Rule2026-02344
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 6, 2026
Effective
March 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) on August 12, 2022 ("2022 Nevada Regional Haze Plan") and on May 28, 2025 ("2025 SIP Supplement"), as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period. These revisions address the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The revisions also address other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 25 (Friday, February 6, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5321-5325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02344]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0101; FRL-12600-02-R9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Nevada; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) on
August 12, 2022 (``2022 Nevada Regional Haze Plan'') and on May 28,
2025 (``2025 SIP Supplement''), as satisfying applicable requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
for the program's second implementation period. These revisions address
the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of
preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic
impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I
Federal areas. The revisions also address other applicable requirements
for the second implementation period of the regional haze program.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 9, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0101. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Millar, 880 Front Street, San
Diego, CA 92101, Geographic Strategies and Modeling Section (ARD-2-2),
Planning & Analysis Branch, EPA Region IX, telephone number: (213) 244-
1882, email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#630e0a0f0f02114d060e0a0f1a230613024d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1ccc8cdcdc0d38fc4ccc8cdd8e1c4d1c08fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On August 12, 2022, NDEP submitted the 2022 Nevada Regional Haze
Plan, titled ``Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the
Second Planning Period'' as a revision to the Nevada SIP to address
regional haze for the second implementation period. NDEP made this SIP
submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. The
EPA found this submission complete on August 16, 2022. On July 27,
2023, NDEP withdrew the reasonable progress determinations for Tracy
Generating Station's Pi[ntilde]on Pine Unit (also known variously as
Tracy Unit 4 and Tracy Unit 7) and North Valmy Generating Station's
Unit 1 and Unit 2. On May 28, 2025, NDEP submitted the 2025 SIP
Supplement, titled ``Nevada Regional Haze Revision to the State
Implementation Plan for the Second Planning Period,'' which includes
revised reasonable progress determinations for those two sources. The
2025 Supplement also includes updated permits for three sources,
replacing those submitted as part of the 2022 Nevada Regional Haze
Plan. On October 23, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve the 2022 Nevada
Regional Haze Plan (excluding the portions withdrawn on July 27, 2023)
and appendix A (``Air Quality Permits Incorporated by Reference'') of
the 2025 Supplement (collectively ``the Plan'') into the Nevada SIP.\1\
The October 23, 2025 proposal provided background on the requirements
of the CAA and RHR, summarized the Plan, and explained the rationale
for our proposed action. That background and rationale will not be
restated in full here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 48481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's October 23, 2025 proposal provided a 30-day public
comment period that ended on November 24, 2025. The EPA received nine
comments during the comment period: three anonymous comments; one
comment from a private individual; a comment from Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU); a comment from Citizens Rulemaking
Alliance; a comment from Idaho Power Company; a comment from NV Energy;
and a joint comment letter signed by the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA), Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks. After reviewing the
anonymous comments and the comment from the private individual, the EPA
has determined that they fail to raise issues germane to the approval
of the Plan, which is based on the criteria set forth in the CAA, the
RHR and relevant policy documents. Therefore, we have determined that
these comments do not necessitate a response, and the EPA will not
provide specific responses to these comments. The comments from Idaho
Power Company and NV Energy supported the EPA's proposed action. The
EPA acknowledges these supportive comments, which are included in the
docket for this action. We respond to the issues raised in the three
remaining comment letters received on our proposed rulemaking in this
document and the associated response to
[[Page 5322]]
comments (RTC) Document, which is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
We briefly address in this section the following topics that were
raised by commenters: (1) whether the EPA's new policy is consistent
with the CAA and RHR; (2) whether the EPA sufficiently justified its
basis for the new policy; (3) whether the action is nationally
applicable or based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect;
(4) whether the action departs from national policy without complying
with the EPA's consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56; and (5)
whether the Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements in accordance with the new policy.
