17334 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Chairman. In the event of the Vice 

Chairman’s death, departure or 

resignation prior to the election of a 

successor, the Board, as soon as 

practicable, shall elect a new Vice 

Chairman who shall serve a term that 

commences immediately upon election 

and expires upon the election and 

installation of a successor Vice 

Chairman. 

PART 6—MEETINGS (ARTICLE VI) 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 6 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 202, 205, 401(2), (10), 

1003, 3622; 5 U.S.C. 552b(e), (g). 

■ 5. Section 6.6 is amended by revising 

the introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 6.6 Quorum and voting. 

As provided by 39 U.S.C. 205(c), and 

except for routine, non-controversial, 

and administrative matters considered 

through the notation voting process 

described in § 6.7, the Board acts by 

resolution upon a majority vote of those 

members who attend a meeting in 

person or by teleconference. No proxies 

are allowed in any vote of the members 

of the Board. Any 6 members constitute 

a quorum for the transaction of business 

by the Board, except: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 6.7 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 6.7 Notation voting. 

(a) General. Notation voting consists 

of the circulation of written memoranda 

and voting sheets to each member of the 

Board simultaneously and the 

tabulation of submitted responses. 

Notation voting may be used only for 

routine, non-controversial, and 

administrative matters. 

(b) Administrative Responsibility. The 

Secretary of the Board is responsible for: 

(1) Distributing notation voting 

memoranda and voting sheets; 

(2) Establishing deadlines for notation 

voting sheets to be completed and 

returned; 

(3) Processing and tabulating all 

notation voting sheets; and 

(4) Determining whether further 

action is required. 

(c) Veto of notation voting. In view of 

the public policy for openness reflected 

in the Government in the Sunshine Act 

and in these bylaws, each Board 

member is authorized to veto the use of 

notation voting for the consideration of 

any matter. If a Board member vetoes 

the use of notation voting, the Secretary 

must notify all members of such action, 

and must promptly take action to place 

the particular matter on the agenda of 

the next regularly scheduled Board 

meeting following the date of the veto, 

or to schedule a teleconference to 

consider the matter, as appropriate. 

(d) Disclosure of result. The Secretary 

shall maintain all records pertaining to 

Board actions taken pursuant to the 

notation voting process, and shall make 

such records available for public 

inspection, consistent with the Freedom 

of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

PART 7—PUBLIC OBSERVATION 

(ARTICLE VII) 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 7 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 410; 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)– 

(m). 

■ 8. Section 7.1 is amended by revising 

the final sentence of paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 7.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * The term ’’meeting’’ does 

not include any procedural 

deliberations required or permitted by 

§§ 6.1, 6.2, 7.4, or 7.5 of the bylaws in 

this chapter, or the notation voting 

process described in § 6.7 of the bylaws 

in this chapter. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7098 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130, FRL–9612–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Nevada; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its approval 

of most of the Nevada Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

implements the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Regional Haze Rule requiring states to 

prevent any future and remedy any 

existing man-made impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

through a regional haze program. EPA 

proposed to approve all parts of 

Nevada’s SIP revisions on June 22, 2011 

(76 FR 36450). This final approval 

applies to all aspects of Nevada’s SIP 

except for that portion of Nevada’s 

determination regarding the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to 

reduce nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions 

at the Reid Gardner Generating Station 

(RGGS). We will take action on BART 

for NOX at RGGS in a future notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on April 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. Please 

note that while many of the documents 

in the docket are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may not be specifically listed in the 

index to the docket and may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports or otherwise 

voluminous materials), and some may 

not be available at either locations (e.g., 

confidential business information). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed 

directly below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4139 and 

via electronic mail at 

webb.thomas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ is used, we mean 

the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Description of Regional Haze 

B. History of Regional Haze Regulations 

C. Our Proposed Action 

II. BART Determination for NOX at Reid 

Gardner 

A. Background 

B. NDEP’s Determination 

C. Public Comments Relevant to NDEP’s 

Determination 

D. EPA’s Analysis 

III. EPA Responses to Public Comments 

Except BART for NOX at RGGS 

A. Reasonable Progress Goal 

B. Long-Term Strategy 

C. BART for SO2 and PM10 at Reid Gardner 

D. Corrections to EPA’s Technical Analysis 

IV. EPA Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Description of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is the impairment of 

visibility across a broad geographic area 

produced by numerous sources and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 17335 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which one can view a dark 

object against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). Although states and 

tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 

which they consider to have visibility as an 

important value, the requirements of the visibility 

program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply 

only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each 

mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility 

of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 

When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, 

we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

activities that emit fine particles and 

their precursors, primarily sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX), 

and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), primarily sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust, which impair 

visibility by scattering and absorbing 

light. Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. PM2.5 can also cause 

serious health effects and mortality in 

humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication of water 

bodies. 

