks,
national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores,
and other areas of special national or regional natural,
recreational, scenic or historic value; (3) to insure that economic
growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of
existing clean air resources; (4) to assure that emissions from any
source in any State will not interfere with any portion of the
applicable implementation plan to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality for any other State; and (5) to assure that any
decision to permit increased air pollution in any area to which this
section applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the
consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural
opportunities for informed public participation in the
decisionmaking process.
EPA's role is to ensure that States fulfill these responsibilities
under the Act. See Alaska v. EPA, 298 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2002).
In reviewing a redesignation request under section 107(d)(3) of the
Act, EPA looks to the statute and to relevant regulations and policies.
As noted in the proposed rule, section 107(d)(3) does not provide
specific criteria for EPA to use in evaluating a State redesignation
request that involves changing the boundaries of existing attainment or
unclassifiable areas, as opposed to redesignations that involve changes
in status (e.g., ``nonattainment'' to ``attainment'' or
``nonattainment'' to ``unclassifiable''). See 67 FR 21194, at 21196. As
explained in the proposed rule, EPA concluded that the considerations
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(A) provide EPA with a statutory basis
with which to evaluate State-initiated redesignation requests in
addition to the existing regulatory criteria, and in this context
(i.e., a request to change the boundaries of attainment or
unclassifiable areas), EPA concluded that one appropriate ``air-quality
related consideration'' is whether the redesignation would interfere
with a State's management of air quality.
The Act provides support for application of this consideration in a
context where boundaries or PSD class designations of existing
attainment or unclassifiable areas would be affected (rather than
changes in attainment status). See section 107(e) (State is authorized
with EPA approval to redesignate air quality control regions ``for
purposes of efficient and effective air quality management'') and
section 164(e) (resolution of disputes between State and Indian tribes
arising from area redesignations from one PSD increment class to
another: ``In resolving such disputes relating to area redesignation,
the Administrator shall consider the extent to which the lands involved
are of sufficient size to allow effective air quality management or
have air quality related values of such an area'').
The proposed rule indicates that EPA did not intend through this
rulemaking to revise PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) or redesignation
policies. See 67 FR 21194, at 21196. If and when EPA decides to revise
the redesignation criteria in the PSD regulations or to change its
practice with regard to its evaluation of redesignation requests, the
Agency will take the appropriate steps. Furthermore, even if one were
to interpret the application of the statutorily-derived consideration
discussed above to State redesignation requests as a change in policy,
EPA clearly indicated in the proposed rule the criteria the Agency used
to evaluate this State's request, including the statutorily-derived
consideration, and is acting through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Comment 19: Several commenters express support for our proposed
action and imply a connection between the State's redesignation request
for area 61 and the construction of a natural gas pipeline,
construction of a power plant in the area, the State's electric power
needs, electric rates, and economic viability of the affected area.
Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support for our action,
but note that we do not share the opinion that the subdivision of area
61 under section 107(d) of the CAA is necessary for the subsequent
construction of a natural gas pipeline, the development of a power
plant, or the energy and economic benefits that flow from those
projects. We also note that a power plant proposal for area 61 could
proceed, in full accordance with all applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements, regardless of EPA's action to redesignate
hydrographic area 61. The PSD permit process and regulatory
requirements for any future power plant development will be essentially
the same with or without the redesignation of area 61 into two areas.
III. EPA's Final Action
After considering all of the factors described in the above
sections, EPA is taking action to approve the State of Nevada's two
section 107(d) redesignation requests. Specifically, we are approving
the State's request to establish the statewide hydrographic areas
(previously established for TSP) as the PM-10 unclassifiable areas
under section 107(d) of the Act.\4\ This action
[[Page 68776]]
replaces the single unclassifiable area designated for Nevada for PM-10
with 253 unclassifiable areas. These 253 areas are defined as the
hydrographic areas delineated by the Nevada Division of Water Resources
in 1971, as adjusted in 1980 to recognize an additional hydrographic
area (101A) referred to as Packard Valley. Together with the two PM-10
nonattainment areas in Nevada (Las Vegas and Reno planning areas), the
total number of PM-10 section 107 areas in the State is now 255; these
are the same 255 section 107 areas that have previously been designated
for TSP. Thus, the effect of today's final rule approving the State's
request to establish the hydrographic areas as the section 107
unclassifiable areas for PM-10 is to synchronize the classification of
designated PM-10 section 107 areas with the current and longstanding
approach the State has used to manage its air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ It is important to once again note that hydrographic areas
are already established as the PSD baseline areas for PM-10 (and
other pollutants), so today's action regarding the state-wide
designation for PM-10 does not effect any change in how the State
manages their federally-delegated PSD program. For example, pursuant
to 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(iv), minor source baseline dates originally
established for the TSP increments are not rescinded by today's
rule; they remain in effect and continue to apply for purposes of
determining the amount of available PM-10 increment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In approving the State's other section 107(d) request, we are
redesignating hydrographic area 61 (Boulder Flat) by dividing the basin
into two new section 107(d) areas for PM-10, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2): upper area 61
and lower area 61.