As stated in the proposal, it is now the EPA's policy that, where
visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a state
are below the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) and the state has
considered the four statutory factors, the state will have
presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning
period for that area.\2\ As detailed at length in the RTC Document
section III., the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant
to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress explicitly delegated to the EPA the
authority to promulgate regulations regarding reasonable progress
towards meeting the national goal. As some commenters note, to
determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards
the national visibility goal under 169A(a)(1), Congress mandated
``tak[ing] into consideration the cost of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any existing source subject to such requirement.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 90 FR 48481, 48496 (citing, e.g., 90 FR 29737, 29738 (July
7, 2025); 90 FR 20425, 20434 (May 14, 2025)).
\3\ CAA 169A(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA emphasizes that just because a Class I area is below the
URP does not mean that a state is relieved of its obligations under the
CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. In other words, the URP is
not a ``safe harbor,'' as that phrase has sometimes been used, because
the EPA still must review a state's determination whether additional
control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, determine
whether the state submitted those measures for incorporation into the
SIP, and evaluate whether the measures are consistent with other
provisions in the CAA.
Regarding the basis for the new policy, under FCC v. Fox
Television, 556 U.S. 502 (2009), an agency's change in policy is
permissible if the agency acknowledges the change, believes it to be
better, and ``show[s] that there are good reasons for the new policy.''
\4\ In section IV.E.7. of our proposal for this rulemaking, we referred
to previous actions, in which we stated our reasons for implementing
this new policy.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 556 U.S. 502, 515.
\5\ 90 FR 48481, 48496 (citing e.g.,90 FR 29737, 29738 (July 7,
2025); 90 FR 20425, 20434 (May 14, 2025)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision in FCC v. Fox turned primarily on whether the FCC's
change in policy would lead to the FCC ``arbitrarily punishing parties
without notice of the potential consequences of their action.'' \6\ In
this instance, the changed policy is prospective, which addresses the
primary concern in FCC v. Fox. Additionally, the new policy ``aligns
with the purpose of the statute and RHR, which is achieving
`reasonable' progress, not maximal progress, toward Congress' natural
visibility goal.'' \7\ Furthermore, we note that the legislative
history of CAA section 169A is consistent with our change in policy.
The reconciliation report for the 1977 CAA amendments indicates that
the term ``maximum feasible progress'' in section 169A was changed to
``reasonable progress'' in the final version of the legislation passed
by both chambers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 556 U.S. at 517.
\7\ 90 FR 16478, 16483.
\8\ See Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 Public Law 95-95 (1977), H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters also state that this action is incompatible with
the EPA's consistency regulations. As discussed in the West Virginia
final action \9\ and the RTC Document for this action in response
section III.D.1., the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations at 40 CFR
part 56, and in particular 40 CFR 56.5(b), are not relevant to this
action. 40 CFR 56.5(b) requires that a ``responsible official in a
Regional office shall seek concurrence from the appropriate EPA
Headquarters office on any interpretation of the Act, or rule,
regulation, or program directive when such interpretation may result in
application of the act or rule, regulation, or program directive that
is inconsistent with Agency policy.'' (emphasis added). As we expressly
indicated in the proposal, the approval is consistent with the change
in agency policy, first announced in Air Plan Approval; West Virginia;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation
Period. Therefore, there is no obligation under the plain language of
the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations for anyone in the Region to
seek concurrence from EPA Headquarters to take action consistent with
EPA policy. Because these regulations are not relevant to this action,
the docket for this rulemaking does not include materials related to
compliance with the Regional Consistency process. In addition, this
action is not a significant regulatory action subject to a review by
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
because it is a SIP approval, which is a category of regulations that
has been exempted from review under section 3(d)(4) of E.O. 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 90 FR 29737, 29740 (July 7, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is ``locally or regionally applicable'' under CAA
section 307(b)(1) because it applies only to a SIP submission from a
single state, Nevada.\10\ To determine whether an action is
``nationally applicable'' or ``locally or regionally applicable,''
``court[s] need look only to the face of the agency action, not its
practical effects . . . .''.\11\ As discussed in the West Virginia
final action \12\ and the RTC Document for this action in response
III.D.4, comments that claim that the EPA ``must'' publish a finding
that this action is ``based on a determination of nationwide scope [or]
effect'' are also unsupported and incorrect. The Supreme Court has
recognized that ``[b]ecause the `nationwide scope or effect' exception
can apply only when `EPA so finds and publishes' that it does, EPA can
decide whether the exception is even potentially relevant.'' \13\ As
the D.C. Circuit has also stated, the ``EPA's decision whether to make
and publish
[[Page 5323]]
a finding of nationwide scope or effect is committed to the agency's
discretion and thus is unreviewable.'' \14\ The Administrator has not
made and published a finding that this action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect. Accordingly, any petition
for review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate regional circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Oklahoma v. EPA, 605 U.S. 609, 620 (2025)(a SIP is ``a
state-specific plan'' and ``the CAA recognizes this limited scope in
enumerating a SIP approval as a locally or regionally applicable
action''); see also, Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n, 705 F.3d 453,
455 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (describing EPA action to approve a single SIP
under CAA section 110 as the ``[p]rototypical'' locally or
regionally applicable action).