Data from existing visibility monitors, 

the ‘‘Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments’’ 

(IMPROVE) network, indicate that 

visibility impairment caused by air 

pollution occurs virtually all the time at 

most federally protected national parks 

and wilderness areas, known as Class I 

areas. The average visual range in many 

Class I areas in the western United 

States is 100 to 150 kilometers, or about 

one-half to two-thirds of the visual 

range that would exist without manmade air pollution.1 In most of the 

eastern Class I areas of the United 

States, the average visual range is less 

than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of 

the visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. History of Regional Haze Regulations 

In section 169(A)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

established as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

man-made air pollution.’’ Visibility was 

determined by Congress to be an 

important value in 156 mandatory Class 

I Federal areas 2 as listed in 40 CFR 

81.400–437. In the first phase of 

visibility protection, EPA promulgated 

regulations on December 2, 1980, to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment’’ or RAVI. 45 FR 

80084. EPA deferred action on regional 

haze that emanates from a variety of 

sources until monitoring, modeling and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationship between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to conduct scientific 

research on regional haze. This 

legislation established the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC), which issued its 

report, ‘‘Recommendations for 

Improving Western Vistas,’’ on June 10, 

1996. These recommendations informed 

the regulatory development of a regional 

haze program, and provided an option 

for certain western states to address 

visibility at 16 Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau under 40 CFR 51.309. 

EPA promulgated a rule to address 

regional haze on July 1, 1999 known as 

the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). See 64 

FR 35713 as amended at 70 FR 39156 

(July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60631 (October 

13, 2006). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to include 

provisions addressing regional haze 

impairment and established a 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. 

The requirement to submit a regional 

haze SIP revision applies to all 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 

Islands. States were required to submit 

the first SIP addressing regional haze 

visibility impairment no later than 

December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

Since most states, including Nevada, 

did not submit SIPs prior to the 

deadline, EPA made a Finding of 

Failure to Submit that under the Clean 

Air Act had the effect of creating a 

deadline of January 15, 2011, for EPA to 

approve a SIP or publish a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). 74 FR 2392 

(January 15, 2009). EPA is publishing 

this final action to meet this obligation 

in part. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

CAA and RHR requirements, please see 

sections II and III of our proposal dated 

June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36450). Our 

evaluation of the Nevada Regional Haze 

Plan is in section IV of the same 

proposal. 

C. Our Proposed Action 

On June 22, 2011, EPA proposed to 

approve all portions of Nevada’s 

Regional Haze SIP as meeting the 

relevant requirements of CAA Section 

169A and the Regional Haze Rule. We 

proposed to find that Nevada 

appropriately established baseline 

visibility conditions and a reasonable 

progress goal for its one Class I area; 

developed a long-term strategy with 

enforceable measures to ensure 

reasonable progress toward achieving 

the Reasonable Progress Goal in the first 

planning period ending in 2018; 

adequately applied Best Available 

Retrofit Technology to specific 

stationary sources, including RGGS; 

developed a regional haze monitoring 

strategy; provided for periodic progress 

reports and revisions; provided for 

consultation and coordination with 

federal land managers; and provided for 

the regional haze SIP’s future review 

and revisions. We also proposed to find 

that emissions from Nevada do not 

interfere with other states’ measures to 

protect visibility as required by CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Our proposed 

action provides more information about 

the relevant CAA requirements, EPA 

guidance, the State’s submittals, and our 

review and evaluation of the SIP 

revisions. 

II. BART Determination for NOX at 

Reid Gardner 

We are taking no action in today’s 

rule on the portion of the Nevada SIP 

that contains the BART determination at 

RGGS for NOX. Following our review of 

the public comments on this issue, we 

performed additional analysis of 

Nevada’s NOX BART determination for 

RGGS. As a result, we no longer 

consider the currently available 

information to be sufficient for us to 

take final action on the Nevada Division 

of Environmental Protection’s (NDEP’s) 

determination that rotating overfire air 

(ROFA) with Rotamix (a form of 

selective non-catalytic reduction or 

SNCR) is the NOX control technology 

that represents BART. We intend to 

consider this determination in more 

detail at a future date. 

A. Background 

The RHR provides that a BART 

determination must take into account 

several factors, which are frequently 

referred to as the ‘‘five-factor analysis.’’ 

These factors are listed below (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)): 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17336 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3Nevada Energy BART Analysis Reports, 

Reid_Gardner_1_10–03–08.pdf, 

Reid_Gardner_2_10–03–08.pdf, 

Reid_Gardner_3_10–03–08.pdf. Available in Docket 

Item No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130–0007. 

4Based on a comparison of emission reductions 

summarized in Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART 

Determination, October 22, 2009 (Available as 

Docket Item No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130–0005), 

and emission reductions summarized in Table 3–2 

of the NVE BART Analysis Reports. Visibility 

impacts as summarized from Table 5–4 of the NVE 

BART Analysis Reports. 

