Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 22803

1The Town of Gerlach is approximately 75 miles 

north-northeast of the northern boundary of the 

Truckee Meadows CO nonattainment area (i.e., 

hydrographic area 87).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–8707 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[NV–FOA–126; FRL–7907–3] 

Determination of Attainment for the 

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards in 

Washoe County, NV

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the 

marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment 

area that includes all of Washoe County, 

Nevada has attained the 1-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

by the applicable attainment date (1993) 

and has continued to attain since that 

time. EPA has also determined that the 

moderate carbon monoxide 

nonattainment area that includes the 

Truckee Meadows area of Washoe 

County has attained the carbon 

monoxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard by the applicable attainment 

date (1995) and has continued to attain 

since that time. This determination of 

attainment does not redesignate the 

Washoe County area to attainment for 

the 1-hour ozone or the carbon 

monoxide standard. The Clean Air Act 

requires that, for an area to be 

redesignated, five criteria must be 

satisfied including the submittal of a 

maintenance plan as a State 

Implementation Plan revision. The 

intended effect of this action will be to 

relieve the State of Nevada of the 

obligation to submit revisions to the 

state implementation plan to address 

additional requirements under the Clean 

Air Act for the next higher 

nonattainment classifications for the 1-

hour ozone and carbon monoxide 

standards.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This finding is effective 

on June 2, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Planning 

Office of the Air Division, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California, 94105–3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4147 or 

kaplan.eleanor@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to U.S. EPA. 

I. Background 

Under sections 179(c), 181(b)(2) and 

186(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’), EPA has the responsibility for 

determining whether a nonattainment 

area has attained the 1-hour ozone and 

carbon monoxide (CO) national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment dates. In this case, 

the EPA was required to make 

determinations concerning the Washoe 

County ozone nonattainment area and 

the Truckee Meadows CO 

nonattainment area. As a ‘‘marginal’’ 1-

hour ozone nonattainment area, Washoe 

County was subject to a December 31, 

1993 attainment date, and as a 

‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment area, the 

Truckee Meadows area was subject to a 

December 31, 1995 attainment date. 

On January 21, 2005 (70 FR 3170), we 

published a notice announcing a 

proposed finding that the Washoe 

County nonattainment area had attained 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date (December 

31, 1993) and has continued to attain 

the 1-hour ozone standard since that 

time, and that the Truckee Meadows 

nonattainment area had attained the CO 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date (December 31, 1995) and has 

continued to attain the CO standard 

since that time. A detailed discussion of 

EPA’s proposal is contained in the 

January 21, 2005 proposed rule and will 

not be restated here. The reader is 

referred to the proposed rule for more 

details. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA received one comment letter 

during the 30-day comment period. This 

letter, dated February 22, 2005, was 

submitted on behalf of a coalition of 

groups including the North West Great 

Basin Association, Environmental 

Defense, Progressive Leadership 

Alliance of Nevada, Western Resource 

Advocates, and Clean Air Task Force. 

The comments center on the possible 

effects on air quality in Washoe County 

resulting from operation of a coal-fired 

power plant for which plans are being 

developed and that would be located 

within Washoe County near the Town of 

Gerlach. In response to a request from 

EPA for additional information 

regarding a reference made in the letter, 

the commenter submitted to us an 

excerpt from a report on a preconstruction monitoring site called 

Squaw Creek Valley located in the 

southeast corner of the proposed power 

plant site to collect on-site ambient air 

quality, meteorological and upper air 

data. The site was installed in mid-July 

2004. Official data collection began in 

August 2004, and the excerpt submitted 

to us contained a summary of air quality 

data collected during the months of 

August through October 2004. The 

comments and EPA responses are as 

follows:

Comment 1 

Notwithstanding a finding of 

attainment, Washoe County remains 

designated ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 1-

hour ozone and CO NAAQS, and any 

new major sources of ozone and CO 

emissions must comply with all 

nonattainment requirements. 

Response 1

EPA agrees that a finding of 

attainment does not constitute a 

redesignation to ‘‘attainment’’ and that 

all new major sources or major 

modifications that are to be located in 

a nonattainment area and that receive 

permits to construct while the area 

remains designated as ‘‘nonattainment’’

must comply with all applicable 

nonattainment ‘‘new source review’’

(NSR) requirements, including 

installation of control technology 

representing the lowest achievable 

emission rate (LAER) and offsets. 

However, we note that the proposed 

power plant outside of Gerlach would 

be constructed in an area that is 

designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/

attainment’’ for the CO NAAQS,1 and 

thus, with respect to CO emissions, 

would be subject to the NSR 

requirements that apply within such 

areas (i.e., the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, or PSD program), not 

those that apply to nonattainment areas. 