\11\ EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. 642
(2025) (``[W]e determine an action's range of applicability by
`look[ing] only to the face of the [action], rather than to its
practical effects.' '') (quoting Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n,
705 F.3d at 456) and Oklahoma, 605 U.S. at 621-22 (2025) (basis for
EPA action is not relevant to determining its applicability); see
also Sierra Club v. EPA, 926 F.3d 844, 849 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and RMS
of Georgia, LLC v. EPA, 64 F.4th 1368, 1372 (11th Cir. 2023) (``our
sister circuits have established a consensus that we should begin
our analysis by analyzing the nature of the EPA's action, not the
specifics of the petitioner's grievance'').
\12\ 90 FR 29737, 29740 (July 7, 2025).
\13\ Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 605 U.S. at 646 (slip
op. at 16), citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th 738, 746 (D.C. Cir.
2022).
\14\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 47 F.4th at 745; see also Texas v. EPA,
983 F.3d 826, 835 (5th Cir. 2020) (``when a locally applicable
action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect,
the EPA has discretion to select the venue for judicial review'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as detailed in section III.B. of the RTC Document, the
Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. As
required by the statute, Nevada took into consideration the four
statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that several
existing and new controls for stationary sources were necessary to make
reasonable progress.
In addition, the RHR requires states to submit a long-term strategy
that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory
Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from the State,\15\ and the statute refers to ``a State the
emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area.'' \16\
However, there is no specific statutory or regulatory requirement to
identify the precise set of Class I areas that are affected by
emissions from Nevada, and there is no requirement to establish a
source contribution threshold in identifying those areas. In this case,
NDEP appropriately identified affected out-of-state Class I areas, as
we explain in section IV.A.3. of the RTC Document. The EPA believes
NDEP has reasonably documented its out-of-state Class I area
contributions, and that, with one possible exception discussed in the
RTC at response section IV.B., emissions from Nevada do not impact any
Class I area whose 2028 RPG for the most impaired days is above the
URP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\16\ CAA section 169A(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, as discussed in more detail in the responses at
section III.B. of the RTC Document, Nevada took into consideration the
four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and selected several
control measures as necessary for reasonable progress.
The full text of comments received is included in the publicly
posted docket associated with this action at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. The RTC Document, which is also included in the
docket associated with this action, provides detailed responses to all
significant comments received. The RTC Document is organized by topic.
Therefore, if additional information is desired concerning how the EPA
addressed a particular comment, the reader should refer to the
appropriate section in the RTC Document.
III. Final Action
For the reasons set forth in the October 23, 2025 proposal, the RTC
Document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving the Plan as
satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second planning
period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). Specifically, we
are proposing to approve the 2022 Nevada Regional Haze Plan (excluding
the portions withdrawn on July 27, 2023) and appendix A of the 2025 SIP
Supplement into the Nevada SIP. Thus, we are incorporating by reference
in 40 CFR 52.1470(d) (``EPA-approved State source-specific permits''),
the following source-specific requirements:
<bullet> NDEP Permit No. AP4911-0194.04 (for Tracy Generating
Station), Conditions IV.B.1.a, IV.B.3.f, IV.D.1.a, IV.D.3.f, IV.F.1,
IV.L.1.a, IV.L.3.g, IV.M.1.a, IV.M.3.g, V.A, and V.C.