5Revised NDEP Reid Gardner BART 

Determination Review, page 6. Available as Docket 

Item No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130–0005. See also 

Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D (Responses 

to Comments), pages D–32 to –42. Available in 

docket item No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130–003. 

• The cost of compliance for the 

technically feasible control 

technologies; 

• The energy and non-air quality 

impacts of the control technologies; 

• Any existing air pollution control 

technologies at the source; 

• The remaining useful life of the 

source; and 

• The degree of visibility 

improvement which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the various 

control technologies. 

B. NDEP’s Determination 

RGGS consists of four coal-fired 

boilers, three of which are BARTeligible units with generating capacity 

of 100 megawatts (MW) each. A fourth 

unit (250 MW) is not BART-eligible. 

Nevada Energy, the owner of RGGS, 

performed a BART analysis for the three 

BART-eligible RGGS units and 

submitted the results of its analysis to 

NDEP.3 In its BART analysis, Nevada 

Energy considered several NOX control 

technologies and evaluated the cost of 

compliance and visibility improvement 

associated with each technology. In 

preparing the SIP, NDEP relied on 

certain aspects of Nevada Energy’s 

analysis while performing updated 

analyses for other aspects. When 

considering the cost and cost 

effectiveness of compliance, NDEP 

developed its own set of emission 

reduction estimates for the various NOX

control technologies, but used Nevada 

Energy’s estimates of total capital and 

annual costs.4 When considering the 

degree of visibility improvement 

associated with various control 

technologies, NDEP relied upon the 

visibility impacts for each control 

option as modeled by Nevada Energy, 

rather than modeling the visibility 

impacts attributable to NDEP’s own 

estimates of NOX removal. 

In its submittal to NDEP, Nevada 

Energy determined that low NOX

burners (LNB) with OFA (overfire air) 

were BART for NOX. In preparing the 

SIP, NDEP determined that a more 

stringent control technology, ROFA 

with Rotamix, was BART for NOX. 

NDEP eliminated even more stringent 

control options, such as Selective 

Catalytic Reduction (SCR) with LNB and 

OFA, on the grounds that ‘‘the $/ton of 

NOX removed increased significantly 

* * * without correspondingly 

significant improvements in 

visibility.’’ 5

C. Public Comments Relevant to NDEP’s 

Determination 

As noted in Section II.B above, 

NDEP’s elimination of control options 

more stringent than ROFA with Rotamix 

was based on the incremental cost 

effectiveness ($/ton) and expected 

visibility improvement of the various 

options. EPA received several comments 

(see Docket Items 0054, 0057, 0061, 

0062 and 0062 Attachment 6) alleging 

flaws in NDEP’s analysis and response 

to comments, and stating that SCR 

should be BART for NOX at RGGS. 

These commenters alleged certain flaws 

and submitted additional information in 

criticizing NDEP’s development of the 

cost effectiveness values and expected 

visibility improvement attributable to 

the more stringent SCR-based control 

option. 

Regarding cost effectiveness, several 

commenters (see Docket Items 0054, 

0057, 0061, and 0062) alleged that the 

total capital and annual cost estimates 

relied upon by NDEP for the SCR-based 

control options were overestimated, 

included several costs not allowed by 

EPA’s Control Cost Manual (CCM) such 

as owner’s costs, surcharge, and 

allowance for funds used during 

construction (AFUDC), and used certain 

variables and values that were either 

inflated or unreasonable. One 

commenter (see docket item 0062 

Attachment 6) performed a revised 

analysis of SCR cost effectiveness that 

adjusted for these alleged issues, and 

projected a 33 to 40 percent decrease in 

average and incremental cost 

effectiveness values as a result of these 

adjustments. In addition, commenters 

stated that total capital and annual cost 

estimates lacked evidentiary support in 

the administrative record due to the 

absence of detailed information such as 

equipment design parameters, 

equipment lists, and actual cost 

calculations. Finally, commenters also 

stated that the level of SCR performance 

relied upon by NDEP is not supported 

in the administrative record by sitespecific information such as vendor 

quotes or specifications (see Docket 

Items 0054 and 0061 to 0063). 

Regarding visibility improvement, 

commenters (see Docket Items 0054 and 

0062) noted that while baseline 

visibility modeling indicated that RGGS 

currently causes or contributes to 

visibility impairment at multiple Class I 

areas, control scenario visibility 

modeling results were only provided for 

the single closest Class I area, Grand 

Canyon National Park. They asserted 

that the potential visibility benefit at all 

affected Class I areas should be 

accounted for when considering control 

technology options. In addition, as 

described in Section II.B above, NDEP 

estimated larger NOX emission 

reductions than the emission reductions 

estimated by Nevada Energy. NDEP, 

however, continued to rely on the 

visibility modeling provided by Nevada 

Energy, and did not update the 

modeling to reflect NDEP’s larger NOX

emission reduction estimates. As a 

result, the existing visibility modeling 

does not reflect the incremental 

visibility improvement attributable to 

NDEP’s estimates of NOX emission 

reductions. Finally, commenters noted 

that certain modeling files and 

documentation were missing from our 

docket and were unavailable from 

NDEP, such as the NOX control scenario 

modeling result files and supporting 

information for NDEP’s baseline 

emission scenarios. 