Also, because the power plant 

undoubtedly will not receive an 

authority to construct until after 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

(i.e., June 15, 2005) and because Washoe 

County is designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/

attainment’’ for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS [see 69 FR 23858, 23919–23920 

(April 30, 2004)], which is replacing the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS, the applicable 

permitting agency (in this case, the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection, or NDEP) will be applying 

PSD requirements to ozone precursor 

emissions from this proposed power 

22804 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2The design value generally represents the fourth 

highest daily maximum (hourly) ozone 

concentration over a given three-year period at a 

given site. Design values provide one basis of 

comparison between different locations with 

respect to peak ozone exposure; as such, the design 

values are provided herein for informational 

purposes only. Under the CAA, findings of 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS rely on the 

average number of exceedances per year, not design 

values. The design value is used under the CAA if 

an area is found to have missed its attainment 

deadline and must be reclassified.

plant as well. The only nonattainment 

NSR requirements that would apply to 

this proposed facility would be those (if 

any) that remain in effect under the 

EPA-approved Nevada state 

implementation plan (SIP) upon 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Comment 2 

Given the large size of the proposed 

coal-fired power plant, its numerous 

support operations (e.g., rail and truck 

import of coal, limestone, ammonia, 

etc.), and expected significant emissions 

of ozone precursors and carbon 

monoxide, it is premature for EPA to 

make a determination regarding 

attainment for ozone or carbon 

monoxide in Washoe County. Instead, 

EPA should postpone any such 

determination until after the project 

applicant submits emissions data and 

the Federal agencies can determine the 

impacts of these emissions on 

compliance with the ozone and carbon 

monoxide NAAQS. 

Response 2 

Under sections 179(c), 181(b)(2) and 

186(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is 

responsible for making a determination 

(of whether an area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS by its attainment 

date) within six months of the 

attainment date. We are very late in 

making these determinations for 

Washoe County (1-hour ozone NAAQS) 

and Truckee Meadows (CO NAAQS), 

and thus, further postponement is not 

appropriate. However, we note that, if 

the State of Nevada seeks redesignation 

from ‘‘nonattainment’’ to ‘‘attainment,’’

we will review the latest monitoring 

data to ensure that our finding of 

attainment remains valid for the 

purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the 

Act. 

With regard to the possible impacts of 

emissions from the proposed power 

plant, it is our understanding that the 

project proponent is still in the process 

of collecting the information necessary 

for submittal of a complete permit 

application to NDEP for the proposed 

power plant near Gerlach. Once a 

complete application for an authority to 

construct (ATC) is submitted, the 

applicable permitting agency (NDEP) 

will not issue the ATC unless it is 

satisfied that the applicant has 

demonstrated, as required under the 

PSD program, that the project would not 

cause or contribute to any NAAQS 

violation. See 40 CFR 52.21(k)(1). We 

also note that any draft ATC for the 

proposed power plant will be subject to 

EPA and public review and comment 

under the applicable PSD regulations 

and delegation agreement between EPA 

and NDEP. 

Comment 3

The available monitoring data is not 

adequate. The finding of attainment is 

based on data from only three to six 

monitoring stations, which are clustered 

in urban areas. Ozone is formed 

downwind of the area where precursors 

are released. Precursors emitted in the 

Reno-Sparks and Tahoe area, as well as 

in California could contribute to or 

cause exceedances of ozone standards in 

other areas not covered by the existing 

monitoring network. Recent monitoring 

data collected north of Gerlach, for 

example, shows high ozone 

concentrations. 

Response 3

We disagree that the monitoring 

network is insufficient for the purposes 

of determining whether Washoe County 

has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The monitoring stations are, as noted by 

the commenter, concentrated in the 

more urbanized portion of the county in 

and near Reno and Sparks, but we 

believe that the spatial distribution of 

the monitoring stations is sufficiently 

widespread to provide representative 

worst-case ozone concentration data for 

the county. 

In further support of our attainment 

finding, we note that, not only have no 

1-hour ozone NAAQS violations been 

recorded at any of the monitoring 

stations in Washoe County since before 

1991, but also the 1-hour ozone design 

values 2 at the various stations have 

been well below the NAAQS of 0.12 

parts per million (ppm). For example, 

over the 2001–2003 period, the highest 

design value among the six ozone 

monitoring stations located within 

Washoe County was 0.093 ppm 

(recorded at the 4th Street Sparks 

station). We also note that the design 

values at more distant monitoring 

stations (i.e., located outside of Washoe 

County) are also well below the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS as shown in table 1, 

below.