<bullet> Clark County DES Authority to Construct Permit for a Major
Part 70 Source, Source ID: 3 (for Lhoist North America Apex Plant),
Conditions 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4.7,
4.4.8, 4.4.15, and 4.4.16.
<bullet> NDEP Permit No. AP3274-1329.03 (for Graymont Pilot Peak
Plant), Conditions IV.K.1.a, IV.K.3.b, IV.K.4.q, IV.K.4.u, IV.N.1.a,
IV.N.3.b, IV.N.4.q, IV.N.4.u, V.S.1.a, IV.S.3.b, IV.S.4.q, IV.S.4.u,
and V.B-C.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the regulatory and
source-specific provisions described in section III. of this preamble
and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 in this document.
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that
plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the
CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\17\ The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at
the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations.\18\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land
[[Page 5324]]
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated
that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and
the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 7, 2026. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: January 27, 2026.
Michael Martucci,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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. In Sec. 52.1470:
0
a. Revise paragraph (d); and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), under the heading ``Air Quality
Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada'' add the entry ``Nevada
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Planning
Period'' before the entry ``Small Business Stationary Source Technical
and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program''.
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 52.1470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.
EPA-Approved Nevada Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
Name of source Order/permit No. date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Generating Station......... AP4911-0194.04, 3/23/2022 91 FR [insert Submitted as
conditions Federal Register appendix A.2 of the
IV.B.1.a, IV.B.3.f, page where the Nevada Regional
IV.D.1.a, IV.D.3.f, document begins], 2/ Haze Revision to
IV.F.1, IV.L.1.a, 6/2026. the State
IV.L.3.g, IV.M.1.a, Implementation Plan
IV.M.3.g, V.A, and for the Second
V.C. Planning Period on
May 28, 2025.
Graymont Pilot Peak Plant)....... AP3274-1329.03, 6/14/2024 91 FR [insert Submitted as
conditions Federal Register appendix A.3 of the
IV.K.1.a, IV.K.3.b, page where the Nevada Regional
IV.K.4.q, IV.K.4.u, document begins], 2/ Haze Revision to
IV.N.1.a, IV.N.3.b, 6/2026. the State
IV.N.4.q, IV.N.4.u, Implementation Plan
V.S.1.a, IV.S.3.b, for the Second
IV.S.4.q, IV.S.4.u, Planning Period on
and V.B-C. May 28, 2025.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark County Department of Environment and Sustainability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhoist North America Apex Plant.. Authority to 4/30/2025 91 FR [insert Submitted as
Construct Permit Federal Register appendix A.1 of the
for a Major Part 70 page where the Nevada Regional
Source, Source ID: document begins], 2/ Haze Revision to
3, Conditions 6/2026. the State
2.1.1, 2.2.1, Implementation Plan
2.2.2, 2.2.3, for the Second
3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.1, Planning Period on
4.3, 4.4.7, 4.4.8, May 28, 2025.
4.4.15, and 4.4.16.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or submittal EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIR QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Nevada Regional Haze State State-wide.............. 8/12/2022 91 FR [insert Excluding
Implementation Plan for the Federal Register Executive
Second Planning Period. page where the Summary;
document begins], subsection 5.4.7;
2/6/2026. table 5-5;
section 5.5,
section 5.6,
section 7.7; and
appendices A, B.5
and B.6.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\1\ The organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada's original
1972 SIP, which was divided into 12 sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans,
are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small Business Stationary Source Technical and
Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or quasi-
regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR
52.1470(c).
[[Page 5325]]
0
3. In Sec. 52.1488, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1488 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(h) Approval. On August 12, 2022, the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted the ``Nevada Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan for the Second Planning Period'' (``2022
Nevada Regional Haze Plan''). On May 28, 2025, NDEP submitted the
``Nevada Regional Haze Revision to the State Implementation Plan for
the Second Planning Period,'' (``2025 SIP Supplement''). The 2022
Nevada Regional Haze Plan and appendix A (``Air Quality Permits
Incorporated by Reference'') of the 2025 SIP Supplement meet the
requirements of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional
Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308 for the second implementation period.
[FR Doc. 2026-02344 Filed 2-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 6, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.