D. EPA’s Analysis 

After reviewing the public comments, 

we performed additional analysis of the 

cost effectiveness and visibility 

improvement associated with the 

various NOX control technologies 

considered by NDEP in determining 

BART at RGGS. Based upon this 

additional analysis, we no longer 

consider the currently available 

supporting information to be 

sufficiently detailed to allow us to 

perform a critical review of these issues. 

As a result, we are taking no action in 

this rule on NDEP’s determination that 

ROFA with Rotamix is the NOX control 

technology that represents BART. 

Therefore, EPA is taking no action on 

the portion of the SIP containing the 

BART determination for NOX at RGGS 

including the corresponding emission 

limits and schedules of compliance for 

NOX at RGGS in the SIP’s long-term 

strategy. Specifically, these are sections 

5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2 of Nevada’s SIP that 

address the NOX BART control analyses, 

visibility improvement, and 

implementation at RGGS. Since the 

emissions inventories used to develop 

the reasonable progress goal (RPG) did 

not include NOX reductions from BART, 

the fact that we take no action in this 

rule regarding the RGGS BART 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 17337 

6Per the Nevada RH SIP, page 6–5, the only 

BART emission reductions included in the 2018 

emission inventory were SO2 reductions resulting 

from presumptive BART limits. 

7The Consortium’s comment letter was signed by 

representatives of the Sierra Club, National Parks 

Conservation Association, Citizens for Dixie’s 

Future, Defend Our Desert, Friends of Gold Butte, 

Grand Canyon Trust, and Western Resource 

Advocates. 

8See 9.1.3 Past Consultation with other States in 

Nevada’s SIP. 

9See 4.3.3 Source Apportionment for Other Class 

I Areas in Nevada’s SIP. 

determination for NOX does not impact 

the RPG, and will not require 

adjustments to the long-term strategy 

(LTS) in the SIP.6 EPA will propose 

further action on this particular portion 

of the SIP in the future. 

III. EPA Responses to Public Comments 

Except BART for NOX at RGGS 

EPA’s proposed approval published 

on June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36450) 

included a 30-day public comment 

period, which ended on July 22, 2011. 

We subsequently extended the comment 

period by 30 days until August 22, 2011 

(76 FR 43963). We received comments 

from WildEarth Guardians, a 

consortium of environmental and 

conservation organizations 7

(‘‘Consortium’’), the Moapa Band of 

Paiutes, the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP), the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and seven individuals. 

With the exception of NDEP’s 

comments, which support EPA’s 

proposed approval of its plan, most of 

the comments expressed opposition to 

EPA’s full approval of the SIP. The 

majority of these comments criticized 

our proposed approval of NDEP’s 

determination of BART controls to 

reduce emissions of NOX at RGGS. In 

this final rule approving all other 

portions of Nevada’s RH SIP, we are 

responding to all other major comments 

on our proposed SIP approval. We find 

that the SIP is approvable except BART 

for NOX at RGGS on which EPA is 

taking no action. 

A. Reasonable Progress Goal 

Comments: The National Park Service 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

expressed concern that the SIP’s 

reasonable progress analysis was not 

consistent with Section 308(d)(1) of the 

Regional Haze Rule and EPA’s Guidance 

for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

under the Regional Haze Program 

because NDEP ‘‘did not consider what 

additional emissions reductions beyond 

those already being implemented might 

be reasonable to improve visibility.’’ 

Similarly, WildEarth Guardians 

commented that the Clean Air Act 

requires EPA to base reasonable 

progress goals on the factors set forth 

under Section 169A(g), and not the bare 

minimum required to meet the uniform 

rate of progress. WildEarth Guardians 

expressed concern that ‘‘EPA has 

overlooked opportunities to further 

reduce haze forming pollution from 

sources in Nevada.’’ By contrast, NDEP 

asserted that its reasonable progress 

analysis considered the four factors 

required under the Regional Haze Rule 

(i.e., the costs of compliance, the time 

necessary for compliance, the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, and the 

remaining useful life of any existing 

source subject to such requirements). 

Specifically, NDEP noted that ‘‘[c]ost 

was considered first, * * * and the 

NDEP concluded it was not necessary to 

continue with an analysis of the 

remaining factors.’’ 

Response: As explained in the 

proposed rule, in promulgating the SIP 

NDEP considered the four factors in 

setting the reasonable progress goal for 

the Jarbidge Wilderness Area, the only 

Class I area in Nevada. The RHR and 

EPA’s guidance affords the State 

considerable flexibility in determining 

whether additional emission reduction 

measures are needed to achieve the RPG 

in the first planning period. The NDEP 

reasonably concluded that the cost of 

additional controls was not warranted 

given projected emissions reductions 

from anthropogenic sources and the fact 

that the majority of haze at Jarbidge is 

from natural and out-of-state sources. 