Finally, we are updating the TSP table in 40 CFR 81 for Nevada to
delete those designations that are no longer necessary. In particular,
we are deleting the TSP attainment and unclassifiable area designations
statewide, except for those in Clark County. We will delete the
appropriate TSP designations for Clark County at such time as we
approve revisions to their PSD program that include the PM-10
increments.
IV. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
redesignates areas for air quality planning purposes and does not
impose additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any
enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 13, 2002. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: November 6, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
Part 81, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
2. In Sec. 81.329, the tables for Nevada--TSP, Nevada--
SO2, Nevada--PM-10, and Nevada--NO2 are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 81.329 Nevada.
[[Page 68777]]
Nevada--TSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not meet Better than
Designated area Does not meet secondary Cannot be national
primary standards standards classified standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Township Range):
Clark County:
Las Vegas Valley (212)(15- X ................. ................. .................
24S, 56-64E)...............
Colorado River Valley (213) ................. ................. X \1\ .................
(22-33S, 63-66E)...........
Rest of County \2\.......... ................. ................. ................. X
Carson Desert (101)(15-24.5N, 25- X ................. ................. .................
35E)...........................
Winnemucca Segment (70)(34-38N, X ................. ................. .................
34-41E)........................
Lower Reese Valley (59)(27-32N, ................. X ................. .................
42-48E)........................
Fernley Area (76)(19-21N, 23- X ................. ................. .................
26E)...........................
Truckee Meadows (87)(17-20N, 18- X ................. ................. .................
21E)...........................
Mason Valley (108)(9-16N, 24- X ................. ................. .................
26E)...........................
Clovers Area (64)(32-39N, 42- ................. X ................. .................
46E)...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA designation replaces State designation.
\2\ Rest of County refers to 27 hydrographic areas either entirely or partially located within Clark County as
shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows
(September 1971), excluding the two designated areas in Clark County specifically listed in the table.
Nevada--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not meet Better than
Designated area Does not meet secondary Cannot be national
primary standards standards classified standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Township Range):
Steptoe Valley (179) (10-29N, 61-
67E):
Central..................... ................. ................. ................. X
Northern (area which is ................. ................. X .................
north of Township 21 North
and within the drainage
basin of the Steptoe
Valley)....................
Southern (area which is ................. ................. X .................
south of Township 15 North
and within the drainage
basin of the Steptoe
Valley)....................
Boulder Flat (61) (31-37N, 45-
51E):
Upper Unit 61............... ................. ................. ................. X
Lower Unit 61............... ................. ................. ................. X
Rest of State \1\............... ................. ................. ................. X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest of State refers to hydrographic areas as shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map
titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows (September 1971), excluding the designated areas specifically
listed in the table.
* * * * *
Nevada--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washoe County:
Reno planning area............ 11/15/90 Nonattainment 02/07/01 Serious.
Hydrographic area 87
Clark County:
Las Vegas planning area....... 11/15/90 Nonattainment 02/08/93 Serious.
Hydrographic area 212
Boulder Flat (61) (31-37N, 45-
51E):
Upper Unit 61................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable
Lower Unit 61................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable
Rest of State \1\................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest of State refers to hydrographic areas as shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map
titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows (September 1971), as revised to include a division of Carson
Desert (area 101) into two areas, a smaller area 101 and area 101A, and excluding the designated areas
specifically listed in the table.
[[Page 68778]]
Nevada-NO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannot be
Does not meet classified or
Designated area primary better than
standards national
standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Flat (61)(31-37N, 45-51E):
Upper Unit 61.......................................................... ................ X
Lower Unit 61.......................................................... ................ X
Rest of State \1\.......................................................... ................ X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rest of State refers to hydrographic areas as shown on the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources' map
titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows (September 1971), excluding the designated areas specifically
listed in the table.
[FR Doc. 02-28851 Filed 11-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P