TABLE 1.—ONE-HOUR OZONE DESIGN

VALUES AT STATION MONITORS

NEAR TO, BUT OUTSIDE OF, 

WASHOE COUNTY, 2001–2003 

Summary of one hour ozone air quality

2001–2003 

Monitoring site—approximate 

distance from Reno, NV 

One-hour 

ozone design value,

ppm 

Carson City, NV—25 miles south 

of Reno ................................... 0.082 

Cave Rock State Park, NV—35 

miles southwest of Reno ........ 0.086 

Quincy, CA—65 miles northwest 

of Reno ................................... 0.087 

South Lake Tahoe, CA—45 

miles southwest of Reno ........ 0.083 

Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

Database. 

Lastly, we requested and received 

further information from the 

commenters regarding their statement 

‘‘Recent monitoring data collected north 

of Gerlach, for example, shows high 

ozone concentrations.’’ The data 

referred to in that comment was 

collected at a monitoring station 

installed and operated outside of the 

Town of Gerlach by a contractor 

working for the power plant project 

proponent. A summary of air quality 

monitoring data for the months of 

August through October, 2004 was 

provided to us by the commenter, and 

it shows a maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration of 115.6 micrograms per 

cubic meter (i.e., approximately 0.06 

ppm). This maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration was measured during the 

month of August, and it represents 

approximately 74% of the 

corresponding 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 

157 micrograms per cubic meter (0.08 

ppm). While the ozone data collected in 

connection with the power plant project 

is incomplete (in that the data only 

cover three months of a single year), the 

data that is available does not show 

ozone concentrations that exceed or 

even approach the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and does not justify a change or 

deferral of our attainment finding for 

Washoe County with respect to the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS nor does the data 

justify a re-evaluation of our designation 

of Washoe County as ‘‘unclassifiable/

attainment’’ for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Comment 4 

EPA should review and incorporate 

the most recent monitoring data prior to 

issuing any final rule. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 22805

Response 4

The proposed finding of attainment 

for 1-hour ozone and CO relied upon 

monitoring data through year 2003. In 

response to this comment, we have 

reviewed the latest available data (i.e., 

the data for year 2004) collected at the 

Washoe County monitors and input to 

AQS and have found no exceedances of 

either the 1-hour ozone or CO NAAQS. 

The highest 1-hour ozone concentration 

measured in 2004 in Washoe County 

was 0.09 ppm (recorded at both the 

Reno State Street and Sparks Fourth 

Street stations) and the highest CO 

concentrations were 5.9 ppm, one-hour 

average, and 4.0 ppm, eight-hour 

average, as recorded at the Sparks 

Fourth Street station and Reno Galletti 

station, respectively. In contrast, the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 ppm and the 

CO NAAQS are 35 ppm, one-hour 

average, and 9 ppm, eight-hour average. 

Thus, the 2004 data add further support 

to our finding of attainment for Washoe 

County (with respect to the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS) and Truckee Meadows 

(with respect to the CO NAAQS).

III. Final Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS has been attained in 

Washoe County and that the CO 

NAAQS has been attained in the 

Truckee Meadows portion of Washoe 

County. Therefore, we are taking final 

action, pursuant to sections 179(c), 

181(b)(2) and 186(b)(2) of the Act, to 

determine that the Washoe County 

‘‘marginal’’ nonattainment area has 

attained the NAAQS for 1-hour ozone 

by the applicable attainment date and 

has continued to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS since that time and, further, 

that the Truckee Meadows ‘‘moderate’’

nonattainment area has attained the 

NAAQS for CO by the applicable 

attainment date and has continued to 

attain the CO NAAQS since that time. 

These findings relieve the State of 

Nevada from the additional 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

for the next higher nonattainment 

classifications for the 1-hour ozone and 

CO standards. 

It should be noted that this action 

does not redesignate these areas from 

‘‘nonattainment’’ to ‘‘attainment’’. 

Under section 107(d)(3)(E), the Clean 

Air Act requires that, for an area to be 

redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment, five criteria must be 

satisfied including the submittal by the 

State (and approval by EPA) of a 

maintenance plan as a SIP revision. 

Therefore, the designations for Washoe 

County (for 1-hour ozone) and Truckee 

Meadows (for CO) in 40 CFR part 81 are 

unaffected by this action, and Washoe 

County will remain a ‘‘marginal’’

nonattainment area for 1-hour ozone 

and ‘‘moderate’’ for CO until such time 

as EPA finds that the State of Nevada 

has met the Clean Air Act requirements 

for redesignation to attainment. 

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 merely finds that 

an area has attained a national ambient 

air quality standard based on an 

objective review of measured air quality 

data. This action will not impose any 

new regulations, mandates, or 

additional enforceable duties on any 

public, nongovernmental, or private 

entity. 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 additional 

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 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

finds that an area has attained a national 

ambient air quality standard, and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

This rule does not involve 

establishment of technical standards, 

and thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 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. section 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 July 5, 2005. 

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).)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 20, 2005. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 05–8788 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P