Moreover, NDEP noted in its comments 

that ‘‘of the five proposed electrical 

generating units (EGUs) included in the 

State’s 2018 emissions inventory, only 

two have moved forward and are now 

operational,’’ which would further 

lower emissions projections for both 

NOX and SO2 by 2018. The comments 

do not demonstrate that the State failed 

to consider reasonably the four factors, 

but the comments question whether the 

State should have done a more robust 

analysis. EPA has considered the 

comments and the comments have not 

provided any further specific facts that 

should have been considered in the 

State’s analysis beyond conclusory 

criticisms. Therefore, given the broad 

discretion the RHR affords the State, 

and the lack of specificity in the 

comments on this issue, EPA reaffirms 

its proposed decision to approve the 

State’s reasonable progress goal for 

Jarbidge. 

B. Long-Term Strategy 

Comments: The Consortium argued 

that the SIP ‘‘does not contain evidence 

showing full and effective consultation 

with other states, does not ‘ensure that 

it has included all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon’ 

through that consultation process and 

further fails to ‘document the technical 

basis, including modeling, monitoring 

and emissions information,’ on which it 

relies to determine its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process.’’ 

Specifically, the Consortium noted that, 

‘‘[a]lthough the Proposed SIP implies 

that Nevada consulted with the Western 

Regional Air Partnership (‘‘WRAP’’) in 

determining its apportionment of 

visibility impacts to Class I areas 

outside of the State of Nevada, the 

administrative record does not support 

the legally-required level of 

consultation.’’ They further argued that 

‘‘WRAP’s failure to apportion Nevada’s 

contribution does not save Nevada from 

its independent obligation to require 

adequate BART determinations and a 

long-term strategy to reduce hazecausing pollutants in out-of-state Class I 

areas from its pollution sources.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

assertions that Nevada did not consult 

with other states, did not meet its source 

apportionment obligations to Class I 

areas in other states, and did not 

document the technical basis for its 

apportionment as required in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii). Although 

Nevada lacked formal membership in 

the WRAP, representatives from NDEP 

actively participated with other state 

representatives in the WRAP’s 

committees and work groups, which 

jointly directed the development of the 

WRAP’s technical analyses. Nevada and 

other western states relied on the 

WRAP’s source apportionment 

modeling results to estimate the 

contribution of out-of-state emissions 

and relied on the WRAP’s consultation 

process to ensure the compatibility of 

reasonable progress goals and long-term 

strategies.8 Nevada used the WRAP’s 

source apportionment modeling to 

demonstrate the minimal contribution 

of Nevada’s emissions to sulfate and 

nitrate extinction at 25 Class I areas in 

five neighboring states.9 Based on 

consultation through the WRAP, Nevada 

identified no major contributions that 

supported developing new interstate 

strategies, mitigation measures, or 

emissions reduction obligations. Nevada 

and neighboring states agreed that the 

implementation of BART and other 

existing measures in state regional haze 

plans were sufficient for the states to 

meet the reasonable progress goals for 

their respective Class I areas, and that 

future consultation would address any 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17338 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

10See Nevada’s RH SIP Sections 5.5 and 6.5.2.2. 

11United States v. Nevada Power Company, Case 

2:07–cv–00417 (D. Nev.) (consent decree entered 

June 15, 2007). 

12See Nevada’s RH SIP Chapter 5, footnote 4. 

13See Nevada’s RH SIP, Table 5–6 Reid Gardner: 

BART Emissions Reductions in Tons per Year. 

14See Nevada’s RH SIP Section 5.5. 

15 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, Section V. 

16See 40 CFR 52.1470(c); Nevada Administrative 

Code 445B.256–267, 22017. 

new strategies or measures needed. 

Moreover, Nevada did not receive any 

requests from other states to achieve 

even greater reductions in its emissions 

in order for other states to meet their 

RPGs. Therefore, EPA reaffirms its 

proposed determination that Nevada 

adequately consulted with other states, 

demonstrated that its SIP includes all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

emission reductions at other Class I 

areas, and provided the technical basis 

to document its analysis. 

C. BART for SO2 and PM10 at RGGS 

In addition to extensive comments 

addressing NDEP’s BART determination 

for NOX at RGGS, we also received 

comments concerning the timing of 

implementation of BART at RGGS 

generally, as well as comments 

specifically addressing the SO2 and 

PM10 BART determinations for RGGS. 

As noted above, we are not acting on 

NDEP’s BART determination for NOX at 

RGGS at this time. Therefore, our 

responses concerning RGGS are limited 

to comments related to the SO2 and 

PM10 BART determinations. 

1. BART for SO2 at RGGS 

Comments: Regarding NDEP’s BART 

determination for SO2 at RGGS, 

WildEarth Guardians expressed concern 

that ‘‘SO2 limits do not appear to 

represent the degree of reduction 

achievable through the application of 

the best system of continuous emission 

reduction.’’ In particular, they asserted 

that ‘‘it appears that Reid Gardner is 

already meeting emission limits that are 

less than half of this proposed limit’’, 

and that ‘‘even Nevada recognizes the 

SO2 emissions increases will occur as a 

result of [NDEP’s] proposed BART.’’ By 

contrast, the National Park Service and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

praised ‘‘NDEP’s action to lower the SO2

limit’’ at RGGS. 

Response: In setting the SO2 BART 

limits for RGGS, NDEP took into 

account the existing controls at the 

facility, consistent with CAA Section 

169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). In particular, NDEP 

considered the effect of new fabric filter 

baghouses that were installed on all 

three BART units at RGGS in 2008 and 

2009 pursuant to a consent decree 

between the facility’s owner and NDEP 

and EPA.10 The consent decree 

established an SO2 emissions limit of 

0.40 lbs/MMbtu (a million British 

thermal units), based on a 10-day rolling 

average period, for each of the three 

BART units.11 In its draft regional haze 

SIP, NDEP proposed an SO2 emissions 

limit of 0.25 lbs/MMbtu for each of the 

three BART units at RGGS. In response 

to comments from EPA and the National 

Park Service, NDEP subsequently 

lowered the BART limits to 0.15 lbs/ 

MMbtu, based on a 24-hour averaging 

period.12

In arguing for further reductions in 

these BART limits, WildEarth Guardians 

notes that, ‘‘according to Clean Air 

Markets data from the EPA, units 1–3 

are meeting annual sulfur dioxide 

emission rates of between 0.054 and 

0.064 lbs/MMbtu and have for at least 

the last two years.’’ However, while the 

units’ current annual average emission 

rates may be less than 0.15 lb/MMbtu, 

these figures are not directly comparable 

to the 24-hour rolling average emissions 

limits set by NDEP in its BART 

determination for RGGS. The more 

relevant points of comparison are the 

units’ current Title V permit limits of 

0.40 lbs/MMbtu, based on a 10-day 

rolling average period, which are more 

than twice the limit that NDEP has set 

for each of the three BART units in its 

Regional Haze SIP. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

regarding potential increases in SO2

emissions as a result of NDEP’s BART 

determination at RGGS, EPA reexamined NDEP’s estimates of emission 

reductions resulting from BART 

controls at RGGS. Nevada’s SIP provides 

two sets of estimated emission 

reductions resulting from BART 

controls at RGGS, one based on the 

WRAP baseline (4,970 tons) and one 

based on NDEP’s baseline (1,441 tons) 

for SO2.13 Although SO2 emissions are 

estimated to increase by 838 tons from 

NDEP’s baseline, they are expected to 

decrease by 2,696 tons from the WRAP’s 

baseline. Under both scenarios, the 

emissions after BART Controls are held 

constant at 2,279 tons. Thus, the 

difference in estimated emissions 

reductions is a reflection of the large 

difference between the WRAP baseline 

and the NDEP baseline for SO2. 

NDEP’s baseline emissions for SO2

were calculated using acid rain data that 

omitted data deemed invalid due to 

monitoring problems that were 

addressed by the consent decree. 

According to NDEP, the omission of the 

invalid data effectively lowered the 

baseline emissions (measured in lbs/ 

MMbtu) by nearly half.14 Thus, the 

projected increase in SO2 appears to be 

an artifact of NDEP’s exceptionally low 

baseline that is attributable to the 

exclusion of invalid data. 

From a broader perspective, NDEP’s 

BART determination for SO2 at RGGS 

will result in a lower emissions limit 

(0.15 lbs/MMbtu based on a 24-hour 

rolling average compared to the current 

Title V Permit limit of 0.40 lbs/MMbtu 

based on a 10-day rolling average 

period) related to the new fabric filter 

baghouses and existing wet soda ash 

with a dry flue gas desulfurization 

system. Since the BART determination 

lowers the short-term emissions limit, 

there is no valid reason to suspect that 

SO2 emissions will increase as a result 

of BART controls. EPA will use the 

progress report due five years after the 

SIP’s approval to evaluate actual SO2

emissions at RGGS to ensure that 

NDEP’s BART determination has not 

resulted in increased emissions and will 

encourage NDEP to take appropriate 

action, if necessary, at that time. 

2. BART for PM10 at RGGS 

Comments: Regarding the PM10 limit, 

WildEarth Guardians expressed concern 

that ‘‘the proposed BART determination 

is unenforceable because there are no 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 

requirements proposed that would 

ensure compliance with the 24-hour 

limits. There are simply no monitoring 

requirements proposed that would 

actually ensure that the PM limit is met 

on a continuous basis. This is contrary 

to the Clean Air Act, which defines 

BART based on continuous emission 

reductions.’’ 

Response: As explained in EPA’s 

BART Guidelines, ‘‘[m]onitoring 

requirements generally applicable to 

sources, including those that are subject 

to BART, are governed by other 

regulations. See, e.g., 40 CFR part 64 

(compliance assurance monitoring); 40 

CFR 70.6(a)(3) (periodic monitoring); 40 

CFR 70.6(c)(1) (sufficiency 

monitoring).’’ 15 The monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specifically applicable to 

RGGS are found in the existing Nevada 

SIP as well as the facility’s Title V 

permit. In particular, the applicable SIP 

requires continuous monitoring of 

opacity and compliance with a 20 

percent opacity limit.16 Although 

opacity does not directly correlate with 

particulate concentrations, it is a good 

indicator of proper operation of the 

baghouse since almost any opacity from 

a baghouse-controlled coal-fired boiler 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 17339 

17 40 CFR 64.7(d)(1). 

18As noted in our proposal, 76 FR 36465, we 

previously approved Nevada’s SIP for Interstate 

Transport as meeting the other requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 41629. 

We are now codifying this prior approval along 

with our current approval under a new section 

entitled ‘‘Interstate Transport.’’ 

is indicative of leaks in the baghouse. 

Under Part 64, such an excursion or 

exceedance must be addressed ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable in 

accordance with good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing 

emissions.’’ 17 For directly assuring 

compliance with existing PM10 limits, 

the Title V permit for RGGS contains an 

annual stack test requirement using 

Method 5 for PM and Method 201A/202 

for PM10. Given the current opacity limit 

in the SIP and the compliance methods 

in RGGS’s Title V permit, we are 

approving the BART determination for 

PM10 in Nevada’s RH SIP. We will 

continue to work with Nevada to ensure 

that all appropriate compliance 

provisions are in the SIP. 

3. Timing of Implementation 

Comments: WildEarth Guardians 

expressed concern that ‘‘EPA has not 

demonstrated that ‘by January 1, 2015’ 

is as expeditiously as practical for 

complying with BART at Reid Gardner, 

nor shown that it is reasonable to allow 

the facility a full five years to come into 

compliance with BART.’’ 

Response: The Nevada BART 

regulation in the Regional Haze SIP 

requires that the BART control measures 

at RGGS must be installed and operating 

‘‘[o]n or before January 1, 2015; or (2) 

[n]ot later than 5 years after approval of 

Nevada’s state implementation plan for 

regional haze by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, whichever occurs first.’’ Given 

the date of our approval of Nevada’s 

SIP, the BART implementation deadline 

for the RGGS is January 1, 2015, about 

three years from the date of this final 

rule. EPA considers Nevada’s choice of 

the January 1, 2015, to be reasonable in 

this instance. 

D. Corrections to EPA’s Technical 

Analysis 

Comments: NDEP noted a few 

corrections to EPA’s analysis in the 

proposed rule at 76 FR 36450 (June 22, 

2011), but stated that these minor 

corrections do not alter any of EPA’s 

conclusions. The first correction was to 

note that the percentages of emissions 

by source category shown in section 

IV.C.2 of EPA’s proposed rule are based 

on the 2018 emissions inventory. The 

proposal omitted the date of the 

inventory. Secondly, NDEP commented 

that the discussion of predominant 

sources of PM2.5 was in error because 

‘‘the predominant source of PM fine 

emissions are windblown dust (43 

percent) and fugitive dust (30 percent).’’ 

EPA had mistakenly attributed PM fine 

emissions to natural fires (49 percent) 

and area sources (37 percent). Lastly, 

NDEP commented on the sources of 

visibility impairment, saying that soil in 

PM2.5 is mostly from windblown dust, 

not natural fire. EPA had mistakenly 

attributed the source of PM2.5 to natural 

fire. 

Response: EPA is correcting the 

record as noted above. 

IV. EPA Action 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 

EPA is fully approving most portions of 

the Nevada Regional Haze SIP as 

satisfying all of the relevant 

requirements of CAA Section 169A and 

the Regional Haze Rule. For the portions 

of the SIP establishing BART for NOX at 

RGGS, EPA is taking no action at this 

time, and will take action on those 

portions of the SIP in a separate 

rulemaking. 

We find that Nevada has met the 

following Regional Haze Rule 

requirements: The State established 

baseline visibility conditions and 

reasonable progress goals for each of its 

Class I areas; the State developed a longterm strategy with enforceable measures 

ensuring reasonable progress towards 

meeting the reasonable progress goals 

for the first ten-year planning period, 

through 2018; the State has adequately 

addressed the application of Best 

Available Retrofit Technology to 

specific stationary sources, except for 

NOX at RGGS; the State has an adequate 

regional haze monitoring strategy; the 

State provided for consultation and 

coordination with federal land managers 

in producing its regional haze plan; and, 

the State provided for the regional haze 

plan’s future revisions. 

In addition, under section 110(k)(3) of 

the CAA, we are fully approving the 

Nevada Regional Haze SIP as satisfying 

the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirement to prohibit emissions that 

will interfere with measures to protect 

visibility in another state for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.18

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air 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: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• 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.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not interfere with Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994)) because EPA lacks the 

discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. However, the Moapa Band of 

Paiutes did raise issues in the context of 

the BART determination for RGGS, 

which will be addressed at a future date. 

Region 9 engaged in formal consultation 

with the Moapa Band of Paiutes on 

August 11, 2011, and heard these issues 

in person. We will continue to consult 

with Moapa on RGGS. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17340 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 action 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 May 25, 2012. 

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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Visibility, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: December 13, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. In § 52.1470(c): 

■ a. In paragraph (c), Table 1 is 

amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘445B.029’’ after the entry for 

‘‘445B.022’’, and adding entries for 

‘‘445B.22095,’’ and ‘‘445B.22096’’ after 

the entry for ‘‘445B.22093’’. 

■ 3. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘Nevada Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (October 2009)’’ to 

the end of the table. 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NEVADA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

Nevada Administrative Code, Chapter 445B, Air Controls, Air Pollution; Nevada Administrative Code, Chapter 445, Air Controls, Air 

Pollution; Nevada Air Quality Regulations—Definitions 

*******

445B.029 ................................. ‘‘Best available retrofit technology’’ defined.4/23/09 [Insert page number where 

the document begins 3/26/ 

12].

Included in supplemental SIP 

revision submitted on September 20, 2011, and approved as part of approval 

of Nevada Regional Haze 

SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

445B.22095 ............................. Emission limitation for BART 4/23/09 [Insert page number where 

the document begins 3/26/ 

12].

Included in supplemental SIP 

revision submitted on September 20, 2011, and approved as part of approval 

of Nevada Regional Haze 

SIP. 

445B.22096, excluding the 

NOX emission limits and 

control types in sub-paragraph (1)(c).

Control measures constituting 

BART; limitations on emissions.

1/28/10 [Insert page number where 

the document begins 3/26/ 

12].

Included in supplemental SIP 

revision submitted on September 20, 2011, and approved as part of approval 

of Nevada Regional Haze 

SIP. Excluding the NOX

emission limits and control 

types for units 1, 2 and 3 of 

NV Energy’s Reid Gardner 

Generating Station. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 17341 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Nevada Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (October 2009), excluding the 

BART determination and the 

associated emission limits 

for NOX at Reid Gardner 

Generating Station in sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2.

State-wide .............................. 11/18/09 [Insert page number where 

the document begins 3/26/ 

12].

Excluding Appendix A (‘‘Nevada BART Regulation’’). 

The Nevada BART regulation, including NAC 

445B.029, 445B.22095, 

and 445B.22096, is listed 

above in 40 CFR 

52.1470(c). 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.1488 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1488 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(e) Approval. On November 18, 2009, 

the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection submitted the ‘‘Nevada 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan.’’ With the exception of the BART 

determination and the associated 

emission limits for NOX at Reid Gardner 

Generating Station in sections 5.5.3, 

5.6.3 and 7.2, the Nevada Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan, as 

supplemented and amended on 

February 18, 2010 and September 20, 

2011, meets the applicable requirements 

of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 

169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40 

CFR 51.308. 

■ 4. Add a new § 52.1491 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1491 Interstate transport. 

(a) Approval. On February 7, 2007, 

the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection submitted the ‘‘Nevada State 

Implementation Plan for Interstate 

Transport to Satisfy the Requirements of 

the Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

Promulgated in July 1997’’ (‘‘2007 

Interstate Transport SIP’’). The 2007 

Interstate Transport SIP meets the 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS other than the 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility. 

(b) Approval. The requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

regarding interference with other states’ 

measures to protect visibility for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS are met by the ‘‘Nevada 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan,’’ as supplemented and amended 

on February 18, 2010 and September 20, 

2011. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7025 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0713; FRL–9652–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and 

Pennsylvania; Determinations of 

Attainment of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard for the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City Moderate 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making two 

determinations regarding the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

PA–NJ–MD–DE 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment area (the Philadelphia 

Area). First, EPA is determining that the 

Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data that show the area 

has monitored attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the 2008–2010 

monitoring period. In accordance with 

EPA’s applicable ozone implementation 

rule, this clean data determination 

suspends the requirement for the 

Philadelphia Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan 

and contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hours ozone 

NAAQS. These requirements shall be 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Second, EPA is 

determining that the Philadelphia Area 

has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its attainment date of June 

15, 2011. These actions are being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on April 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0713. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning EPA’s 

proposed action related to Delaware, 

Maryland or Pennsylvania, please 

contact Maria A. Pino (215) 814–2181, 

or by email at pino.maria@epa.gov. If 

you have questions concerning EPA’s 

proposed action related to New Jersey, 

please contact Paul Truchan (212) 637– 

3711, or by email at 

truchan.paul@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this action. 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Actions 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the States of 

Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES