80_FR_55985 80 FR 55805 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze Progress Report

80 FR 55805 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze Progress Report

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 180 (September 17, 2015)

Page Range55805-55819
FR Document2015-23272

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a revision to the Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to document that the existing plan is adequate to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions by 2018. The Nevada Regional Haze SIP revision addresses the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to improve visibility in federally designated Class I areas in Nevada and in nearby states that may be affected by emissions from sources in Nevada. EPA is proposing to approve Nevada's determination that the existing Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan is adequate to meet the visibility goals, and requires no substantive revision at this time.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55805-55819]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23272]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316; FRL-9933-82-Region 9]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada; 
Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposes to approve a revision to the Nevada Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Nevada Division of 
Environmental Protection (NDEP) to document that the existing plan is 
adequate to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and 
emissions reductions by 2018. The Nevada Regional Haze SIP revision 
addresses the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) to submit a report describing progress in achieving 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to improve visibility in federally 
designated Class I areas in Nevada and in nearby states that may be 
affected by emissions from sources in Nevada. EPA is proposing to 
approve Nevada's determination that the existing Nevada Regional Haze 
Implementation Plan is adequate to meet the visibility goals, and 
requires no substantive revision at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received by the designated contact at the 
address listed below on or before October 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0316, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA 
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please 
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 
http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    The index to the docket (docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316) for 
this proposed rule is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, such as CBI or other information that is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is publicly

[[Page 55806]]

available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials 
are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy during normal business hours at the Planning Office of the Air 
Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105. To view hard copies of documents listed in the docket index, EPA 
requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vijay Limaye, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 
Planning Office, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Vijay Limaye may be reached at telephone number 
(415) 972-3086 and via electronic mail at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background
    A. Description of Regional Haze
    B. History of Regional Haze Rule
    C. Nevada's Regional Haze Plan
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Reports
IV. Context for Understanding Nevada's Progress Report
    A. Framework for Measuring Progress
    B. Relevant Class I Areas
    C. Data Sources
V. EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's Progress Report
    A. Status of Implementation of All Measures
    B. Summary of Emission Reductions Achieved
    C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes at Jarbidge
    D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions
    E. Assessment of Anthropogenic Emissions Impeding Progress
    F. Assessment of Plan Elements and Strategy
    G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    H. Determination of Adequacy
    I. Consultation with Federal Land Managers
    J. Public Participation
    VI. EPA's Proposed Action
    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview of Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve NDEP's determination that the existing 
Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan \1\ is adequate to achieve the 
established RPGs (i.e., visibility goals) for Class I areas by 2018, 
and therefore requires no substantive revision at this time. The 
State's determination and EPA's proposed approval are based on the 
Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or 
``Report'') submitted by NDEP to EPA on November 18, 2014, that 
addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) of the RHR.\2\ Specifically, 
we propose to find that the Progress Report demonstrates that the 
emission control measures in the existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP are 
sufficient to enable Nevada, as well as other states with Class I areas 
affected by emissions from sources in Nevada, to meet all established 
RPGs for 2018 in accordance with Sec.  51.308(g). As a result, we 
propose to approve NDEP's determination that the existing 
Implementation Plan is adequate, and requires no further substantive 
revision at this time to achieve the established goals for visibility 
improvement in accordance with Sec.  51.308(h). In addition, we are 
proposing to find that NDEP fulfilled the requirements in Sec.  
51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) regarding State coordination with Federal 
Land Managers (FLMs). This coordination includes providing FLMs with an 
opportunity for consultation on the Progress Report, describing how 
NDEP addressed any comments from the FLMs, and providing procedures for 
continuing consultation with the FLMs. Finally, we propose to find that 
NDEP has fulfilled the requirements of CAA 110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR 
51.102 regarding reasonable notice and public hearings with regard to 
the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan consists of the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP, submitted to EPA in November 2009 and 
partially approved and partially disapproved by EPA in several 
related actions in 2012, and the partial Regional Haze Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) promulgated in 2012 and revised in 2013, 
as described further below.
    \2\ The Progress Report was deemed complete by operation of law 
on May 18, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Description of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by many sources and 
activities located across a broad geographic area that emit fine 
particles that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light, 
thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can 
see. These fine particles also can cause serious health effects and 
mortality in humans and contribute to environmental impacts, such as 
acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.
    The RHR uses the deciview as the principle metric for measuring 
visibility and for the RPGs that serve as interim visibility goals 
toward meeting the national goal of achieving natural visibility 
conditions by 2064. A deciview expresses uniform changes in haziness in 
terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility 
conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews are 
determined by using air quality measurement to estimate light 
extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction using a 
logarithmic function. A deciview is a more useful measure for tracking 
progress in improving visibility than light extinction because each 
deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived 
by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.

B. History of Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress 
created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks 
and wilderness areas, establishing 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 manmade air pollution.'' In accordance with section 169A of the 
CAA and after consulting with the Department of Interior, EPA 
promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas where 
visibility is identified as an important value.\3\ In this notice, we 
refer to mandatory Class I Federal areas on this list as ``Class I 
areas.'' Nevada has one Class I area, Jarbidge Wilderness Area 
(``Jarbidge''), in the northeast corner of the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to 
address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address 
regional haze on July 1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze Rule.\4\ The 
RHR revised the existing visibility regulations in 40 CFR 51.308 to 
integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment and to 
establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. As defined in the RHR, the RPGs must provide for an improvement 
in visibility for the most impaired days (``worst days'') over the 
period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the least impaired days (``best days'') over the same 
period.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 64 FR 35713.
    \5\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Nevada's Regional Haze Plan

    NDEP submitted its Regional Haze SIP to EPA on November 18, 2009, 
as required by 40 CFR 51.308 for the first regional haze planning 
period ending in 2018. EPA approved most of the Nevada

[[Page 55807]]

Regional Haze SIP on March 26, 2012,\6\ with the exception of NDEP's 
determination of best available retrofit technology (BART) to control 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) at the Reid Gardner 
Generating Station (Reid Gardner). EPA published a new proposal on 
April 12, 2012, to approve in part and disapprove in part NDEP's BART 
determination for NOX at Reid Gardner.\7\ EPA published a 
final rule on August 23, 2012, approving NDEP's BART determination for 
NOX on Units 1 and 2, but disapproving NDEP's determination 
for Unit 3 and the averaging time for the emission limits at all three 
units.\8\ This final rule included a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
for the disapproved elements. EPA subsequently agreed to reconsider the 
compliance date for Units 1, 2, and 3 at Reid Gardner in the FIP, which 
we extended by 18 months.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 77 FR 17334.
    \7\ See 77 FR 21896.
    \8\ See 77 FR 50936.
    \9\ See proposed rule to grant extension, 78 FR 18280 (March 26, 
2013), and final rule granting extension, 78 FR 53033 (August 28, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Reports

    The RHR requires states to submit a report every five years in the 
form of a SIP revision to evaluate progress toward achieving the RPGs 
for each Class I area in the state and for those areas outside the 
state that may be affected by emissions from within the state.\10\ The 
first progress reports are due five years from the submittal date of 
each state's initial Regional Haze SIP. Progress reports must be in the 
form of SIP revisions that comply with the procedural requirements of 
40 CFR 51.102 and 51.103. These reports must contain an evaluation of 
seven elements, at a minimum, and include a determination of the 
adequacy of the state's existing Regional Haze SIP. In summary,\11\ the 
seven elements are: (1) A description of the status of implementation 
of all measures included in the current Regional Haze SIP for achieving 
the RPGs in Class I areas within and outside the state; (2) a summary 
of the emission reductions achieved in the state through implementation 
of these measures; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions and 
changes on the most impaired and least impaired days for each Class I 
area in the state in terms of five-year averages of the annual values; 
(4) an analysis of changes in emissions over the past five years 
contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities 
within the state based on the most recently updated emissions 
inventory; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in 
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state over the past five 
years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant 
emissions and improving visibility; (6) an assessment of whether the 
elements and strategies in the current Regional Haze SIP are sufficient 
to enable the state, or other states affected by its emissions, to 
achieve the established RPGs; and (7) a review of the state's 
visibility monitoring strategy and any necessary modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    \11\ Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(g) for the exact 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an evaluation of the factors listed above as well as any 
other relevant information, a state is required to determine the 
adequacy of its existing Regional Haze SIP.\12\ The state must take one 
of four possible actions based on the analysis in its progress report. 
In summary, these actions are to (1) provide a negative declaration to 
EPA that no further substantive revisions to the state's existing 
Regional Haze SIP is needed to achieve the RPGs; (2) provide 
notification to EPA and to other states in its region that its Regional 
Haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to 
emissions from sources in other states, and collaborate with other 
states to develop additional strategies to address the deficiencies; 
(3) provide notification and available information to EPA that the 
state's Regional Haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable 
progress due to emissions from sources in another country; or (4) 
revise its Regional Haze SIP within one year to address the 
deficiencies if the state determines that its existing plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I 
areas due to emissions from sources within the state.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 40 CFR 51.308(h).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state also must document that it provided FLMs with an 
opportunity for consultation prior to holding a public hearing on a 
Regional Haze SIP or plan revision.\14\ A state must include a 
description of how it addressed any comments from the FLMs, and provide 
procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Context for Understanding Nevada's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of the Progress Report as well 
as EPA's evaluation of the Report, this section provides background 
information on how the regional haze program applies to Nevada. This 
information describes the framework for measuring visibility progress, 
a profile of the relevant Class I areas, and the sources of data used 
in the Progress Report.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    Visibility conditions at Class I areas are described by a ``haze 
index'' measured in deciviews and calculated using data collected from 
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
network monitors. Nevada has an IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge that is 
designated ``JARB1.'' To measure progress in deciviews, current 
visibility conditions (2008-2012) are compared to baseline conditions 
(2000-2004), and to projected conditions at the end of the planning 
period (2018). A state establishes two RPGs for each of its Class I 
areas: One for the 20 percent best days and one for the 20 percent 
worst days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on 
the 20 percent worst days and ensure no degradation in visibility on 
the 20 percent best days, compared to average visibility conditions 
during the baseline period. In establishing the RPG, a state must 
consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility (from the 
baseline to natural conditions in 2064) and the emission reductions 
measures needed to achieve it. Nevada set the RPGs for Jarbidge using 
atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected emission reductions 
from control strategies in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP as well as 
emission reductions expected to result from other Federal, state and 
local air quality programs, among other factors. The purpose of a 
progress report is to assess whether a state's plan is adequate to 
achieve the established RPGs and emissions reductions goals for 2018, 
and if not, whether additional emission reduction strategies are 
needed.

B. Relevant Class I Areas

    Nevada's one Class I area, the Jarbidge Wilderness Area, is located 
within the Humboldt National Forest in the northeastern corner of the 
State within the populated Snake River Basin and less than 10 miles 
from the Idaho border. The baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004) 
at Jarbidge are 12.07 deciviews (dv) on the worst days and 2.56 dv on 
the best days. The RPG for the worst days in 2018 at Jarbidge is 11.05 
dv, which is slightly under, and therefore better than, the uniform 
rate of progress (URP) in 2018, which is 11.09

[[Page 55808]]

dv.\16\ While a subsequent correction for the worst days in 2018 
resulted in projected visibility impairment of 11.8 dv on the worst 
days,\17\ NDEP has retained the RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge. The RPG 
for the best days in 2018 at Jarbidge is 2.50 dv, which represents a 
slight improvement from baseline conditions. The Progress Report 
addresses whether Nevada's RH SIP is making adequate progress from the 
baseline toward these RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The URP is a straight line from the baseline visibility 
condition (5-year annual average from 2000-2004) to the estimated 
natural background condition in 2064, as measured on the 20 percent 
best and worst days. The URP values for 2018 are the number of 
deciviews where the lines drawn to 2064 for best and worst days 
intersect 2018.
    \17\ See 76 FR 36464, June 22, 2011, footnote 18 (``In April 
2011, the WRAP issued a draft report regarding an error in its 
visibility projections for about 15 Class I areas in the West, 
including Jarbidge. The draft report indicated that, as a result of 
the error, the projected visibility at Jarbidge in 2018 is 11.8 dv 
instead of 11.1 dv (rounded up from 11.05 dv).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nevada Regional Haze SIP identified 24 other Class I areas 
located in five neighboring states that are potentially affected by 
emissions of sulfates and nitrates from sources in Nevada.\18\ Based on 
projections from air quality modeling for 2018, the highest 
contribution to sulfate extinction on the worst days from Nevada's 
emissions is 5.6 percent at Zion National Park in Utah, and on the best 
days is 7.2 percent at Sawtooth Wilderness Area in Idaho. For nitrate 
extinction in 2018, Nevada's highest contribution on the worst days is 
20 percent at Desolation Wilderness in California, and on the best days 
is 12.4 percent at Joshua Tree National Park in California.\19\ The 
remaining 20 Class I areas outside Nevada are projected to have smaller 
fractions of haze attributable to Nevada's emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Chapter 
4.3.3, October 2009. Light extinction is based on a model known as 
Particulate Matter Source Attribution Tracking (PSAT).
    \19\ 76 FR 36459, June 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Data Sources

    Nevada's Progress Report is based on information available prior to 
March 2014. For the most part, NDEP relies on technical data and 
analysis in two reports from the Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP), the regional planning organization that provides technical 
support to western states. The WRAP's reports are based on monitoring 
data from the IMPROVE network and emissions data from EPA's National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI). The first report is the ``Western Regional 
Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary 
Report,'' dated June 28, 2013, which includes Section 6.8 Nevada 
(Appendix A of the Progress Report). This report is based on the time 
period 2005-2009 and relies on the NEI from 2008. The WRAP updated the 
inventory before completing a second report titled ``West-Wide Jump-
Start Air Quality Modeling Study--Final Report'' dated September 30, 
2013. NDEP also uses NEI data from 2011, State emission inventory data 
for 2012, acid rain data from EPA's Air Market Program Database, and 
IMPROVE monitoring data from 2008 to 2012 to provide more current 
information and additional analysis. NDEP further relies on the WRAP's 
Technical Support System and the Visibility Information Exchange Web 
System as analytic tools.

V. EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's Progress Report

    This section describes Nevada's Progress Report and EPA's 
evaluation of the Report in relation to the seven elements listed in 40 
CFR 51.308(g), the determination of adequacy in 40 CFR 51.308(h), the 
requirement for state and FLM coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i) and the 
requirements for public participation in CAA section 110(a) and (l) and 
40 CFR 51.102. While the Progress Report focuses on the elements of the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP, the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) 
apply to ``implementation plans,'' which are defined to include 
approved SIPs and FIPs.\20\ Accordingly, EPA has considered our 
regional haze BART FIP for Reid Gardner as well as the Nevada Regional 
Haze SIP in assessing the Progress Report. However, as described 
further below, all three of the BART-eligible units at Reid Gardner 
have been shut down. Therefore, the partial disapproval and partial FIP 
for Reid Gardner does not substantively influence our evaluation of the 
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 51.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The Progress Report describes the status of state and federal 
measures in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP as well as new programs, 
rules, and legislation that will provide further emission reductions 
before the first phase of the regional haze program ends in 2018. 
Nevada's measures to control or otherwise reduce emissions that 
contribute to haze are organized into three broad categories: Review of 
BART Determinations, State Measures Other than BART, and Federal 
Programs.\21\ The status of measures in each of these categories is 
summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Progress Report, Chapter Two, Status of Implementation of 
Control Measures, pages 2-1 thru 2-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BART Implementation: NDEP describes BART implementation in Nevada 
and in neighboring states that contribute to visibility impairment at 
Jarbidge. The four BART facilities in Nevada are Reid Gardner, Tracy 
Generating Station (Tracy), Fort Churchill Generating Station (Fort 
Churchill), and Mohave Generating Station (Mohave). Mohave closed in 
2005.\22\ The Nevada Regional Haze SIP requires the remaining three 
facilities to meet the emission limits associated with all BART control 
measures by January 1, 2015, with the exception of NOX at 
Reid Gardner, which has a compliance date of June 30, 2016, as shown in 
Table 1. As noted in the table, three units at Reid Gardner and two 
units at Tracy were scheduled to retire by the compliance date. 
Subsequent to NDEP's submittal of the Progress Report, all five of 
these units were shut down and are now in the process of being 
decommissioned and demolished.\23\ The retirement of these five units, 
and the switching of three other units at Tracy and Fort Churchill to 
natural gas, is largely in response to the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 
123 by the Nevada legislature in 2013, which is described in more 
detail in the next section regarding other State measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Even though Mohave's closure in 2005 predates the first 
phase of the RH program (2008-2018), NDEP addresses Mohave's 
emissions in its Progress Report because these emissions are 
included in the inventories and modeling that form the basis for the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP. For example, the projected emission 
inventory for 2018 includes about 19,595 tpy of NOX and 
8,701 tpy of SO2 from Mohave.
    \23\ See Reid Gardner Generating Station Fact Sheet from Nevada 
Energy (May 2015), Frank A. Tracy Generating Station Fact Sheet from 
Nevada Energy (June 2015).

[[Page 55809]]



                Table 1--Status of Bart Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                   Units        BART Control measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Gardner Generating         1, 2, 3..........  NV Energy retired
 Station.                                           these three units as
                                                    of December 31,
                                                    2014, as approved by
                                                    the Public Utilities
                                                    Commission of Nevada
                                                    (PUCN)
Tracy Generating Station......  1, 2.............  NV Energy retired
                                                    these two units as
                                                    of December 31,
                                                    2014, as approved by
                                                    the PUCN and in
                                                    response to SB 123.
                                3................  NV Energy is relying
                                                    on alternative
                                                    control technology
                                                    and burning only
                                                    natural gas to
                                                    comply with the BART
                                                    emissions limits as
                                                    of the December 31,
                                                    2014, compliance
                                                    date.
Fort Churchill Generating       1, 2.............  NV Energy is relying
 Station.                                           on alternative
                                                    control technology
                                                    and burning only
                                                    natural gas to
                                                    comply with the BART
                                                    emissions limits as
                                                    of the December 31,
                                                    2014, compliance
                                                    date.
Mohave Generating Station.....  All..............  This facility ceased
                                                    operations in
                                                    December 2005 and
                                                    was subsequently
                                                    fully decommissioned
                                                    and demolished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP explains in the Progress Report that BART implementation in 
neighboring states is expected to contribute to visibility improvement 
at Jarbidge, which is located very near the Idaho border and downwind 
from sources in Oregon. Since source apportionment modeling identified 
substantial contributions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from point 
sources in Idaho and Oregon,\24\ NDEP provides updates on two 
facilities in Idaho (Amalgamated Sugar Company in Nampa and Monsanto/P4 
Production in Soda Springs) and one facility in Oregon (Boardman Power 
Plant) that are subject to BART control measures. Each of these three 
facilities is reportedly in compliance with the required BART emission 
limits for SO2 and NOX. However, since some of 
the compliance dates are not yet effective, more emission reductions 
are expected by 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Section 4.3, November 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other State Measures: Other State measures contributing to 
reasonable progress at Jarbidge and other Class I areas include 
cancellations of applications to build power plants, State legislation 
to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants (i.e., SB 123), an 
expanded renewable energy portfolio, and implementation of control 
measures to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
as listed in Table 2. Regarding cancellations, NDEP explains that these 
measures represent additional emission reductions because the emissions 
from these unbuilt sources were included in the baseline and projected 
emission inventories in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. Of the five 
proposed power plants that NDEP assumed would be producing emissions, 
three withdrew applications (White Pine, Toquop, and Copper Mountain), 
and two were built (Newmont TS Power Plant near Dunphy in northern 
Nevada and Chuck Lenzie Generating Station near Las Vegas).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Newmont TS is a 220-megawatt power plant using coal-fired 
boilers with modern control technologies operating since 2008. Chuck 
Lenzie is 1,102-megawatt generating station using gas-fired steam 
engines operating since 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nevada Legislature in 2013 enacted SB 123 requiring the 
reduction of emissions from coal-fired power plants in Clark County, 
Nevada. SB 123 requires the retirement or elimination of not less than 
800 megawatts of coal-fired electric generating capacity: 300 MW by 
December 2014, an additional 250 MW by December 2017, and an additional 
250 MW by December 2019. This legislation also mandates the 
construction or acquisition of 350 MW from new renewable energy 
facilities. NV Energy must construct or acquire and own facilities with 
a total capacity of 550 MW to replace the coal-fired capacity 
eliminated between 2014 and 2019.\26\ NV Energy's decision to retire 
BART units at Reid Gardner and Tracy, and to convert other BART units 
to natural gas at Tracy and Fort Churchill, was in response to this 
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, Docket No. 14-05003, 
May 1, 2014, (Appendix C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP also reports that Nevada is one of the first states to adopt a 
renewable portfolio standard that establishes a schedule requiring 
electric utilities to generate, acquire, or save a percentage of 
electricity from renewable energy systems or efficiency measures. Not 
less than 20 percent must come from renewable energy or efficiency 
measures from 2015 to 2019. The Nevada legislature also has enacted the 
``Solar Energy Systems Incentive Program,'' which requires the Public 
Utilities Commission of Nevada to set incentives and schedules to 
produce at least 250 MW of capacity from solar energy by 2021. At the 
time of the Progress Report, Nevada had installed 38 MW of capacity at 
a cost of $160 million. Another example of renewable energy is the 
``Solar Thermal Demonstrations Program'' that promotes the installation 
of at least 3,000 solar thermal systems in homes, businesses, schools, 
and government buildings throughout the State. The Progress Report 
mentions several other programs to establish solar, wind, and 
waterpower energy systems along with a list of proposed generation 
plants that will rely on renewable energy.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Progress Report, Chapter 2, pages 2-8 thru 2-9.

                 Table 2--Status of Other State Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State measure                       Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Power Plants included in Inventory    Never Built.
 for 2018.
Legislation to Retire Coal-Fired Plants     2014-2019.
 (800 mw).
Legislation for New Renewable Energy (350   2014-2021.
 mw).
Renewable Energy Portfolio................  2015-2025.
NAAQS Attainment/Maintenance Regulations..  Ongoing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal Measures: The Progress Report provides a summary of 
existing federal measures, those that were included in the Nevada 
Regional Haze SIP, as well as new federal measures as listed in Table 
3. NDEP describes in the Report how each of these federal programs, 
rules, and standards contribute further reductions in visibility 
impairing pollutants.\28\ All eight areas in Nevada that were 
designated non-attainment for one more NAAQS either have been 
redesignated to attainment and are operating under a maintenance plan 
or have a determination of attainment indicating that the area is 
attaining the NAAQS. The control measures for attainment that remain in 
place include fugitive dust regulations, oxygenated fuel programs, 
gasoline vapor recovery, transportation control measures,

[[Page 55810]]

residential wood burning regulations, woodstove replacement programs, 
and alternative fuel vehicle program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Progress Report, Chapter 2, pages 2-3 thru 2-6.

                   Table 3--Status of Federal Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Existing Federal Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Duty Highway Rule (PM, NOX,    Phased in 2006-2010.
 SOX).
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Program  Effective in 2005.
 (NOX, VOC).
Non-Road Mobile Diesel Emissions     Phased in 2004-2012.
 Program (NOX, CO).
Maximum Achievable Control           Ongoing Applicability.
 Technology Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          New Federal Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (Toxic   Final Rule in 2011.
 Gases, SO2).
Revised NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide...  Final Rule in 2010.
Revised NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide.  Final Rule in 2010.
Revised NAAQS for Fine Particulate   Final Rule in 2012.
 Matter.
North American Emission Control      Effective in 2012; 2015.
 Areas (NOX, PM2.5, SO2).
Tier 3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel     Effective in 2017.
 Standards Program (SOX).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM = Particulate Matter.
VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds.

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) to describe the status of all measures included 
in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP provides a detailed and 
comprehensive update of state and federal measures, including new 
measures that are expected to contribute further to visibility 
improvement. The Progress Report's description of BART implementation, 
legislation, programs, and rules provides a thorough summary of the 
regulatory requirements that underpin Nevada's regional haze program.

B. Summary of Emission Reductions Achieved

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The Progress Report focuses on SO2 and NOX 
emissions, which are the primary pollutants of concern from 
anthropogenic sources. NDEP reports that SO2 and 
NOX emissions have decreased substantially in Nevada due to 
the implementation of control measures as well as other changes in 
State energy policy and source activity as described above in the 
status of measures. According to EPA's acid rain data,\29\ annual 
SO2 emissions from Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) in 
Nevada decreased by 44,107 tpy (82 percent) from 53,346 tpy in 2005 to 
9,239 tpy in 2006. Similarly, NOX emissions from power 
plants decreased by 23,257 tpy (54 percent) from 43,242 tpy in 2005 to 
19,985 tpy in 2006. NDEP points out that while these large decreases 
from 2005 to 2006 are mostly due to the closure of Mohave Generating 
Station, emissions continued to decrease steadily thereafter. From 2006 
to 2013, power plant emissions of SO2 decreased by about 20 
percent (9,239 to 7,427 tpy) and NOX emissions decreased by 
about 61 percent (19,985 to 7,796 tpy).\30\ The closure of units at 
Reid Gardner and Tracy, and the implementation of control measures on 
other units at Tracy and Fort Churchill, should contribute further 
emission reductions not reflected in the acid rain data for 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ USEPA Clean Air Markets Division, Air Markets Program Data, 
Acid Rain Program.
    \30\ Progress Report, Chapter 3, Table 3-2, page 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Progress Report also quantifies emission reductions resulting 
from the cancellation of plans to construct three power plants and 
lower actual emissions from the two plants that were built. NDEP 
includes this analysis because projected emissions from these five 
sources are included in the emission inventory for 2018 that provides 
the basis for the RPG at Jarbidge. The reductions due to permit 
cancellations are 5,814 tpy of SO2, 6,136 tpy of 
NOX, and 5,814 tpy of particulate matter (PM10). 
Moreover, the two new plants that were built (Newmont and Chuck Lenzie) 
have combined actual emissions in 2012 that are less than projected for 
the emission inventory in 2018.\31\ NDEP states that these unrealized 
emissions, in effect, would result in lower modeled visibility 
impairment in 2018, particularly at Class I areas near southern and 
eastern Nevada where the two built sources are located and the three 
cancelled sources had planned to locate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Progress Report, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, page 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) to provide a summary of the emission reductions 
from implementing the measures in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP 
documents that SO2 and NOX emissions from 
Nevada's power plants have decreased substantially, especially due to 
the closure of Mohave. NDEP makes the case that emissions from the 
power sector should continue to decline as BART controls and SB 123 are 
implemented, further reducing emissions from Reid Gardner, Tracy, and 
Fort Churchill. While it is difficult to quantify emission reductions 
from other state and federal programs, we agree that other state and 
federal measures should contribute to declining emissions, particularly 
from mobile and stationary sources. While the cancellation of proposed 
facilities does not constitute emission reductions per se, we recognize 
that the inclusion of these projected emissions in the 2018 inventory 
likely inflated the projected emissions used as the basis of the RPGs 
for Jarbidge and Class I areas affected by Nevada's emissions. We also 
note that NDEP's summary of emission reductions is complemented by its 
analysis of recent changes in emissions from all sources in Section D 
of this proposal.

 C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes at Jarbidge

 1. NDEP's Analysis
    Current Visibility Conditions: NDEP reports on current visibility 
conditions for the 20 percent worst days and 20 percent best days at 
Jarbidge for the five-

[[Page 55811]]

years from 2008 to 2012 as displayed in Table 4.\32\ The five-year 
annual average haze index at Jarbidge for this current time period is 
12.0 dv on worst days and 1.9 dv on best days. On worst days, the 
annual averages for visibility impairment are strongly influenced by 
light extinction due to particulate organic matter (POM), followed by 
coarse mass and sulfate. On the best days, visibility impairment is 
dominated by light extinction due to sulfate, followed by POM and 
coarse mass. The Progress Report notes that sources of POM are 
predominantly natural, while sources of fine soil and coarse mass are 
about equally split between natural and anthropogenic. The dominant 
source of sulfate is SO2 from anthropogenic sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Progress Report, Chapter 4, Table 4-1, page 4-3.

                   Table 4--Current Annual and Five-Year Annual Average Visibility Conditions for Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge \33\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Haze index  Sulfate (Mm- Nitrate (Mm-   POM (Mm-                 Soil (Mm-   Coarse mass    Sea salt
                      Year                            (dv)         \1\)         \1\)         \1\)     EC (Mm-\1\)      \1\)       (Mm-\1\)     (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................         12.5         3.72         1.12        12.06         1.48         2.61         4.84         0.04
2009............................................         11.1         4.43         0.53         7.32         1.12         2.31         5.66         0.30
2010............................................         10.0         3.30         1.04         4.33         0.77         2.49         5.66         0.06
2011............................................         11.7         4.16         0.67         7.71         1.21         2.49         6.85         0.40
2012............................................         14.9         3.87         1.18        23.97         3.11         2.63         5.17         0.21
Average.........................................         12.0          3.9          0.9         11.1          1.5          2.5          5.6          0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................          1.9         1.14         0.22         0.23         0.09         0.12         0.27         0.05
2009............................................          1.8         0.95         0.16         0.31         0.11         0.12         0.28         0.03
2010............................................          1.8         1.09         0.15         0.30         0.12         0.06         0.24         0.03
2011............................................          2.1         1.21         0.19         0.39         0.13         0.10         0.26         0.07
2012............................................          2.0         0.95         0.18         0.37         0.18         0.10         0.37         0.04
Average.........................................          1.9          1.1          0.2          0.3          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EC = Elemental Carbon.

    Difference between Current and Baseline Visibility Conditions: NDEP 
presents the difference between the current five-year annual average 
(2008-2012) and the baseline five-year annual average (2000-2004) for 
Jarbidge, as displayed in Table 5, which also includes successive five-
year annual averages for the intervening time periods (2005-2009, 2006-
2010, and 2007-2011).\34\ The differences calculated in the table are 
between the baseline and the current visibility condition represented 
by the time period 2008-2012. A negative difference indicates a 
reduction in haze (i.e., improved visibility). Comparing baseline to 
current visibility conditions on worst days, the haze index declined 
slightly (12.1 to 12.0 dv) with corresponding decreases in light 
extinction for sulfate, nitrate, and elemental carbon, but a noticeable 
increase in POM. On the best days, the haze index decreases from the 
baseline to current visibility conditions (2.6 to 1.9 dv) with 
corresponding decreases in light extinction for sulfate, nitrate, POM, 
and elemental carbon, with the three other pollutants remaining the 
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The data on visibility conditions is from the IMPROVE 
monitor at Jarbidge (JARB1) that measures light extinction in terms 
of inverse megameters (Mm-\1\) that are directly related 
to gaseous and aerosol concentrations. The haze index is measured in 
deciviews, which is a metric of haze proportional to the logarithm 
of the light extinction.
    \34\ See Progress Report, Chapter 4, Table 4-2, page 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP also analyzes the relative percentage contribution and rank of 
each pollutant to visibility impairment on the worst and best days for 
the five-year annual average baseline and successive five-year time 
periods, as displayed in Table 5.\35\ This analysis reveals that POM 
(ranging from 35.5 to 43.0 percent), coarse mass (21.9 to 26.1 
percent), and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0 percent) rank first, second, and 
third, respectively, as the largest contributors to light extinction on 
worst days in each of the five-year periods from the baseline to 
current time period. On the worst days, POM dominates the contributions 
to visibility impairment for the baseline as well as all subsequent 
time periods. The data for sulfate and nitrate show small but continued 
improvement on worst days based on these five-year annual averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Progress Report, Table 4-4, Percent Contribution to Aerosol 
Extinction by Species, page 4-10. These results excluded Rayleigh 
and are expressed as a percentage of Mm-\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the best days for each five-year period of annual averages, 
sulfate (ranging from 4.10 to 50.5 percent), POM (15.1 to 26.1 
percent), and coarse mass (12.4 to13.2 percent) rank first, second, and 
third except for the baseline period in which nitrate is third, 
contributing 9.8 percent. On average across all five-year periods, 
nitrate and elemental carbon each contribute about 10 percent to 
visibility impairment on best days. NDEP explains that the sulfate 
contribution is most likely high because best days represent times when 
there are fewer emissions from natural sources, resulting in relatively 
higher contribution to impairment from anthropogenic emissions. 
Although the ranking changes from worst days to best days, POM, coarse 
mass, and sulfate are the three largest contributors to visibility 
impairment at Jarbidge.

[[Page 55812]]



                      Table 5--Baseline and Five-Year Annual Average Visibility Conditions for the Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Haze index  Sulfate (Mm- Nitrate (Mm-   POM (Mm-                 Soil (Mm-   Coarse mass    Sea salt
                   Time period                        (dv)         \1\)         \1\)         \1\)     EC (Mm-\1\)      \1\)       (Mm-\1\)     (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................         12.1          4.0          1.1         10.0          1.6          2.4          5.5          0.1
2005-2009.......................................         12.4          4.4          1.4         10.0          1.7          2.6          5.9          0.2
2006-2010.......................................         12.2          4.0          1.1          9.6          1.6          2.7          6.1          0.1
2007-2011.......................................         11.7          3.9          1.0          8.4          1.2          2.7          6.2          0.2
2008-2012.......................................         12.0          3.9          0.9         11.1          1.5          2.5          5.6          0.2
Difference......................................         -0.1         -0.1         -0.2          1.1         -0.1          0.1          0.1          0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................          2.6          1.2          0.3          0.8          0.3          0.1          0.3          0.0
2005-2009.......................................          2.2          1.1          0.2          0.5          0.2           0.          0.3          0.0
2006-2010.......................................          2.0          1.1          0.2          0.4          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
2007-2011.......................................          2.0          1.1          0.2          0.3          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
2008-2012.......................................          1.9          1.1          0.2          0.3          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
Difference......................................         -0.7         -0.1         -0.1         -0.5         -0.2          0.0          0.0          0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support its analysis of current conditions, NDEP presents a set 
of rolling five-year averages of the annual averages, and includes the 
current estimate of natural conditions, as shown in Table 6.\36\ The 
rolling five-year average of the annual averages reveals more clearly 
the trend in visibility conditions over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Progress Report Table 4-3, page 4-6.

                         Table 6--Five-Year Annual Average Haze Index for Baseline and Successive Time Periods Measured at JARB1
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Baseline             Interim five-year time periods              Current
                                                        conditions   ------------------------------------------------   conditions        Natural
             Days measured (20 Percent)              ----------------                                                ----------------   conditions    2064
                                                         2000-2004       2005-2009       2007-2011       2007-2012       2008-2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Worst...............................................            12.1            12.4            12.2            11.7            12.0             7.9
Best................................................             2.6             2.2             2.0             2.0             1.9             1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP also presents the change in visibility conditions between the 
baseline and current period for best and worst days in comparison to 
the RPG in 2018 using the 2008 to 2012 average as displayed in Table 
7.\37\ While visibility on the best days shows improvement, only modest 
progress is shown for the worst days due to significant contribution of 
POM to light extinction at Jarbidge, particularly in 2012 as shown in 
Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Progress Report Table 4-6, page 4-14. This table omits the 
RPG for the best days, which is 2.56 dv.

                                                 Table 7--Reasonable Progress Goal Summary for Jarbidge
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Best days                                                                    Worst days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Progress in
       Baseline (2000-2004)         Current (2008-     Visibility    Baseline (2000-   Current (2008-     Visibility        2018 RPG       2012 to 2018
                                        2012)         improvement         2004)            2012)         improvement                           RPG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6..............................             1.9              0.7             12.1             12.0              0.1            11.05             9.5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes in Visibility Impairment over Past Five Years: The 
distinguishing feature of annual visibility impairment on the worst 
days from 2008 to 2012 is the variability of light extinction due to 
POM and its corresponding effect on the haze index as shown in Table 4. 
While light extinction for other pollutants is relatively flat during 
this current five-year period, POM varies by almost 20 
Mm-\1\, from a low of 4.33 Mm-\1\ in 2010 to a 
high of 23.97 Mm-\1\ in 2012. Levels of POM spiked in 2012, 
which NDEP attributes to emissions from wildfires. As the table shows, 
on the worst days POM has a strong influence on the year-to-year 
variability in visibility conditions, and can cause a corresponding 
increase in the 2008-2012 five-year annual average. Visibility 
impairment on worst days generally has not changed much over the five 
years except for the variations due to light extinction from POM. 
Visibility on best

[[Page 55813]]

days, by contrast, generally is improving over the current time period 
with little variability from year to year. For the best days, there is 
a noticeable reduction in visibility impairment due to sulfate, 
nitrate, POM, and elemental carbon.
    NDEP presents a trend analysis for the period from 2000 to 2012, 
focusing on sulfates and nitrates, as an annual average and as a 
rolling five-year average during this 13-year time period based on 
IMPROVE data.\38\ Analyzing this longer time period demonstrates that 
on the worst and best days visibility impairment resulting from light 
extinction due to sulfate and nitrate is improving over time, both on 
an annual basis as well as five-year annual averages. NDEP also 
includes an analysis showing the effect of a large spike in nitrates in 
December 2005 (41 Mm-\1\) that increases the annual average 
as well as all the five-year averages that include data from 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Nevada RH Progress Report, Chapter 4, Figures 4-12 through 
4-15, pages 4-15 thru 4-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) to assess the visibility conditions and changes 
in each of the State's Class I areas for the least and most impaired 
days in terms of the current conditions, difference between current and 
baseline conditions, and over the past five years. The analysis 
indicates that visibility on the best days at Jarbidge is getting 
better, but that visibility on the worst days is flat or only minimally 
improving. However, NDEP offers compelling evidence that light 
extinction due to POM has dominated visibility conditions on the worst 
days, particularly in 2012 as shown in Table 4.

D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions

1. NDEP's Analysis
    NDEP relies on the WRAP's analysis \39\ to describe the changes in 
emissions from the baseline \40\ in 2002 to the emissions inventory in 
2008, the beginning of Nevada's current five-year time period. NDEP 
also uses NEI data from 2008 to 2011 to augment its analysis.\41\ As 
shown in Table 8, emissions of all visibility-impairing pollutants 
decreased from the baseline inventory to 2008, except for fine soil and 
coarse mass. Notably, actual emissions in 2008 are lower than the 
projected 2018 emissions for all pollutants, with the exception of fine 
soil and coarse mass. For example, point source emissions of 
SO2 decreased by 78 percent, while point source emissions of 
NOX decreased by over 50 percent from the baseline to 2008. 
These large reductions in the anthropogenic emissions of SO2 
and NOX represent a successful strategy of reducing 
anthropogenic emissions within the State. NDEP notes that the increase 
in fine soil and coarse mass are likely due to updates in inventory 
development methods rather than actual increases, which is plausible 
given the small changes in soil and coarse mass observed at the 
Jarbridge monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report, 
June 28, 2013. West-Wide Jump-Start Air Quality Modeling Study--
Final Report, September 30, 2013.
    \40\ WRAP refers to the baseline as 2002, the midyear of the 
baseline inventory period from 2000 to 2004.
    \41\ Data from the NEI are slightly different from the 
WestJump2008 inventory, which leverages more recent inventory 
development performed by the WRAP.
    \42\ The WRAP compared data between the baseline (2002) and 
emission inventory (2008) for nine source categories: Point sources, 
area sources, oil and gas, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, fugitive 
dust and road dust, windblown dust, biogenic, and fires.

   Table 8--Comparison of Emission Inventories in 2002, 2008, and 2018 for Nevada of All Visibility Impairing
                                                 Pollutants \42\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               2008 Actuals as a
             Pollutants                 2002 Baseline      2008 Inventory    2018 Projection    percent of 2018
                                            (tpy)              (tpy)              (tpy)           projections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide......................             67,743             17,058             46,224                 37
Nitrogen Oxides.....................            162,397            119,513            135,496                 88
Ammonia.............................             12,092              9,382             14,503                 65
Volatile Organic Compounds..........            897,102            351,142            897,707                 39
Primary Organic Aerosol.............             24,734             11,816             24,822                 48
Elemental Carbon....................              6,409              4,425              5,638                 78
Fine Soil...........................             21,208             40,301             24,134                167
Coarse Mass.........................            161,142            321,257            188,287                171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP analyzes the differences between the baseline and current 
emissions based on WRAP's WestJump2008 inventory for eight categories 
of emissions as summarized below. This analysis focuses on the 
percentage change in the emissions of each pollutant by source category 
in 2002 and 2008, and adds an analysis of changes in emissions from 
2008 to 2011 where NEI data is available.
    Sulfur Dioxide: Total anthropogenic emissions of SO2 
decreased by 75 percent from 65,543 tons in 2002 to 16,552 tons in 
2008, representing a significant reduction in particular from point and 
area sources as shown in Table 9. Point source emissions alone 
decreased by 78 percent (50,720 to 11,067 tpy) during this period, and 
area source emissions decreased by 63 percent (12,953 to 4,863 tpy). As 
a percentage of total statewide emissions, anthropogenic and natural, 
point source emissions decreased from 75 percent of the total in the 
2002 (50,720 of 67,743 tons) to 65 percent of the total in the 2008 
(11,067 tons of a total 16,552 tons). Moreover, the NEI inventories 
show a further decrease in SO2 emissions from point sources 
of 44 percent from 10,409 tpy in 2008 to 5,863 tpy in 2011, primarily 
due to reductions in coal-fired emissions from power plants. On-road 
and off-road mobile emissions decreased by 34 percent (454 to 298 tpy) 
and 77 percent (1,403 to 322 tpy), respectively, from 2002 to 2008. 
Data from the NEI indicate further reductions in emissions from mobile 
sources from 2008 to 2011, a 47 percent decrease in on-road emissions 
(511 to 270 tpy) and a 87 percent decrease in off-road emissions (316 
to 41 tpy).

[[Page 55814]]



                         Table 9--Changes in Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2008            Difference
                    Source category                       2002 (Baseline)     (WestJump2008)    (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................................             50,720             11,067     -39,653 (-78%)
Area...................................................             12,953              4,863      -8,090 (-62%)
On-Road Mobile.........................................                454                298        -156 (-34%)
Off-Road Mobile........................................              1,403                322      -1,081 (-77%)
Area Oil and Gas.......................................                  0                  0                  0
Fugitive and Road Dust.................................                  0                  0                  0
Anthropogenic Fire.....................................                 12                  2         -10 (-83%)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic................................             65,543             16,552     -48,991 (-75%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire...........................................              2,200                506      -1,694 (-77%)
Biogenic...............................................                  0                  0                  0
Windblown Dust.........................................                  0                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural......................................              2,200                506      -1,694 (-77%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions....................................             67,743             17,058     -50,685 (-75%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nitrogen Oxides: The total statewide inventory of NOX 
emissions from all sources decreased by 26 percent from 162,397 tpy in 
2002 to 118,766 tpy in 2008 as shown in Table 10. Over this time 
period, NOX emissions from anthropogenic sources decreased 
by 23 percent (139,353 tpy to 107,827 tpy), and natural emissions 
decreased by 53 percent (23,044 tpy to 10,939 tpy). Anthropogenic 
emissions of NOX in Nevada are primarily from point and on-
road mobile sources, followed by off-road and area sources. From the 
2002 to 2008 inventories, NOX emissions from point sources 
decreased by about 50 percent (59,864 to 29,344 tpy), on-road mobile 
increased by about 22 percent (41,089 to 50,068 tpy), off-road mobile 
decreased by about 48 percent (32,565 to 17,081 tpy), and area sources 
increased by 98 percent (5,725 to 11,321 tpy). Increases in on-road 
mobile and area source emission inventories were offset by larger 
decreases in emissions from point and off-road mobile sources. The NEI 
point source inventory shows a decrease of 57 percent in NOX 
emissions from 2008 to 2011. NDEP attributes the 22 percent increase in 
on-road mobile emissions to the use of different air quality models to 
estimate emissions in 2002 (MOBILE6) and in 2008 (MOVES2010), a growth 
in the number of vehicles, and the fact that federal vehicle emissions 
standards were not fully implemented. NEI data from 2008 and 2011 show 
a 36 percent increase in on-road mobile NOX emissions, 
possibly related to population growth. The NEI shows a continuing 
decrease in off-road mobile emissions of 12 percent from 2008 to 2012. 
NDEP states that the increase in emissions from area sources may be a 
result of a reclassification of some off-road mobile sources into area 
source category, which may have contributed to the decrease in 
emissions from off-road mobile sources. This is consistent with the 
reclassification of in-flight aircraft emissions and locomotive 
emissions outside of rail yards from the off-road mobile category to 
the area source category in the 2008 NEI.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2008inventory.html 
(``Description of NEI Data Categories'').

                         Table 10--Changes in Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Category (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2008            Difference
                    Source category                       2002 (Baseline)     (WestJump2008)    (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................................             59,864             29,344            -30,520
Area...................................................              5,725             11,321              5,597
On-Road Mobile.........................................             41,089             50,068              8,979
Off-Road Mobile........................................             32,565             17,081            -15,484
Area Oil and Gas.......................................                 63                  0                -63
Fugitive and Road Dust.................................                  0                  0                  0
Anthropogenic Fire.....................................                 48                 13                -35
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic................................            139,353            107,827     -31,526 (-23%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire...........................................              8,026              3,575             -4,451

[[Page 55815]]

 
Biogenic...............................................             15,018              7,364             -7,654
Windblown Dust.........................................                  0                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural......................................             23,044             10,939     -12,105 (-53%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions....................................            162,397            118,766     -43,631 (-26%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ammonia: Total statewide emissions of ammonia decreased by 22 
percent (12,092 to 9,382 tpy) from 2002 to 2008. Of this total, 
anthropogenic emissions decreased by 34 percent (10,408 to 6,893 tpy) 
while natural emissions increased by 48 percent (1,684 to 2,490 tpy). 
The primary source of anthropogenic emissions of ammonia is area 
sources, and to a lesser extent on-road mobile sources, while fire is 
the dominant natural source.\44\ Area sources of ammonia emissions 
decreased by about 29 percent (8,009 to 5,717 tpy) from 2002 to 2008. 
On-road mobile sources, the next largest category of anthropogenic 
emissions, decreased by about 58 percent (2,030 to 849 tpy). Despite an 
increase of 48 percent in natural fire (1,684 to 2,490 tpy), there was 
a net decrease in statewide emissions. Ammonia is not a criteria 
pollutant and is not included in the NEI, so no data for 2011 were 
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The WRAP has created an operational policy level definition 
of fire activity as discretely natural or anthropogenic. See the 
WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report, section 
3.2.1 and the WRAP's Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions 
(November 15, 2001), available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/nbtt/FirePolicy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volatile Organic Compounds: Data from the 2002 and 2008 inventories 
as well as from the NEI for the 2008 to 2011 time period show large 
reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from natural 
sources with lesser reductions from anthropogenic sources. Biogenic 
emissions from natural sources dominate the Nevada VOC emissions 
inventory. Total statewide VOC emissions decreased by 61 percent from 
897,102 tpy in 2002 to 351,142 tpy in 2008. This large reduction is 
mostly due to a decrease in biogenic emissions over this time period by 
67 percent from 794,139 tpy to 262,912 tpy. NDEP notes that these 
changes may reflect enhancements to the inventory method, use of 
different meteorological years, and improved emission factors and data 
sources. There were also decreases in on-road mobile (36,257 to 21,302 
tpy) and natural fire (17,606 to 4,204 tpy), and an increase in area 
sources (28,592 to 40,973 tpy), all of which are a very small part of 
the total inventory. VOC emissions in the NEI show a decrease in point 
source (17 percent), on-road mobile (20 percent), and off road mobile 
(18 percent) from 2008 to 2011.
    Primary Organic Aerosol: Wildfires are the dominant source of 
primary organic aerosol (POA) emissions, 90 percent of the total in 
2002 (22,501 of a total 24,734 tpy) and 58 percent in 2008 (6,831 of a 
total 11,816 tpy). Anthropogenic sources, namely area and mobile, also 
are important contributors. Overall, total emissions of POA decreased 
by 52 percent from 2002 to 2008. Natural fire emissions of POA 
decreased 70 percent (22,501 to 6,831 tpy), reflecting the high 
variability of wildfires from year to year. Except for anthropogenic 
fire, all other categories of anthropogenic sources of POA (primarily 
area, mobile, and fugitive) increased during this time period with the 
total anthropogenic emissions increasing by 123 percent from 2,233 to 
4,985 tpy.
    Elemental Carbon: Natural fire (i.e., wildfires) also dominate EC 
emissions at 73 percent of the 2002 inventory (4,674 of 6,409 tpy), but 
only 23 percent of the 2008 inventory (1,130 to 4,425 tpy), a reduction 
of 76 percent (4,674 to 1,130 tpy). Consequently, total emissions 
decreased by 31 percent (6,409 to 4,425 tpy) mostly due to the decrease 
in natural fire. Total anthropogenic emissions increased by 90 percent 
(1,735 to 3,295 tpy) due mostly to an increase in on-road mobile 
sources from 235 to 1,891 tpy over this time period. On-road mobile is 
the largest source of elemental carbon in the 2008 inventory at 43 
percent, while the next largest category is natural fire emissions 
contributing 26 percent. Area and point sources, by contrast, 
contribute less than one percent each to the 2008 inventory.
    Fine Soil: Total emissions of fine soils increased by 90 percent 
(21,208 to 40,301 tpy) from the 2002 to the 2008 inventory. The largest 
increases were in fugitive dust (6,128 to 19,216 tpy) and windblown 
dust (10,438 to 17,051 tpy). NDEP reports that increases in these 
source categories were likely due to updates to inventory development 
methods rather than actual increases.
    Coarse Mass: Total emissions of coarse mass increased by about 99 
percent (161,142 to 321,257 tpy), mostly due to large increases in 
anthropogenic fugitive and road dust (56,799 to 161,532 tpy) and in 
natural windblown dust (93,946 to 153,459 tpy). Fugitive dust includes 
sources such as agricultural operations, construction, and mining 
operations. Windblown dust is largely from vacant lands. NDEP 
attributes these increases in part to updates in the inventory 
development methods rather than actual increases. Nonetheless, 
increases in fugitive dust may be due to increases in population, while 
increases in road dust may be due to increases in vehicle miles 
traveled. Point source and natural fire emissions decreased.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    We propose to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to analyze the change in emissions over the past 
five years of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all 
sources and activities within the state, using the most recently 
updated emission inventories. NDEP's analysis of emission data makes a 
strong case that the State is reducing emissions of SO2 and 
NOX from anthropogenic sources, especially point sources.

E. Assessment of Anthropogenic Emissions Impeding Progress

1. NDEP's Analysis
    NDEP reports that progress toward achieving its visibility goal of 
11.05 dv at Jarbidge by 2018 has not been impeded by any significant 
anthropogenic emission changes within or outside the State. NDEP 
reaches this conclusion by evaluating significant emission changes 
within Nevada, the effect of emissions from sources outside

[[Page 55816]]

of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada's emissions on nearby 
Class I areas.
    Emission Changes within Nevada and Visibility Conditions at 
Jarbidge: NDEP analyzes the baseline and rolling five-year annual 
averages of light extinction data from the JARB1 monitor for the best 
and worst days from 2005 through 2012. For the worst days, the data 
show a reduction in sulfate and nitrate extinction for the three most 
recent five-year periods (2006-2010, 2007-2011, and 2008-2012), but an 
increase in POM extinction, due to a spike in 2012 that NDEP attributes 
to wildfires.\45\ On the best days, visibility impairment is reduced 
from the baseline to the current period due to decreases in extinction 
from sulfate, nitrate, POM, and elemental carbon. Light extinction for 
soil, coarse mass, and sea salt remain fairly constant on best days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Progress Report, Chapter 6, pages 6-2 thru 6-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Actual emissions of SO2, NOX, 
PM10, and VOC from point sources in Nevada \46\ have 
decreased significantly over a 10-year period (2002-2012) and over the 
last five years (2008-2012) as presented in Table 11.\47\ The years 
2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 are the most complete inventory years 
submitted to EPA for the NEI. The data for 2012 are actual emission 
values for major and minor point sources from Nevada's permitting 
database. As shown in the table, SO2 emissions from point 
sources dropped dramatically after the closure of Mohave in 2005, and 
decreased by another 50 percent from 2008 to 2012. Likewise, 
NOX emissions decreased by 30,000 tpy after 2005, and 
decreased another 62 percent from 2008 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ SO2 emissions from point sources were 68 percent 
of the total anthropogenic emissions in Nevada in 2008 
(WestJump2008). Area source emissions of SO2 were 29 
percent of total anthropogenic emissions in 2008.
    \47\ Progress Report, Table 6-1, page 6-4.

                            Table 11--Actual Emissions of Nevada Point Sources (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                              SO2             NOX            PM10             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................          50,619          55,876           6,868           2,132
2005............................................          54,243          52,087           4,643           1,646
2008............................................          10,497          21,680           3,465           1,600
2011............................................           5,959          10,548           3,331             971
2012............................................           5,278           8,324           2,629             986
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns.

    Emissions from Outside Sources Effecting Jarbidge: NDEP's analysis 
focuses on three BART sources in Idaho and Oregon to determine whether 
these previously identified point sources are impeding progress on the 
worst days at Jarbidge. Comparing baseline emissions to the NEI in 
2011, total SO2 emissions from these three sources decrease 
by about 40 percent (26,243 to 15,782 tpy) from 2002 to 2011. Total 
NOX emissions decrease by about 31 percent (11,010 to 7,611 
tpy) over the same time period. Moreover, emissions from these sources 
will continue to decline over time given staggered compliance dates 
through 2018. With visibility impairment resulting from sulfate and 
nitrate trending downward at Jarbidge and the implementation of BART 
controls in Idaho and Oregon, NDEP concludes that there are no 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions from outside the State 
that are impeding progress at Jarbidge.
    In assessing point source emissions from Idaho and Oregon, NDEP 
references source apportionment modeling of particulate sulfate and 
nitrate extinction for 2018 that was performed by the WRAP for the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP.\48\ The purpose of the modeling is to 
determine source areas that contribute to visibility impairment on the 
worst days at Jarbidge. The area of greatest sulfate contribution is 
Outside Domain \49\ (43.8 percent), followed by Idaho (10.3 percent), 
Oregon (7.2 percent), and Pacific Offshore (6.9 percent). The area of 
greatest nitrate contribution is Idaho (30.3 percent), followed by 
Outside Domain (27.5 percent), Nevada (13.1 percent), and Utah (10.6 
percent). Based on these results, Idaho is the second largest 
contributor of modeled sulfate and the largest contributor of modeled 
nitrate concentrations. Oregon is the third largest contributor of 
modeled sulfate concentrations. While this analysis supports the focus 
on emissions from Idaho and Oregon, the fact that Outside Domain 
contributes 43.8 percent of the modeled sulfate and 27.5 percent of the 
modeled nitrate is another indication that Nevada has limited control 
over a large subset of the emissions impairing visibility at Jarbidge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Table 4-5: Summary of 
2018 Model Results for Jarbidge Wilderness Area, based on 
Particulate Matter Source Attribution Tracking, page 31.
    \49\ Outside Domain as a source category represents the 
background concentrations of pollutants from international sources 
that enter the modeling domain, in this case the western United 
States and portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevada's Emissions Effect on Nearby Class I Areas: NDEP also 
addresses the potential effect of Nevada's emissions on nearby Class I 
areas in other states using particulate source apportionment modeling 
conducted by the WRAP for the first round of regional haze SIPs. This 
modeling estimated Nevada's projected contributions to light extinction 
from sulfates and nitrates at Class I areas in adjacent states in 
2018.\50\ In light of the 75 percent reduction in Nevada's 
SO2 emissions (see Table 9) and 26 percent reduction in 
NOX emissions (see Table 10) between 2002 and 2008, NDEP 
concludes that Nevada's emission reductions are not impeding progress 
in reducing visibility impairment at Class I areas in adjacent states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Tables 4-3: Nevada's 
Sulfate Extinction Contribution to Class I Areas Outside of Nevada 
and Table 4-4: Nevada's Nitrate Extinction Contribution to Class I 
Areas Outside of Nevada, pages 14-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to assess any significant changes in 
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state over the past five 
years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and 
improving visibility. NDEP provides a comprehensive analysis of 
emission changes within and outside the State, and examines the 
potential effect of these changes at Jarbidge and at other Class I 
areas. All indications are that the total statewide emissions of 
SO2 and NOX are decreasing (see Tables 9, 10, and 
11), and most of the pollutants are already at levels below those in 
the projected emission inventory for 2018 (see Table 8). Based on 
NDEP's analysis, EPA proposes to concur with NDEP that

[[Page 55817]]

there is no evidence that any recent changes in emissions from any 
specific sources or source categories are impeding progress.

F. Assessment of Plan Elements and Strategy

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The Progress Report concludes that the existing elements and 
strategies in the Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan are 
sufficient to enable Nevada and other neighboring states to meet the 
RPGs by 2018 in terms of reducing emissions from anthropogenic sources. 
Nevada has already achieved significant emission reductions in the 
first phase of the regional haze program, with additional reductions 
expected by 2018. Actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants 
in 2008, with the exception of fine soil and coarse mass, are already 
less than the projected emissions in 2018 (see Table 8). Notably actual 
SO2 emissions in 2008 are about 40 percent and actual 
NOX emissions are about 90 percent of the respective totals 
in the projected emission inventory for 2018. The NEI data for 2008 and 
2011 also demonstrate further reductions in SO2 and 
NOX emissions from point sources in Nevada (see Table 11). 
Moreover, further reductions in anthropogenic emissions are expected 
from the power sector as a result of BART implementation, shutdowns, 
and conversions to natural gas or lower sulfur fuels. In the case of 
Jarbidge, NDEP notes that emissions from natural sources can dominate 
visibility impairment on the worst days, and much of the anthropogenic 
emissions are from out-of-state. NDEP states that given the current and 
expected SO2 and NOX emission reductions from 
power plants, further reductions from any other non-utility or 
industrial point sources are unnecessary at this time.
    Regarding visibility conditions, trend analysis of monitoring data 
at Jarbidge from 2000 to 2012 demonstrates improvement in visibility 
impairment from sulfate and nitrate on the worst and best days, both on 
an annual average basis as well as five-year annual averages.\51\ NDEP 
notes that, although the visibility benefit from anthropogenic emission 
reductions is overshadowed by contributions from natural sources, 
visibility is slowly improving at Jarbidge on the worst days and shows 
considerable improvement on the best days (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). 
Where it appears that visibility improvement on worst days is not 
keeping pace with emission reductions (e.g., the 14.9 dv annual average 
for 2012 in Table 4), NDEP asserts that this is due to large 
contributions from natural sources (e.g., light extinction from POM of 
23.97 Mm-1 in 2012). In terms of anthropogenic sources, NDEP 
notes that sulfate contributes the most to visibility impairment on 
worst days at Jarbidge, but most of the sulfate is from out-of-state 
sources. Nitrate has only a small contribution to visibility impairment 
on the worst days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Progress Report, Chapter 4, Section 4.6: Visibility Trends, 
pages 4-15 thru 4-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that the Progress Report adequately addresses 
the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) to assess whether the current 
elements and strategies in the Regional Haze Implementation Plan are 
sufficient to enable Nevada, and other states affected by Nevada's 
emissions, to meet all established RPGs.
    In particular, the Report analyzes trends in statewide emissions 
and visibility conditions at Jarbidge, as well as the additional 
emission reductions expected through 2018. The Report indicates that 
anthropogenic emissions of SO2, NOX, ammonia and 
VOC are decreasing. In particular, the emission reductions reflect 
substantial decreases in total anthropogenic emissions of 
SO2 and NOX. However, anthropogenic emissions of 
POA, fine soil, elemental carbon and coarse mass are increasing. While 
these increases may be partially attributable to changes in inventory 
development methodologies, they highlight the need for greater 
attention to these pollutants in future planning periods.
    With regard to visibility trends, the Progress Report explains that 
Jarbidge is not on track to meet the 2018 RPG for the worst days due to 
the large contribution from POM, which NDEP attributes mostly to 
wildfires and windblown dust. EPA concurs that POM has a large impact 
on the worst days and that much of the POM is attributable to natural 
sources, particularly wildfires. Furthermore, we note that the trend of 
high POM extinction (with significant interannual variability) 
dominating the worst days at Jarbidge has continued during 2013 and 
2014, for which the IMPROVE data are now available, as shown in Tables 
12 and 13.

                                Table 12--2013 and 2014 Average Visibility Conditions for Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Haze                                                             Coarse
                              Year                                  index     Sulfate    Nitrate    POM (Mm-  EC (Mm-1)  Soil (Mm-  mass (Mm-   Sea salt
                                                                     (dv)      (Mm-1)     (Mm-1)       1)                    1)         1)       (Mm-1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013............................................................       11.7        3.5        1.0        8.4        1.3        2.7        5.9        0.1
2014............................................................       12.2        3.1        0.6       14.5        2.3        2.2        4.5        0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013............................................................        1.5        0.9        0.1        0.2        0.0        0.1        0.2        0.0
2014............................................................        1.8        1.0        0.2        0.3        0.1        0.1        0.2        0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55818]]


                              Table 13--Five-Year Annual Average Visibility Conditions for Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Haze                                                             Coarse
                              Year                                  index     Sulfate    Nitrate    POM (Mm-  EC (Mm-1)  Soil (Mm-  mass (Mm-   Sea salt
                                                                     (dv)      (Mm-1)     (Mm-1)       1)                    1)         1)       (Mm-1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013.......................................................       12.0        3.8        0.9       10.7        1.5        2.5        5.9        0.2
2010-2014.......................................................       12.2        3.6        0.9       12.1        1.8        2.5        5.6        0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013.......................................................        1.9        1.0        0.2        0.4        0.1        0.1        0.3        0.0
2010-2014.......................................................        1.9        1.0        0.2        0.4        0.1        0.1        0.3        0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we also note that not all POM is from natural sources. POA 
and VOC, the precursors to POM, are also emitted by anthropogenic 
sources, particularly area and mobile sources. Moreover, other 
pollutants, particularly coarse mass and sulfates, both of which have a 
significant anthropogenic component, also contribute to impairment on 
the worst days at Jarbidge. Accordingly, in developing its Regional 
Haze SIP for the next planning period, NDEP should consider 
implementing additional control measures to address anthropogenic 
emissions of POA, VOC, SO2, and coarse mass.
    Nonetheless, given the substantial reductions in anthropogenic 
emissions of SO2 and NOX, improvement in 
visibility conditions on the best days, and evidence that the worst 
days are slowly improving, we propose to find that the current plan is 
sufficient for meeting the RPGs.

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The primary monitoring network, nationally and in Nevada, for the 
measurement and characterization of pollutants contributing to regional 
haze is the IMPROVE network. NDEP intends to rely on the continued 
availability of quality assured data collected through the IMPROVE 
network to comply with the regional haze monitoring requirements in the 
RHR. NDEP finds that the IMPROVE site at Jarbidge, Nevada's only Class 
I area, is sufficiently representative to support a determination of 
reasonable progress. NDEP concludes that no modification to the State's 
visibility monitoring strategy is necessary at this time.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) to review its visibility monitoring strategy and 
make any modifications as necessary. We are not aware of any evidence 
of a need to modify Nevada's monitoring strategy for measuring 
visibility at this time.

H. Determination of Adequacy

1. NDEP's Determination
    NDEP has determined that no substantive revision of the Nevada 
Regional Haze Implementation Plan is warranted at this time in order to 
achieve the RPGs in 2018 for visibility improvement at Jarbidge and at 
other Class I areas affected by emissions from Nevada. NDEP concludes 
that no additional controls are necessary based on the evidence 
presented in the Progress Report regarding the first half of the first 
phase of the program. The Report documents a substantial reduction in 
anthropogenic emissions in Nevada as well as an improvement in 
visibility at Jarbidge even though BART controls and other state and 
federal measures are not yet fully implemented. Further changes in 
source activity that were not included in the State's plan further 
support the conclusion that progress is adequate.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) by determining that the existing 
Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan requires no substantive 
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs at Jarbidge and 
at other Class I areas affected by emissions from Nevada. We propose to 
concur with the State's negative declaration based on the analysis and 
documentation presented in the Progress Report.
    NDEP demonstrates that emissions from anthropogenic sources within 
the State are decreasing as are emissions from point sources in Idaho 
and Oregon that contribute to visibility impairment at Jarbidge. While 
the monitoring data indicates that best days at Jarbidge are getting 
better, we are concerned that visibility conditions on the worst days 
are relatively flat or only slightly improving. However, this lack of 
progress on the worst days is largely attributable to the impact of 
POM, which results primarily from natural sources. Therefore, we 
propose to approve NDEP's determination that the Nevada Regional Haze 
Implementation Plan requires no substantive revisions at this time.

I. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

1. NDEP's Consultation
    NDEP provided FLMs with a draft Progress Report on June 14, 2014, 
for a 60-day review prior to the public comment period, received 
comments from the U.S. Department of Interior National Parks Service 
(NPS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), and 
responded to those comments as documented in Appendix C of the Progress 
Report. The letter from NPS dated August 15, 2014, supported the 
Report's findings, and provided four short comments on how to improve 
specific aspects of the analyses. The letter from USFS dated August 29, 
2014, acknowledged the opportunity to work with NDEP, but provided no 
specific comments. In the Progress Report, NDEP reaffirmed its 
commitment to continue participating in the WRAP and consulting with 
other states, FLMs, and tribes regarding SIP revisions and 
implementation of other programs that may contribute to visibility 
impairment.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP has addressed the requirements in 40 
CFR 51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide FLMs with an opportunity for 
consultation in person and at least 60 days prior to a public hearing 
on the revised plan; include a description in the revised plan of how 
it addressed any comments from the FLMs; and provide procedures for 
continuing consultation between the State and FLMs. These

[[Page 55819]]

procedural requirements for the Progress Report, a revision to the 
Regional Haze SIP in this case, are documented in Appendices C and D 
attached to the Report.

J. Public Participation

1. NDEP's Public Process
    NDEP provided a 30-day public comment period on the draft Progress 
Report as well as an opportunity for a public hearing. The public 
hearing, scheduled for October 15, 2014, was cancelled because no 
request for a hearing was received. During the public comment period, 
NDEP received one set of comments from the Sierra Club and National 
Parks Conservation Association in a letter dated October 16, 2014.\52\ 
These organizations questioned whether NDEP's analysis supports its 
determination that progress in implementing the Nevada Regional Haze 
Implementation Plan is adequate to achieve the 2018 RPGs for Jarbidge 
and other Class I areas affected by Nevada's emissions. NDEP provided 
detailed responses to these comments in Appendix D of the Progress 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The letter to Adele Malone, NDEP, is signed by David 
VonSeggern, Chair, Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter; Gloria Smith, 
Managing Attorney, Sierra Club; and Lynn Davis, Senior Program 
Manager, Nevada Field Office, National Parks Conservation 
Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP has fulfilled the requirements of 
CAA 110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR 51.102 regarding reasonable notice and 
public hearings.

VI. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Nevada Regional Haze Progress 
Report submitted to EPA on November 18, 2014, as meeting the applicable 
requirements of the CAA and RHR.

VII. 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.\53\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role 
is to approve state decisions, provided that they meet the criteria of 
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action is to approve state law as 
meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 it does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Organic 
carbon, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 1, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-23272 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                          55805

                                                heading. The Treasury Department and                    services provided by the donee                        SUMMARY:   The United States
                                                the IRS request comments on all aspects                 organization or a statement that such                 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                                                of the proposed rules. All comments                     goods and services consist solely of                  proposes to approve a revision to the
                                                will be available at http://                            intangible religious benefits.                        Nevada Regional Haze State
                                                www.regulations.gov or upon request.                       (iii) Time for filing return. Every                Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
                                                  A public hearing will be scheduled if                 donee organization filing a return                    the Nevada Division of Environmental
                                                requested in writing by any person who                  described in section 170(f)(8)(D) shall               Protection (NDEP) to document that the
                                                timely submits comments. If a public                    file such return on or before February 28             existing plan is adequate to achieve
                                                hearing is scheduled, notice of the date,               of the year following the calendar year               established goals for visibility
                                                time, and place for the public hearing                  in which the contribution was made. If                improvement and emissions reductions
                                                will be published in the Federal                        the return is not filed timely, the return            by 2018. The Nevada Regional Haze SIP
                                                Register.                                               does not qualify under section                        revision addresses the Regional Haze
                                                                                                        170(f)(8)(D), and section 170(f)(8)(A)                Rule (RHR) requirements under the
                                                Drafting Information
                                                                                                        through (C) applies to the contribution.              Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report
                                                  The principal authors of these                           (iv) Furnishing a copy to donor. Every             describing progress in achieving
                                                regulations are Martin L. Osborne and                   donee organization filing a return                    reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to
                                                Robert Basso of the Office of the                       described in section 170(f)(8)(D) shall               improve visibility in federally
                                                Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax                     furnish a copy of the return to the donor             designated Class I areas in Nevada and
                                                and Accounting). However, other                         whose contribution is reported on such                in nearby states that may be affected by
                                                personnel from the Treasury                             return on or before February 28 of the                emissions from sources in Nevada. EPA
                                                Department and the IRS participated in                  year following the calendar year in                   is proposing to approve Nevada’s
                                                their development.                                      which the contribution was made. The                  determination that the existing Nevada
                                                                                                        copy of the return shall be provided to               Regional Haze Implementation Plan is
                                                List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
                                                                                                        the donor at the address the donor                    adequate to meet the visibility goals,
                                                  Income taxes, Reporting and                           provides for this purpose.                            and requires no substantive revision at
                                                recordkeeping requirements.                                (v) Donee organization reporting at                this time.
                                                Proposed Amendment to the                               option of donee. Donee organization
                                                                                                                                                              DATES: Comments must be received by
                                                Regulations                                             reporting is not required. Donee
                                                                                                                                                              the designated contact at the address
                                                                                                        reporting is available solely at the
                                                  Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is                                                                               listed below on or before October 19,
                                                                                                        option of a donee organization, and, the
                                                proposed to be amended as follows:                                                                            2015.
                                                                                                        requirements of section 170(f)(8)(A)
                                                                                                        through (C) apply to all contributions                ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
                                                PART 1—INCOME TAXES                                                                                           identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
                                                                                                        that are not reported using donee
                                                ■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation                   reporting.                                            OAR–2015–0316, to the Federal
                                                for part 1 continues to read in part as                    (19) Effective/applicability date.                 eRulemaking Portal: http://
                                                follows:                                                Paragraphs (f)(1) through (17) of this                www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
                                                                                                        section apply to contributions made on                instructions for submitting comments.
                                                    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *                                                                           Once submitted, comments cannot be
                                                                                                        or after December 16, 1996. However,
                                                ■ Par. 2. Section 170A–13 is amended                    taxpayers may rely on the rules of                    edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish
                                                by revising paragraph (f)(18) and adding                paragraphs (f)(1) through (17) for                    any comment received to its public
                                                paragraph (f)(19) to read as follows:                   contributions made on or after January                docket. Do not submit electronically any
                                                                                                        1, 1994. Paragraph (f)(18) of this section            information you consider to be
                                                § 1.170A–13. Recordkeeping and return
                                                                                                        applies to contributions made on or                   Confidential Business Information (CBI)
                                                requirements for deductions for charitable
                                                contributions.                                          after the date of publication of a                    or other information whose disclosure is
                                                                                                        Treasury decision adopting these rules                restricted by statute. If you need to
                                                *       *    *     *    *                                                                                     include CBI as part of your comment,
                                                   (f) * * *                                            as final regulations in the Federal
                                                   (18) Donee organization reporting—(i)                Register.                                             please visit http://www.epa.gov/
                                                Prescribed form. [Reserved]                                                                                   dockets/comments.html for instructions.
                                                                                                        John Dalrymple,
                                                   (ii) Content of return. A document                                                                         Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
                                                                                                        Deputy Commissioner for Services and                  etc.) must be accompanied by a written
                                                will not qualify as a return for purposes               Enforcement.
                                                of section 170(f)(8)(D) unless it contains                                                                    comment. The written comment is
                                                                                                        [FR Doc. 2015–23291 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am]           considered the official comment and
                                                all of the following information:                       BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
                                                   (A) The name and address of the                                                                            should include discussion of all points
                                                donee;                                                                                                        you wish to make.
                                                   (B) The name and address of the                                                                               For additional submission methods,
                                                donor;                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                              the full EPA public comment policy,
                                                   (C) The taxpayer identification                      AGENCY                                                and general guidance on making
                                                number of the donor;                                                                                          effective comments, please visit http://
                                                   (D) The amount of cash and a                         40 CFR Part 52                                        www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
                                                description (but not necessarily the                    [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316; FRL–9933–82–                     The index to the docket (docket
                                                value) of any property other than cash                  Region 9]                                             number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316) for
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                contributed by the donor to the donee;                                                                        this proposed rule is available
                                                   (E) Whether any goods and services                   Approval and Promulgation of State                    electronically at http://
                                                were provided by the donee                              Implementation Plans; Nevada;                         www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
                                                organization in consideration, in whole                 Regional Haze Progress Report                         the index, some information is not
                                                or in part, for the contribution by the                 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                     publicly available, such as CBI or other
                                                donor; and                                              Agency (EPA).                                         information that is restricted by statute.
                                                   (F) A description and good faith                                                                           Certain other material, such as
                                                                                                        ACTION: Proposed rule.
                                                estimate of the value of any goods and                                                                        copyrighted material, is publicly


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:33 Sep 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00009   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                55806              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                available only in hard copy form.                       areas by 2018, and therefore requires no              haziness in terms of common
                                                Publicly available docket materials are                 substantive revision at this time. The                increments across the entire range of
                                                available electronically at http://                     State’s determination and EPA’s                       visibility conditions, from pristine to
                                                www.regulations.gov or in hard copy                     proposed approval are based on the                    extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews
                                                during normal business hours at the                     Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress                  are determined by using air quality
                                                Planning Office of the Air Division,                    Report (‘‘Progress Report’’ or ‘‘Report’’)            measurement to estimate light
                                                AIR–2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne                       submitted by NDEP to EPA on                           extinction, and then transforming the
                                                Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. To                     November 18, 2014, that addresses 40                  value of light extinction using a
                                                view hard copies of documents listed in                 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) of the RHR.2              logarithmic function. A deciview is a
                                                the docket index, EPA requests that you                 Specifically, we propose to find that the             more useful measure for tracking
                                                contact the individual listed in the FOR                Progress Report demonstrates that the                 progress in improving visibility than
                                                FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.                    emission control measures in the                      light extinction because each deciview
                                                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                        existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP are                 change is an equal incremental change
                                                Vijay Limaye, U.S. EPA, Region 9,                       sufficient to enable Nevada, as well as               in visibility perceived by the human
                                                Planning Office, Air Division, AIR–2, 75                other states with Class I areas affected              eye. Most people can detect a change in
                                                Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA                     by emissions from sources in Nevada, to               visibility at one deciview.
                                                94105. Vijay Limaye may be reached at                   meet all established RPGs for 2018 in                 B. History of Regional Haze Rule
                                                telephone number (415) 972–3086 and                     accordance with § 51.308(g). As a result,
                                                via electronic mail at                                  we propose to approve NDEP’s                             In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA
                                                Limaye.Vijay@epa.gov.                                   determination that the existing                       Amendments of 1977, Congress created
                                                                                                        Implementation Plan is adequate, and                  a program to protect visibility in
                                                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                                                                                    designated national parks and
                                                Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’                requires no further substantive revision
                                                                                                        at this time to achieve the established               wilderness areas, establishing as a
                                                or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.                                                                                      national goal the ‘‘prevention of any
                                                                                                        goals for visibility improvement in
                                                Table of Contents                                       accordance with § 51.308(h). In                       future, and the remedying of any
                                                                                                        addition, we are proposing to find that               existing, impairment of visibility in
                                                I. Overview of Proposed Action
                                                                                                        NDEP fulfilled the requirements in                    mandatory Class I Federal areas which
                                                II. Background
                                                   A. Description of Regional Haze                      § 51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) regarding                impairment results from manmade air
                                                   B. History of Regional Haze Rule                     State coordination with Federal Land                  pollution.’’ In accordance with section
                                                   C. Nevada’s Regional Haze Plan                       Managers (FLMs). This coordination                    169A of the CAA and after consulting
                                                III. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress            includes providing FLMs with an                       with the Department of Interior, EPA
                                                      Reports                                                                                                 promulgated a list of 156 mandatory
                                                                                                        opportunity for consultation on the
                                                IV. Context for Understanding Nevada’s                                                                        Class I Federal areas where visibility is
                                                      Progress Report                                   Progress Report, describing how NDEP
                                                                                                        addressed any comments from the                       identified as an important value.3 In this
                                                   A. Framework for Measuring Progress
                                                   B. Relevant Class I Areas                            FLMs, and providing procedures for                    notice, we refer to mandatory Class I
                                                   C. Data Sources                                      continuing consultation with the FLMs.                Federal areas on this list as ‘‘Class I
                                                V. EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s Progress                Finally, we propose to find that NDEP                 areas.’’ Nevada has one Class I area,
                                                      Report                                            has fulfilled the requirements of CAA                 Jarbidge Wilderness Area (‘‘Jarbidge’’),
                                                   A. Status of Implementation of All                   110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR 51.102                      in the northeast corner of the State.
                                                      Measures
                                                                                                        regarding reasonable notice and public                   With the CAA Amendments of 1990,
                                                   B. Summary of Emission Reductions                                                                          Congress added section 169B to address
                                                      Achieved                                          hearings with regard to the Progress
                                                                                                        Report.                                               regional haze issues. EPA promulgated
                                                   C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and                                                                 a rule to address regional haze on July
                                                      Changes at Jarbidge                               II. Background
                                                   D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions                                                                        1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze
                                                   E. Assessment of Anthropogenic Emissions             A. Description of Regional Haze                       Rule.4 The RHR revised the existing
                                                      Impeding Progress                                                                                       visibility regulations in 40 CFR 51.308
                                                   F. Assessment of Plan Elements and                     Regional haze is visibility impairment              to integrate provisions addressing
                                                      Strategy                                          produced by many sources and                          regional haze impairment and to
                                                   G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy          activities located across a broad                     establish a comprehensive visibility
                                                   H. Determination of Adequacy                         geographic area that emit fine particles              protection program for Class I areas. As
                                                   I. Consultation with Federal Land                    that impair visibility by scattering and              defined in the RHR, the RPGs must
                                                      Managers                                          absorbing light, thereby reducing the
                                                   J. Public Participation
                                                                                                                                                              provide for an improvement in visibility
                                                                                                        clarity, color, and visible distance that             for the most impaired days (‘‘worst
                                                   VI. EPA’s Proposed Action
                                                   VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
                                                                                                        one can see. These fine particles also                days’’) over the period of the
                                                                                                        can cause serious health effects and                  implementation plan and ensure no
                                                I. Overview of Proposed Action                          mortality in humans and contribute to                 degradation in visibility for the least
                                                   EPA is proposing to approve NDEP’s                   environmental impacts, such as acid                   impaired days (‘‘best days’’) over the
                                                determination that the existing Nevada                  deposition and eutrophication of water                same period.5
                                                Regional Haze Implementation Plan 1 is                  bodies.
                                                                                                          The RHR uses the deciview as the                    C. Nevada’s Regional Haze Plan
                                                adequate to achieve the established
                                                RPGs (i.e., visibility goals) for Class I               principle metric for measuring visibility               NDEP submitted its Regional Haze SIP
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                        and for the RPGs that serve as interim                to EPA on November 18, 2009, as
                                                  1 The Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan        visibility goals toward meeting the                   required by 40 CFR 51.308 for the first
                                                consists of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP,               national goal of achieving natural                    regional haze planning period ending in
                                                submitted to EPA in November 2009 and partially         visibility conditions by 2064. A                      2018. EPA approved most of the Nevada
                                                approved and partially disapproved by EPA in
                                                several related actions in 2012, and the partial
                                                                                                        deciview expresses uniform changes in
                                                                                                                                                                3 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979.
                                                Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
                                                                                                                                                                4 See 64 FR 35713.
                                                promulgated in 2012 and revised in 2013, as               2 The Progress Report was deemed complete by
                                                described further below.                                operation of law on May 18, 2015.                       5 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).




                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:33 Sep 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM    17SEP1


                                                                    Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                55807

                                                Regional Haze SIP on March 26, 2012,6                      visibility impairment from all sources                   provides background information on
                                                with the exception of NDEP’s                               and activities within the state based on                 how the regional haze program applies
                                                determination of best available retrofit                   the most recently updated emissions                      to Nevada. This information describes
                                                technology (BART) to control emissions                     inventory; (5) an assessment of any                      the framework for measuring visibility
                                                of nitrogen oxides (NOX) at the Reid                       significant changes in anthropogenic                     progress, a profile of the relevant Class
                                                Gardner Generating Station (Reid                           emissions within or outside the state                    I areas, and the sources of data used in
                                                Gardner). EPA published a new                              over the past five years that have limited               the Progress Report.
                                                proposal on April 12, 2012, to approve                     or impeded progress in reducing
                                                in part and disapprove in part NDEP’s                      pollutant emissions and improving                        A. Framework for Measuring Progress
                                                BART determination for NOX at Reid                         visibility; (6) an assessment of whether                    Visibility conditions at Class I areas
                                                Gardner.7 EPA published a final rule on                    the elements and strategies in the                       are described by a ‘‘haze index’’
                                                August 23, 2012, approving NDEP’s                          current Regional Haze SIP are sufficient                 measured in deciviews and calculated
                                                BART determination for NOX on Units                        to enable the state, or other states                     using data collected from the
                                                1 and 2, but disapproving NDEP’s                           affected by its emissions, to achieve the                Interagency Monitoring of Protected
                                                determination for Unit 3 and the                           established RPGs; and (7) a review of                    Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
                                                averaging time for the emission limits at                  the state’s visibility monitoring strategy               network monitors. Nevada has an
                                                all three units.8 This final rule included                 and any necessary modifications.                         IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge that is
                                                a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for                       Based on an evaluation of the factors                 designated ‘‘JARB1.’’ To measure
                                                the disapproved elements. EPA                              listed above as well as any other                        progress in deciviews, current visibility
                                                subsequently agreed to reconsider the                      relevant information, a state is required                conditions (2008–2012) are compared to
                                                compliance date for Units 1, 2, and 3 at                   to determine the adequacy of its existing                baseline conditions (2000–2004), and to
                                                Reid Gardner in the FIP, which we                          Regional Haze SIP.12 The state must take                 projected conditions at the end of the
                                                extended by 18 months.9                                    one of four possible actions based on the                planning period (2018). A state
                                                III. Requirements for Regional Haze                        analysis in its progress report. In                      establishes two RPGs for each of its
                                                Progress Reports                                           summary, these actions are to (1)                        Class I areas: One for the 20 percent best
                                                                                                           provide a negative declaration to EPA                    days and one for the 20 percent worst
                                                   The RHR requires states to submit a                     that no further substantive revisions to                 days. The RPGs must provide for an
                                                report every five years in the form of a                   the state’s existing Regional Haze SIP is                improvement in visibility on the 20
                                                SIP revision to evaluate progress toward                   needed to achieve the RPGs; (2) provide                  percent worst days and ensure no
                                                achieving the RPGs for each Class I area                   notification to EPA and to other states                  degradation in visibility on the 20
                                                in the state and for those areas outside                   in its region that its Regional Haze SIP                 percent best days, compared to average
                                                the state that may be affected by                          is or may be inadequate to ensure                        visibility conditions during the baseline
                                                emissions from within the state.10 The                     reasonable progress due to emissions                     period. In establishing the RPG, a state
                                                first progress reports are due five years                  from sources in other states, and                        must consider the uniform rate of
                                                from the submittal date of each state’s                    collaborate with other states to develop                 improvement in visibility (from the
                                                initial Regional Haze SIP. Progress                        additional strategies to address the                     baseline to natural conditions in 2064)
                                                reports must be in the form of SIP                         deficiencies; (3) provide notification                   and the emission reductions measures
                                                revisions that comply with the                             and available information to EPA that                    needed to achieve it. Nevada set the
                                                procedural requirements of 40 CFR                          the state’s Regional Haze SIP is or may
                                                51.102 and 51.103. These reports must                                                                               RPGs for Jarbidge using atmospheric air
                                                                                                           be inadequate to ensure reasonable                       quality modeling based on projected
                                                contain an evaluation of seven elements,                   progress due to emissions from sources
                                                at a minimum, and include a                                                                                         emission reductions from control
                                                                                                           in another country; or (4) revise its                    strategies in the Nevada Regional Haze
                                                determination of the adequacy of the                       Regional Haze SIP within one year to
                                                state’s existing Regional Haze SIP. In                                                                              SIP as well as emission reductions
                                                                                                           address the deficiencies if the state                    expected to result from other Federal,
                                                summary,11 the seven elements are: (1)                     determines that its existing plan is or
                                                A description of the status of                                                                                      state and local air quality programs,
                                                                                                           may be inadequate to ensure reasonable                   among other factors. The purpose of a
                                                implementation of all measures
                                                                                                           progress in one or more Class I areas                    progress report is to assess whether a
                                                included in the current Regional Haze
                                                                                                           due to emissions from sources within                     state’s plan is adequate to achieve the
                                                SIP for achieving the RPGs in Class I
                                                                                                           the state.13                                             established RPGs and emissions
                                                areas within and outside the state; (2) a                     A state also must document that it
                                                summary of the emission reductions                                                                                  reductions goals for 2018, and if not,
                                                                                                           provided FLMs with an opportunity for                    whether additional emission reduction
                                                achieved in the state through                              consultation prior to holding a public
                                                implementation of these measures; (3)                                                                               strategies are needed.
                                                                                                           hearing on a Regional Haze SIP or plan
                                                an assessment of visibility conditions                     revision.14 A state must include a                       B. Relevant Class I Areas
                                                and changes on the most impaired and                       description of how it addressed any
                                                least impaired days for each Class I area                                                                             Nevada’s one Class I area, the Jarbidge
                                                                                                           comments from the FLMs, and provide                      Wilderness Area, is located within the
                                                in the state in terms of five-year                         procedures for continuing consultation
                                                averages of the annual values; (4) an                                                                               Humboldt National Forest in the
                                                                                                           with the FLMs.15                                         northeastern corner of the State within
                                                analysis of changes in emissions over
                                                the past five years contributing to                        IV. Context for Understanding Nevada’s                   the populated Snake River Basin and
                                                                                                           Progress Report                                          less than 10 miles from the Idaho
                                                                                                                                                                    border. The baseline visibility
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  6 See 77 FR 17334.                                         To facilitate a better understanding of                conditions (2000–2004) at Jarbidge are
                                                  7 See 77 FR 21896.
                                                  8 See 77 FR 50936.
                                                                                                           the Progress Report as well as EPA’s                     12.07 deciviews (dv) on the worst days
                                                  9 See proposed rule to grant extension, 78 FR
                                                                                                           evaluation of the Report, this section                   and 2.56 dv on the best days. The RPG
                                                18280 (March 26, 2013), and final rule granting                                                                     for the worst days in 2018 at Jarbidge is
                                                                                                             12 40    CFR 51.308(h).
                                                extension, 78 FR 53033 (August 28, 2013).
                                                  10 40 CFR 51.308(g).                                       13 Id.                                                 11.05 dv, which is slightly under, and
                                                  11 Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(g) for the exact          14 40    CFR 51.308(i)(2).                             therefore better than, the uniform rate of
                                                requirements.                                                15 40    CFR 51.308(i)(3) and (4).                     progress (URP) in 2018, which is 11.09


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:33 Sep 16, 2015   Jkt 235001      PO 00000   Frm 00011      Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                55808               Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                dv.16 While a subsequent correction for                  Emissions Inventory (NEI). The first                 the Nevada Regional Haze SIP as well as
                                                the worst days in 2018 resulted in                       report is the ‘‘Western Regional Air                 new programs, rules, and legislation
                                                projected visibility impairment of 11.8                  Partnership Regional Haze Rule                       that will provide further emission
                                                dv on the worst days,17 NDEP has                         Reasonable Progress Summary Report,’’                reductions before the first phase of the
                                                retained the RPG of 11.05 dv for                         dated June 28, 2013, which includes                  regional haze program ends in 2018.
                                                Jarbidge. The RPG for the best days in                   Section 6.8 Nevada (Appendix A of the                Nevada’s measures to control or
                                                2018 at Jarbidge is 2.50 dv, which                       Progress Report). This report is based on            otherwise reduce emissions that
                                                represents a slight improvement from                     the time period 2005–2009 and relies on              contribute to haze are organized into
                                                baseline conditions. The Progress                        the NEI from 2008. The WRAP updated                  three broad categories: Review of BART
                                                Report addresses whether Nevada’s RH                     the inventory before completing a                    Determinations, State Measures Other
                                                SIP is making adequate progress from                     second report titled ‘‘West-Wide Jump-               than BART, and Federal Programs.21
                                                the baseline toward these RPGs.                          Start Air Quality Modeling Study—
                                                   The Nevada Regional Haze SIP                                                                               The status of measures in each of these
                                                                                                         Final Report’’ dated September 30,
                                                identified 24 other Class I areas located                                                                     categories is summarized below.
                                                                                                         2013. NDEP also uses NEI data from
                                                in five neighboring states that are                      2011, State emission inventory data for                 BART Implementation: NDEP
                                                potentially affected by emissions of                     2012, acid rain data from EPA’s Air                  describes BART implementation in
                                                sulfates and nitrates from sources in                    Market Program Database, and                         Nevada and in neighboring states that
                                                Nevada.18 Based on projections from air                  IMPROVE monitoring data from 2008 to                 contribute to visibility impairment at
                                                quality modeling for 2018, the highest                   2012 to provide more current                         Jarbidge. The four BART facilities in
                                                contribution to sulfate extinction on the                information and additional analysis.                 Nevada are Reid Gardner, Tracy
                                                worst days from Nevada’s emissions is                    NDEP further relies on the WRAP’s                    Generating Station (Tracy), Fort
                                                5.6 percent at Zion National Park in                     Technical Support System and the                     Churchill Generating Station (Fort
                                                Utah, and on the best days is 7.2 percent                Visibility Information Exchange Web                  Churchill), and Mohave Generating
                                                at Sawtooth Wilderness Area in Idaho.                    System as analytic tools.                            Station (Mohave). Mohave closed in
                                                For nitrate extinction in 2018, Nevada’s
                                                                                                         V. EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s                      2005.22 The Nevada Regional Haze SIP
                                                highest contribution on the worst days
                                                is 20 percent at Desolation Wilderness                   Progress Report                                      requires the remaining three facilities to
                                                in California, and on the best days is                                                                        meet the emission limits associated with
                                                                                                            This section describes Nevada’s                   all BART control measures by January 1,
                                                12.4 percent at Joshua Tree National                     Progress Report and EPA’s evaluation of
                                                Park in California.19 The remaining 20                                                                        2015, with the exception of NOX at Reid
                                                                                                         the Report in relation to the seven
                                                Class I areas outside Nevada are                                                                              Gardner, which has a compliance date
                                                                                                         elements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g), the
                                                projected to have smaller fractions of                                                                        of June 30, 2016, as shown in Table 1.
                                                                                                         determination of adequacy in 40 CFR
                                                haze attributable to Nevada’s emissions.                 51.308(h), the requirement for state and             As noted in the table, three units at Reid
                                                                                                         FLM coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i)                 Gardner and two units at Tracy were
                                                C. Data Sources
                                                                                                         and the requirements for public                      scheduled to retire by the compliance
                                                  Nevada’s Progress Report is based on                                                                        date. Subsequent to NDEP’s submittal of
                                                                                                         participation in CAA section 110(a) and
                                                information available prior to March                                                                          the Progress Report, all five of these
                                                                                                         (l) and 40 CFR 51.102. While the
                                                2014. For the most part, NDEP relies on                                                                       units were shut down and are now in
                                                                                                         Progress Report focuses on the elements
                                                technical data and analysis in two                                                                            the process of being decommissioned
                                                                                                         of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, the
                                                reports from the Western Regional Air                                                                         and demolished.23 The retirement of
                                                                                                         requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
                                                Partnership (WRAP), the regional                                                                              these five units, and the switching of
                                                                                                         (h) apply to ‘‘implementation plans,’’
                                                planning organization that provides
                                                                                                         which are defined to include approved                three other units at Tracy and Fort
                                                technical support to western states. The
                                                WRAP’s reports are based on monitoring                   SIPs and FIPs.20 Accordingly, EPA has                Churchill to natural gas, is largely in
                                                data from the IMPROVE network and                        considered our regional haze BART FIP                response to the passage of Senate Bill
                                                emissions data from EPA’s National                       for Reid Gardner as well as the Nevada               (SB) 123 by the Nevada legislature in
                                                                                                         Regional Haze SIP in assessing the                   2013, which is described in more detail
                                                   16 The URP is a straight line from the baseline       Progress Report. However, as described               in the next section regarding other State
                                                visibility condition (5-year annual average from         further below, all three of the BART-                measures.
                                                2000–2004) to the estimated natural background           eligible units at Reid Gardner have been
                                                condition in 2064, as measured on the 20 percent         shut down. Therefore, the partial                       21 Progress Report, Chapter Two, Status of
                                                best and worst days. The URP values for 2018 are
                                                the number of deciviews where the lines drawn to         disapproval and partial FIP for Reid                 Implementation of Control Measures, pages 2–1
                                                2064 for best and worst days intersect 2018.             Gardner does not substantively                       thru 2–13.
                                                                                                                                                                 22 Even though Mohave’s closure in 2005 predates
                                                   17 See 76 FR 36464, June 22, 2011, footnote 18
                                                                                                         influence our evaluation of the Progress
                                                (‘‘In April 2011, the WRAP issued a draft report                                                              the first phase of the RH program (2008–2018),
                                                                                                         Report.                                              NDEP addresses Mohave’s emissions in its Progress
                                                regarding an error in its visibility projections for
                                                about 15 Class I areas in the West, including            A. Status of Implementation of All                   Report because these emissions are included in the
                                                Jarbidge. The draft report indicated that, as a result                                                        inventories and modeling that form the basis for the
                                                of the error, the projected visibility at Jarbidge in    Measures                                             Nevada Regional Haze SIP. For example, the
                                                2018 is 11.8 dv instead of 11.1 dv (rounded up from                                                           projected emission inventory for 2018 includes
                                                11.05 dv).’’).                                           1. NDEP’s Analysis                                   about 19,595 tpy of NOX and 8,701 tpy of SO2 from
                                                   18 Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation
                                                                                                           The Progress Report describes the                  Mohave.
                                                Plan, Chapter 4.3.3, October 2009. Light extinction                                                              23 See Reid Gardner Generating Station Fact Sheet

                                                is based on a model known as Particulate Matter
                                                                                                         status of state and federal measures in
                                                                                                                                                              from Nevada Energy (May 2015), Frank A. Tracy
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                Source Attribution Tracking (PSAT).                                                                           Generating Station Fact Sheet from Nevada Energy
                                                   19 76 FR 36459, June 22, 2011.                         20 40   CFR 51.302.                                 (June 2015).




                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:33 Sep 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00012   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                               55809

                                                                                                     TABLE 1—STATUS OF BART CONTROL MEASURES
                                                                   Facility                                       Units                                               BART Control measures

                                                Reid Gardner Generating Station .........           1, 2, 3 ..........................     NV Energy retired these three units as of December 31, 2014, as approved
                                                                                                                                             by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN)
                                                Tracy Generating Station ......................     1, 2 ..............................    NV Energy retired these two units as of December 31, 2014, as approved by
                                                                                                                                             the PUCN and in response to SB 123.
                                                                                                    3 ..................................   NV Energy is relying on alternative control technology and burning only nat-
                                                                                                                                             ural gas to comply with the BART emissions limits as of the December 31,
                                                                                                                                             2014, compliance date.
                                                Fort Churchill Generating Station .........         1, 2 ..............................    NV Energy is relying on alternative control technology and burning only nat-
                                                                                                                                             ural gas to comply with the BART emissions limits as of the December 31,
                                                                                                                                             2014, compliance date.
                                                Mohave Generating Station ..................        All ................................   This facility ceased operations in December 2005 and was subsequently fully
                                                                                                                                             decommissioned and demolished.



                                                   NDEP explains in the Progress Report                        and Chuck Lenzie Generating Station                        Program’’ that promotes the installation
                                                that BART implementation in                                    near Las Vegas).25                                         of at least 3,000 solar thermal systems
                                                neighboring states is expected to                                 The Nevada Legislature in 2013                          in homes, businesses, schools, and
                                                contribute to visibility improvement at                        enacted SB 123 requiring the reduction                     government buildings throughout the
                                                Jarbidge, which is located very near the                       of emissions from coal-fired power                         State. The Progress Report mentions
                                                Idaho border and downwind from                                 plants in Clark County, Nevada. SB 123                     several other programs to establish
                                                sources in Oregon. Since source                                requires the retirement or elimination of                  solar, wind, and waterpower energy
                                                apportionment modeling identified                              not less than 800 megawatts of coal-                       systems along with a list of proposed
                                                substantial contributions of sulfur                            fired electric generating capacity: 300                    generation plants that will rely on
                                                dioxide (SO2) from point sources in                            MW by December 2014, an additional                         renewable energy.27
                                                Idaho and Oregon,24 NDEP provides                              250 MW by December 2017, and an
                                                updates on two facilities in Idaho                             additional 250 MW by December 2019.                          TABLE 2—STATUS OF OTHER STATE
                                                (Amalgamated Sugar Company in                                  This legislation also mandates the                                     MEASURES
                                                Nampa and Monsanto/P4 Production in                            construction or acquisition of 350 MW
                                                Soda Springs) and one facility in Oregon                       from new renewable energy facilities.                               State measure                Effective date
                                                (Boardman Power Plant) that are subject                        NV Energy must construct or acquire
                                                to BART control measures. Each of these                        and own facilities with a total capacity                   Three Power Plants included           Never Built.
                                                                                                               of 550 MW to replace the coal-fired                          in Inventory for 2018.
                                                three facilities is reportedly in
                                                                                                               capacity eliminated between 2014 and                       Legislation to Retire Coal-           2014–2019.
                                                compliance with the required BART                                                                                           Fired Plants (800 mw).
                                                emission limits for SO2 and NOX.                               2019.26 NV Energy’s decision to retire
                                                                                                                                                                          Legislation for New Renew-            2014–2021.
                                                However, since some of the compliance                          BART units at Reid Gardner and Tracy,
                                                                                                                                                                            able Energy (350 mw).
                                                dates are not yet effective, more                              and to convert other BART units to                         Renewable Energy Portfolio            2015–2025.
                                                emission reductions are expected by                            natural gas at Tracy and Fort Churchill,                   NAAQS Attainment/Mainte-              Ongoing.
                                                2018.                                                          was in response to this legislation.                         nance Regulations.
                                                                                                                  NDEP also reports that Nevada is one
                                                   Other State Measures: Other State                           of the first states to adopt a renewable                      Federal Measures: The Progress
                                                measures contributing to reasonable                            portfolio standard that establishes a                      Report provides a summary of existing
                                                progress at Jarbidge and other Class I                         schedule requiring electric utilities to                   federal measures, those that were
                                                areas include cancellations of                                 generate, acquire, or save a percentage                    included in the Nevada Regional Haze
                                                applications to build power plants, State                      of electricity from renewable energy                       SIP, as well as new federal measures as
                                                legislation to reduce emissions from                           systems or efficiency measures. Not less                   listed in Table 3. NDEP describes in the
                                                coal-fired power plants (i.e., SB 123), an                     than 20 percent must come from                             Report how each of these federal
                                                expanded renewable energy portfolio,                           renewable energy or efficiency measures                    programs, rules, and standards
                                                and implementation of control measures                         from 2015 to 2019. The Nevada                              contribute further reductions in
                                                to attain the National Ambient Air                             legislature also has enacted the ‘‘Solar                   visibility impairing pollutants.28 All
                                                Quality Standards (NAAQS) as listed in                         Energy Systems Incentive Program,’’                        eight areas in Nevada that were
                                                Table 2. Regarding cancellations, NDEP                         which requires the Public Utilities                        designated non-attainment for one more
                                                explains that these measures represent                         Commission of Nevada to set incentives                     NAAQS either have been redesignated
                                                additional emission reductions because                         and schedules to produce at least 250                      to attainment and are operating under a
                                                the emissions from these unbuilt                               MW of capacity from solar energy by                        maintenance plan or have a
                                                sources were included in the baseline                          2021. At the time of the Progress Report,                  determination of attainment indicating
                                                and projected emission inventories in                          Nevada had installed 38 MW of capacity                     that the area is attaining the NAAQS.
                                                the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. Of the                           at a cost of $160 million. Another                         The control measures for attainment
                                                five proposed power plants that NDEP                           example of renewable energy is the                         that remain in place include fugitive
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                assumed would be producing emissions,                          ‘‘Solar Thermal Demonstrations                             dust regulations, oxygenated fuel
                                                three withdrew applications (White                                                                                        programs, gasoline vapor recovery,
                                                Pine, Toquop, and Copper Mountain),                              25 Newmont TS is a 220-megawatt power plant
                                                                                                                                                                          transportation control measures,
                                                and two were built (Newmont TS Power                           using coal-fired boilers with modern control
                                                                                                               technologies operating since 2008. Chuck Lenzie is
                                                Plant near Dunphy in northern Nevada                           1,102-megawatt generating station using gas-fired            27 Progress   Report, Chapter 2, pages 2–8 thru
                                                                                                               steam engines operating since 2006.                        2–9.
                                                 24 Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Section 4.3,                       26 Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, Docket           28 Progress   Report, Chapter 2, pages 2–3 thru
                                                November 2009.                                                 No. 14–05003, May 1, 2014, (Appendix C).                   2–6.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014    16:33 Sep 16, 2015   Jkt 235001     PO 00000        Frm 00013       Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                55810                    Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                residential wood burning regulations,                               woodstove replacement programs, and
                                                woodstove replacement programs, and                                 alternative fuel vehicle program.
                                                alternative fuel vehicle program.

                                                                                                                 TABLE 3—STATUS OF FEDERAL MEASURES

                                                                                                                                 Existing Federal Measures

                                                Heavy Duty Highway Rule (PM, NOX, SOX) ......................................................................................................................           Phased in 2006–2010.
                                                Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Program (NOX, VOC) ...........................................................................................................              Effective in 2005.
                                                Non-Road Mobile Diesel Emissions Program (NOX, CO) ..................................................................................................                   Phased in 2004–2012.
                                                Maximum Achievable Control Technology Program ..........................................................................................................                Ongoing Applicability.

                                                                                                                                    New Federal Measures

                                                Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (Toxic Gases, SO2) ..............................................................................................................           Final Rule in 2011.
                                                Revised NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide ....................................................................................................................................   Final Rule in 2010.
                                                Revised NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide ................................................................................................................................     Final Rule in 2010.
                                                Revised NAAQS for Fine Particulate Matter ......................................................................................................................        Final Rule in 2012.
                                                North American Emission Control Areas (NOX, PM2.5, SO2) .............................................................................................                   Effective in 2012; 2015.
                                                Tier 3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Program (SOX) ...........................................................................................                    Effective in 2017.
                                                   PM = Particulate Matter.
                                                   VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds.


                                                2. EPA’s Evaluation                                                 due to the closure of Mohave Generating                               2. EPA’s Evaluation
                                                   EPA proposes to find that NDEP                                   Station, emissions continued to
                                                                                                                                                                                             EPA proposes to find that NDEP
                                                adequately addresses the requirement in                             decrease steadily thereafter. From 2006
                                                                                                                                                                                          adequately addresses the requirement in
                                                40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) to describe the                                 to 2013, power plant emissions of SO2                                 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) to provide a
                                                status of all measures included in the                              decreased by about 20 percent (9,239 to                               summary of the emission reductions
                                                Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP                                      7,427 tpy) and NOX emissions decreased                                from implementing the measures in the
                                                provides a detailed and comprehensive                               by about 61 percent (19,985 to 7,796                                  Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP
                                                update of state and federal measures,                               tpy).30 The closure of units at Reid                                  documents that SO2 and NOX emissions
                                                including new measures that are                                     Gardner and Tracy, and the                                            from Nevada’s power plants have
                                                expected to contribute further to                                   implementation of control measures on                                 decreased substantially, especially due
                                                visibility improvement. The Progress                                other units at Tracy and Fort Churchill,                              to the closure of Mohave. NDEP makes
                                                Report’s description of BART                                        should contribute further emission                                    the case that emissions from the power
                                                implementation, legislation, programs,                              reductions not reflected in the acid rain                             sector should continue to decline as
                                                and rules provides a thorough summary                               data for 2013.                                                        BART controls and SB 123 are
                                                of the regulatory requirements that                                    The Progress Report also quantifies                                implemented, further reducing
                                                underpin Nevada’s regional haze                                     emission reductions resulting from the                                emissions from Reid Gardner, Tracy,
                                                program.                                                            cancellation of plans to construct three                              and Fort Churchill. While it is difficult
                                                B. Summary of Emission Reductions                                   power plants and lower actual                                         to quantify emission reductions from
                                                Achieved                                                            emissions from the two plants that were                               other state and federal programs, we
                                                                                                                    built. NDEP includes this analysis                                    agree that other state and federal
                                                1. NDEP’s Analysis                                                  because projected emissions from these                                measures should contribute to declining
                                                   The Progress Report focuses on SO2                               five sources are included in the                                      emissions, particularly from mobile and
                                                and NOX emissions, which are the                                    emission inventory for 2018 that                                      stationary sources. While the
                                                primary pollutants of concern from                                  provides the basis for the RPG at                                     cancellation of proposed facilities does
                                                anthropogenic sources. NDEP reports                                 Jarbidge. The reductions due to permit                                not constitute emission reductions per
                                                that SO2 and NOX emissions have                                     cancellations are 5,814 tpy of SO2, 6,136                             se, we recognize that the inclusion of
                                                decreased substantially in Nevada due                               tpy of NOX, and 5,814 tpy of particulate                              these projected emissions in the 2018
                                                to the implementation of control                                    matter (PM10). Moreover, the two new                                  inventory likely inflated the projected
                                                measures as well as other changes in                                plants that were built (Newmont and                                   emissions used as the basis of the RPGs
                                                State energy policy and source activity                             Chuck Lenzie) have combined actual                                    for Jarbidge and Class I areas affected by
                                                as described above in the status of                                 emissions in 2012 that are less than                                  Nevada’s emissions. We also note that
                                                measures. According to EPA’s acid rain                              projected for the emission inventory in                               NDEP’s summary of emission
                                                data,29 annual SO2 emissions from                                   2018.31 NDEP states that these                                        reductions is complemented by its
                                                Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) in                              unrealized emissions, in effect, would                                analysis of recent changes in emissions
                                                Nevada decreased by 44,107 tpy (82                                  result in lower modeled visibility                                    from all sources in Section D of this
                                                percent) from 53,346 tpy in 2005 to                                 impairment in 2018, particularly at                                   proposal.
                                                9,239 tpy in 2006. Similarly, NOX                                   Class I areas near southern and eastern
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                emissions from power plants decreased                               Nevada where the two built sources are                                C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions
                                                by 23,257 tpy (54 percent) from 43,242                              located and the three cancelled sources                               and Changes at Jarbidge
                                                tpy in 2005 to 19,985 tpy in 2006. NDEP                             had planned to locate.                                                1. NDEP’s Analysis
                                                points out that while these large
                                                decreases from 2005 to 2006 are mostly                                 30 Progress
                                                                                                                                                                                            Current Visibility Conditions: NDEP
                                                                                                                                     Report, Chapter 3, Table 3–2, page
                                                                                                                    3–5.                                                                  reports on current visibility conditions
                                                 29 USEPA Clean Air Markets Division, Air                              31 Progress   Report, Chapter 3, Table 3–1, page                   for the 20 percent worst days and 20
                                                Markets Program Data, Acid Rain Program.                            3–4.                                                                  percent best days at Jarbidge for the five-


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:33 Sep 16, 2015       Jkt 235001     PO 00000      Frm 00014      Fmt 4702      Sfmt 4702     E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM           17SEP1


                                                                         Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                      55811

                                                years from 2008 to 2012 as displayed in                       light extinction due to particulate                       sources of POM are predominantly
                                                Table 4.32 The five-year annual average                       organic matter (POM), followed by                         natural, while sources of fine soil and
                                                haze index at Jarbidge for this current                       coarse mass and sulfate. On the best                      coarse mass are about equally split
                                                time period is 12.0 dv on worst days                          days, visibility impairment is                            between natural and anthropogenic. The
                                                and 1.9 dv on best days. On worst days,                       dominated by light extinction due to                      dominant source of sulfate is SO2 from
                                                the annual averages for visibility                            sulfate, followed by POM and coarse                       anthropogenic sources.
                                                impairment are strongly influenced by                         mass. The Progress Report notes that

                                                  TABLE 4—CURRENT ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR WORST AND BEST DAYS AT
                                                                                             JARBIDGE 33
                                                                                                                                                                                               Coarse
                                                                                         Haze index         Sulfate           Nitrate          POM              EC               Soil                           Sea salt
                                                               Year                                                                                                                             mass
                                                                                            (dv)           (Mm¥1)            (Mm¥1)           (Mm¥1)          (Mm¥1)           (Mm¥1)          (Mm¥1)           (Mm¥1)

                                                                                                                                   Worst Days

                                                2008 .................................          12.5             3.72               1.12           12.06               1.48           2.61            4.84            0.04
                                                2009 .................................          11.1             4.43               0.53            7.32               1.12           2.31            5.66            0.30
                                                2010 .................................          10.0             3.30               1.04            4.33               0.77           2.49            5.66            0.06
                                                2011 .................................          11.7             4.16               0.67            7.71               1.21           2.49            6.85            0.40
                                                2012 .................................          14.9             3.87               1.18           23.97               3.11           2.63            5.17            0.21
                                                Average ............................            12.0              3.9                0.9            11.1                1.5            2.5             5.6             0.2

                                                                                                                                    Best Days

                                                2008 .................................           1.9             1.14               0.22            0.23               0.09           0.12            0.27            0.05
                                                2009 .................................           1.8             0.95               0.16            0.31               0.11           0.12            0.28            0.03
                                                2010 .................................           1.8             1.09               0.15            0.30               0.12           0.06            0.24            0.03
                                                2011 .................................           2.1             1.21               0.19            0.39               0.13           0.10            0.26            0.07
                                                2012 .................................           2.0             0.95               0.18            0.37               0.18           0.10            0.37            0.04
                                                Average ............................             1.9              1.1                0.2             0.3                0.1            0.1             0.3             0.0
                                                   EC = Elemental Carbon.


                                                   Difference between Current and                             to current visibility conditions (2.6 to                  improvement on worst days based on
                                                Baseline Visibility Conditions: NDEP                          1.9 dv) with corresponding decreases in                   these five-year annual averages.
                                                presents the difference between the                           light extinction for sulfate, nitrate, POM,                  On the best days for each five-year
                                                current five-year annual average (2008–                       and elemental carbon, with the three                      period of annual averages, sulfate
                                                2012) and the baseline five-year annual                       other pollutants remaining the same.                      (ranging from 4.10 to 50.5 percent),
                                                average (2000–2004) for Jarbidge, as                             NDEP also analyzes the relative
                                                                                                                                                                        POM (15.1 to 26.1 percent), and coarse
                                                displayed in Table 5, which also                              percentage contribution and rank of
                                                                                                              each pollutant to visibility impairment                   mass (12.4 to13.2 percent) rank first,
                                                includes successive five-year annual
                                                                                                              on the worst and best days for the five-                  second, and third except for the baseline
                                                averages for the intervening time
                                                                                                              year annual average baseline and                          period in which nitrate is third,
                                                periods (2005–2009, 2006–2010, and
                                                2007–2011).34 The differences                                 successive five-year time periods, as                     contributing 9.8 percent. On average
                                                calculated in the table are between the                       displayed in Table 5.35 This analysis                     across all five-year periods, nitrate and
                                                baseline and the current visibility                           reveals that POM (ranging from 35.5 to                    elemental carbon each contribute about
                                                condition represented by the time                             43.0 percent), coarse mass (21.9 to 26.1                  10 percent to visibility impairment on
                                                period 2008–2012. A negative difference                       percent), and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0                       best days. NDEP explains that the
                                                indicates a reduction in haze (i.e.,                          percent) rank first, second, and third,                   sulfate contribution is most likely high
                                                improved visibility). Comparing                               respectively, as the largest contributors                 because best days represent times when
                                                baseline to current visibility conditions                     to light extinction on worst days in each                 there are fewer emissions from natural
                                                on worst days, the haze index declined                        of the five-year periods from the                         sources, resulting in relatively higher
                                                slightly (12.1 to 12.0 dv) with                               baseline to current time period. On the                   contribution to impairment from
                                                corresponding decreases in light                              worst days, POM dominates the                             anthropogenic emissions. Although the
                                                extinction for sulfate, nitrate, and                          contributions to visibility impairment                    ranking changes from worst days to best
                                                elemental carbon, but a noticeable                            for the baseline as well as all subsequent                days, POM, coarse mass, and sulfate are
                                                increase in POM. On the best days, the                        time periods. The data for sulfate and                    the three largest contributors to
                                                haze index decreases from the baseline                        nitrate show small but continued                          visibility impairment at Jarbidge.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  32 Progress   Report, Chapter 4, Table 4–1, page            gaseous and aerosol concentrations. The haze index          35 Progress Report, Table 4–4, Percent

                                                4–3.                                                          is measured in deciviews, which is a metric of haze       Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species, page
                                                  33 The data on visibility conditions is from the
                                                                                                              proportional to the logarithm of the light extinction.    4–10. These results excluded Rayleigh and are
                                                IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge (JARB1) that                         34 See Progress Report, Chapter 4, Table 4–2, page     expressed as a percentage of Mm¥1.
                                                measures light extinction in terms of inverse
                                                                                                              4–4.
                                                megameters (Mm¥1) that are directly related to



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:33 Sep 16, 2015     Jkt 235001   PO 00000     Frm 00015   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM    17SEP1


                                                55812                      Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                     TABLE 5—BASELINE AND FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR THE WORST AND BEST DAYS AT
                                                                                                 JARBIDGE
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Coarse
                                                                                            Haze index               Sulfate           Nitrate           POM                 EC                 Soil                           Sea salt
                                                           Time period                                                                                                                                        mass
                                                                                               (dv)                 (Mm¥1)            (Mm¥1)            (Mm¥1)             (Mm¥1)             (Mm¥1)         (Mm¥1)            (Mm¥1)

                                                                                                                                             Worst Days

                                                Baseline ...........................                   12.1              4.0                  1.1              10.0               1.6                2.4              5.5             0.1
                                                2005–2009 .......................                      12.4              4.4                  1.4              10.0               1.7                2.6              5.9             0.2
                                                2006–2010 .......................                      12.2              4.0                  1.1               9.6               1.6                2.7              6.1             0.1
                                                2007–2011 .......................                      11.7              3.9                  1.0               8.4               1.2                2.7              6.2             0.2
                                                2008–2012 .......................                      12.0              3.9                  0.9              11.1               1.5                2.5              5.6             0.2
                                                Difference .........................                   ¥0.1             ¥0.1                 ¥0.2               1.1              ¥0.1                0.1              0.1             0.1

                                                                                                                                              Best Days

                                                Baseline ...........................                    2.6              1.2                  0.3              0.8                0.3                0.1              0.3             0.0
                                                2005–2009 .......................                       2.2              1.1                  0.2              0.5                0.2                 0.              0.3             0.0
                                                2006–2010 .......................                       2.0              1.1                  0.2              0.4                0.1                0.1              0.3             0.0
                                                2007–2011 .......................                       2.0              1.1                  0.2              0.3                0.1                0.1              0.3             0.0
                                                2008–2012 .......................                       1.9              1.1                  0.2              0.3                0.1                0.1              0.3             0.0
                                                Difference .........................                   ¥0.7             ¥0.1                 ¥0.1             ¥0.5               ¥0.2                0.0              0.0             0.0



                                                  To support its analysis of current                                   averages, and includes the current                           average of the annual averages reveals
                                                conditions, NDEP presents a set of                                     estimate of natural conditions, as shown                     more clearly the trend in visibility
                                                rolling five-year averages of the annual                               in Table 6.36 The rolling five-year                          conditions over time.

                                                     TABLE 6—FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE HAZE INDEX FOR BASELINE AND SUCCESSIVE TIME PERIODS MEASURED AT
                                                                                                  JARB1
                                                                                                                                             [In deciviews]

                                                                                                                     Baseline                       Interim five-year time periods                      Current
                                                                   Days measured                                    conditions                                                                         conditions             Natural
                                                                    (20 Percent)                                                                                                                                             conditions
                                                                                                                                           2005–2009          2007–2011           2007–2012
                                                                                                                   2000–2004                                                                           2008–2012

                                                Worst ........................................................                 12.1                 12.4                  12.2                11.7                 12.0               7.9
                                                Best ..........................................................                 2.6                  2.2                   2.0                 2.0                  1.9               1.1



                                                  NDEP also presents the change in                                     2018 using the 2008 to 2012 average as                       worst days due to significant
                                                visibility conditions between the                                      displayed in Table 7.37 While visibility                     contribution of POM to light extinction
                                                baseline and current period for best and                               on the best days shows improvement,                          at Jarbidge, particularly in 2012 as
                                                worst days in comparison to the RPG in                                 only modest progress is shown for the                        shown in Table 4.

                                                                                                 TABLE 7—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL SUMMARY FOR JARBIDGE
                                                                                                                                             [In deciviews]

                                                                                       Best days                                                                                  Worst days

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Progress in
                                                          Baseline                          Current                 Visibility           Baseline                Current           Visibility          2018 RPG             2012 to 2018
                                                        (2000–2004)                      (2008–2012)              improvement          (2000–2004)            (2008–2012)        improvement                                    RPG

                                                2.6 ................................             1.9                   0.7                   12.1                  12.0                 0.1                11.05               9.5%



                                                   Changes in Visibility Impairment over                               relatively flat during this current five-                    on the year-to-year variability in
                                                Past Five Years: The distinguishing                                    year period, POM varies by almost 20                         visibility conditions, and can cause a
                                                feature of annual visibility impairment                                Mm¥1, from a low of 4.33 Mm¥1 in                             corresponding increase in the 2008–
                                                on the worst days from 2008 to 2012 is                                 2010 to a high of 23.97 Mm¥1 in 2012.                        2012 five-year annual average. Visibility
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                the variability of light extinction due to                             Levels of POM spiked in 2012, which                          impairment on worst days generally has
                                                POM and its corresponding effect on the                                NDEP attributes to emissions from                            not changed much over the five years
                                                haze index as shown in Table 4. While                                  wildfires. As the table shows, on the                        except for the variations due to light
                                                light extinction for other pollutants is                               worst days POM has a strong influence                        extinction from POM. Visibility on best


                                                  36 Progress     Report Table 4–3, page 4–6.                            37 Progress Report Table 4–6, page 4–14. This

                                                                                                                       table omits the RPG for the best days, which is 2.56
                                                                                                                       dv.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014         16:33 Sep 16, 2015         Jkt 235001      PO 00000     Frm 00016    Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM        17SEP1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                                 55813

                                                days, by contrast, generally is improving                                 2. EPA’s Evaluation                       beginning of Nevada’s current five-year
                                                over the current time period with little                                     EPA proposes to find that NDEP         time period. NDEP also uses NEI data
                                                variability from year to year. For the                                    adequately addresses the requirement in   from 2008 to 2011 to augment its
                                                best days, there is a noticeable reduction                                40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) to assess the         analysis.41 As shown in Table 8,
                                                in visibility impairment due to sulfate,                                  visibility conditions and changes in      emissions of all visibility-impairing
                                                nitrate, POM, and elemental carbon.                                       each of the State’s Class I areas for the pollutants decreased from the baseline
                                                  NDEP presents a trend analysis for the                                  least and most impaired days in terms     inventory to 2008, except for fine soil
                                                period from 2000 to 2012, focusing on                                     of the current conditions, difference     and coarse mass. Notably, actual
                                                sulfates and nitrates, as an annual                                       between current and baseline              emissions in 2008 are lower than the
                                                                                                                          conditions, and over the past five years. projected 2018 emissions for all
                                                average and as a rolling five-year
                                                                                                                          The analysis indicates that visibility on pollutants, with the exception of fine
                                                average during this 13-year time period
                                                                                                                                                                    soil and coarse mass. For example, point
                                                                                                                          the best days at Jarbidge is getting better,
                                                based on IMPROVE data.38 Analyzing
                                                                                                                          but that visibility on the worst days is  source emissions of SO2 decreased by 78
                                                this longer time period demonstrates                                      flat or only minimally improving.         percent, while point source emissions of
                                                that on the worst and best days visibility                                However, NDEP offers compelling           NOX decreased by over 50 percent from
                                                impairment resulting from light                                           evidence that light extinction due to     the baseline to 2008. These large
                                                extinction due to sulfate and nitrate is                                  POM has dominated visibility              reductions in the anthropogenic
                                                improving over time, both on an annual                                    conditions on the worst days,             emissions of SO2 and NOX represent a
                                                basis as well as five-year annual                                         particularly in 2012 as shown in Table    successful strategy of reducing
                                                averages. NDEP also includes an                                           4.                                        anthropogenic emissions within the
                                                analysis showing the effect of a large                                                                              State. NDEP notes that the increase in
                                                spike in nitrates in December 2005 (41                                    D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions
                                                                                                                                                                    fine soil and coarse mass are likely due
                                                Mm¥1) that increases the annual                                           1. NDEP’s Analysis                        to updates in inventory development
                                                average as well as all the five-year                                         NDEP relies on the WRAP’s              methods rather than actual increases,
                                                averages that include data from 2005.                                     analysis 39 to describe the changes in    which is plausible given the small
                                                                                                                          emissions from the baseline 40 in 2002 to changes in soil and coarse mass
                                                                                                                          the emissions inventory in 2008, the      observed at the Jarbridge monitor.

                                                  TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF EMISSION INVENTORIES IN 2002, 2008, AND 2018 FOR NEVADA OF ALL VISIBILITY IMPAIRING
                                                                                              POLLUTANTS 42
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    2008 Actuals as a
                                                                                                                                                 2002 Baseline          2008 Inventory        2018 Projection
                                                                                      Pollutants                                                                                                                     percent of 2018
                                                                                                                                                     (tpy)                  (tpy)                  (tpy)               projections

                                                Sulfur Dioxide ..........................................................................                   67,743                17,058                 46,224                       37
                                                Nitrogen Oxides .......................................................................                    162,397               119,513                135,496                       88
                                                Ammonia ..................................................................................                  12,092                 9,382                 14,503                       65
                                                Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................................                             897,102               351,142                897,707                       39
                                                Primary Organic Aerosol .........................................................                           24,734                11,816                 24,822                       48
                                                Elemental Carbon ....................................................................                        6,409                 4,425                  5,638                       78
                                                Fine Soil ...................................................................................               21,208                40,301                 24,134                      167
                                                Coarse Mass ............................................................................                   161,142               321,257                188,287                      171



                                                  NDEP analyzes the differences                                           significant reduction in particular from                  point sources of 44 percent from 10,409
                                                between the baseline and current                                          point and area sources as shown in                        tpy in 2008 to 5,863 tpy in 2011,
                                                emissions based on WRAP’s                                                 Table 9. Point source emissions alone                     primarily due to reductions in coal-fired
                                                WestJump2008 inventory for eight                                          decreased by 78 percent (50,720 to                        emissions from power plants. On-road
                                                categories of emissions as summarized                                     11,067 tpy) during this period, and area                  and off-road mobile emissions
                                                below. This analysis focuses on the                                       source emissions decreased by 63                          decreased by 34 percent (454 to 298 tpy)
                                                percentage change in the emissions of                                     percent (12,953 to 4,863 tpy). As a                       and 77 percent (1,403 to 322 tpy),
                                                each pollutant by source category in                                      percentage of total statewide emissions,                  respectively, from 2002 to 2008. Data
                                                2002 and 2008, and adds an analysis of                                    anthropogenic and natural, point source                   from the NEI indicate further reductions
                                                changes in emissions from 2008 to 2011                                    emissions decreased from 75 percent of
                                                                                                                                                                                    in emissions from mobile sources from
                                                where NEI data is available.                                              the total in the 2002 (50,720 of 67,743
                                                                                                                                                                                    2008 to 2011, a 47 percent decrease in
                                                  Sulfur Dioxide: Total anthropogenic                                     tons) to 65 percent of the total in the
                                                emissions of SO2 decreased by 75                                          2008 (11,067 tons of a total 16,552 tons).                on-road emissions (511 to 270 tpy) and
                                                percent from 65,543 tons in 2002 to                                       Moreover, the NEI inventories show a                      a 87 percent decrease in off-road
                                                16,552 tons in 2008, representing a                                       further decrease in SO2 emissions from                    emissions (316 to 41 tpy).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  38 Nevada RH Progress Report, Chapter 4, Figures                          40 WRAP refers to the baseline as 2002, the               42 The WRAP compared data between the

                                                4–12 through 4–15, pages 4–15 thru 4–19.                                  midyear of the baseline inventory period from 2000        baseline (2002) and emission inventory (2008) for
                                                  39 WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress                          to 2004.                                                  nine source categories: Point sources, area sources,
                                                                                                                            41 Data from the NEI are slightly different from the
                                                Summary Report, June 28, 2013. West-Wide Jump-                                                                                      oil and gas, on-road mobile, off-road mobile,
                                                                                                                          WestJump2008 inventory, which leverages more              fugitive dust and road dust, windblown dust,
                                                Start Air Quality Modeling Study—Final Report,
                                                                                                                          recent inventory development performed by the
                                                September 30, 2013.                                                                                                                 biogenic, and fires.
                                                                                                                          WRAP.



                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014         16:33 Sep 16, 2015         Jkt 235001      PO 00000        Frm 00017     Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                55814                       Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                                                             TABLE 9—CHANGES IN SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY (TPY)
                                                                                                                                                                                          2002                 2008             Difference
                                                                                                   Source category                                                                      (Baseline)        (WestJump2008)     (percent change)

                                                                                                                                              Anthropogenic Sources

                                                Point ...........................................................................................................................              50,720               11,067   ¥39,653(¥78%)
                                                Area ...........................................................................................................................               12,953                4,863    ¥8,090(¥62%)
                                                On-Road Mobile .........................................................................................................                          454                  298     ¥156 (¥34%)
                                                Off-Road Mobile .........................................................................................................                       1,403                  322    ¥1,081(¥77%)
                                                Area Oil and Gas .......................................................................................................                            0                    0               0
                                                Fugitive and Road Dust .............................................................................................                                0                    0               0
                                                Anthropogenic Fire ....................................................................................................                            12                    2      ¥10 (¥83%)

                                                      Total Anthropogenic ...........................................................................................                          65,543               16,552   ¥48,991 (¥75%)

                                                                                                                                                    Natural Sources

                                                Natural Fire ................................................................................................................                   2,200                 506     ¥1,694 (¥77%)
                                                Biogenic .....................................................................................................................                      0                   0                 0
                                                Windblown Dust .........................................................................................................                            0                   0                 0

                                                      Total Natural .......................................................................................................                     2,200                 506     ¥1,694 (¥77%)

                                                                                                                                                        All Sources

                                                      Total Emissions ..................................................................................................                       67,743               17,058   ¥50,685 (¥75%)



                                                  Nitrogen Oxides: The total statewide                                       decreased by about 48 percent (32,565                               increase in on-road mobile NOX
                                                inventory of NOX emissions from all                                          to 17,081 tpy), and area sources                                    emissions, possibly related to
                                                sources decreased by 26 percent from                                         increased by 98 percent (5,725 to 11,321                            population growth. The NEI shows a
                                                162,397 tpy in 2002 to 118,766 tpy in                                        tpy). Increases in on-road mobile and                               continuing decrease in off-road mobile
                                                2008 as shown in Table 10. Over this                                         area source emission inventories were                               emissions of 12 percent from 2008 to
                                                time period, NOX emissions from                                              offset by larger decreases in emissions                             2012. NDEP states that the increase in
                                                anthropogenic sources decreased by 23                                        from point and off-road mobile sources.                             emissions from area sources may be a
                                                percent (139,353 tpy to 107,827 tpy),                                        The NEI point source inventory shows                                result of a reclassification of some off-
                                                and natural emissions decreased by 53                                        a decrease of 57 percent in NOX                                     road mobile sources into area source
                                                percent (23,044 tpy to 10,939 tpy).                                          emissions from 2008 to 2011. NDEP
                                                                                                                                                                                                 category, which may have contributed
                                                Anthropogenic emissions of NOX in                                            attributes the 22 percent increase in on-
                                                                                                                                                                                                 to the decrease in emissions from off-
                                                Nevada are primarily from point and on-                                      road mobile emissions to the use of
                                                road mobile sources, followed by off-                                        different air quality models to estimate                            road mobile sources. This is consistent
                                                road and area sources. From the 2002 to                                      emissions in 2002 (MOBILE6) and in                                  with the reclassification of in-flight
                                                2008 inventories, NOX emissions from                                         2008 (MOVES2010), a growth in the                                   aircraft emissions and locomotive
                                                point sources decreased by about 50                                          number of vehicles, and the fact that                               emissions outside of rail yards from the
                                                percent (59,864 to 29,344 tpy), on-road                                      federal vehicle emissions standards                                 off-road mobile category to the area
                                                mobile increased by about 22 percent                                         were not fully implemented. NEI data                                source category in the 2008 NEI.43
                                                (41,089 to 50,068 tpy), off-road mobile                                      from 2008 and 2011 show a 36 percent

                                                                                           TABLE 10—CHANGES IN NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY (TPY)
                                                                                                                                                                                          2002                 2008             Difference
                                                                                                   Source category                                                                      (Baseline)        (WestJump2008)     (percent change)

                                                                                                                                              Anthropogenic Sources

                                                Point ...........................................................................................................................              59,864               29,344           ¥30,520
                                                Area ...........................................................................................................................                5,725               11,321             5,597
                                                On-Road Mobile .........................................................................................................                       41,089               50,068             8,979
                                                Off-Road Mobile .........................................................................................................                      32,565               17,081           ¥15,484
                                                Area Oil and Gas .......................................................................................................                           63                    0              ¥63
                                                Fugitive and Road Dust .............................................................................................                                0                    0                 0
                                                Anthropogenic Fire ....................................................................................................                            48                   13              ¥35
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                      Total Anthropogenic ...........................................................................................                         139,353              107,827   ¥31,526 (¥23%)

                                                                                                                                                    Natural Sources

                                                Natural Fire ................................................................................................................                   8,026                3,575             ¥4,451



                                                  43 See http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/

                                                2008inventory.html (‘‘Description of NEI Data
                                                Categories’’).

                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014          16:33 Sep 16, 2015         Jkt 235001       PO 00000        Frm 00018        Fmt 4702       Sfmt 4702       E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                                    55815

                                                                              TABLE 10—CHANGES IN NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY (TPY)—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                       2002                 2008             Difference
                                                                                                  Source category                                                                    (Baseline)        (WestJump2008)     (percent change)

                                                Biogenic .....................................................................................................................              15,018                7,364            ¥7,654
                                                Windblown Dust .........................................................................................................                         0                    0                 0

                                                      Total Natural .......................................................................................................                 23,044               10,939   ¥12,105 (¥53%)

                                                                                                                                                     All Sources

                                                      Total Emissions ..................................................................................................                   162,397              118,766   ¥43,631 (¥26%)



                                                  Ammonia: Total statewide emissions                                       (17,606 to 4,204 tpy), and an increase in                          fugitive dust (6,128 to 19,216 tpy) and
                                                of ammonia decreased by 22 percent                                         area sources (28,592 to 40,973 tpy), all                           windblown dust (10,438 to 17,051 tpy).
                                                (12,092 to 9,382 tpy) from 2002 to 2008.                                   of which are a very small part of the                              NDEP reports that increases in these
                                                Of this total, anthropogenic emissions                                     total inventory. VOC emissions in the                              source categories were likely due to
                                                decreased by 34 percent (10,408 to 6,893                                   NEI show a decrease in point source (17                            updates to inventory development
                                                tpy) while natural emissions increased                                     percent), on-road mobile (20 percent),                             methods rather than actual increases.
                                                by 48 percent (1,684 to 2,490 tpy). The                                    and off road mobile (18 percent) from                                 Coarse Mass: Total emissions of
                                                primary source of anthropogenic                                            2008 to 2011.                                                      coarse mass increased by about 99
                                                emissions of ammonia is area sources,                                         Primary Organic Aerosol: Wildfires                              percent (161,142 to 321,257 tpy), mostly
                                                and to a lesser extent on-road mobile                                      are the dominant source of primary                                 due to large increases in anthropogenic
                                                sources, while fire is the dominant                                        organic aerosol (POA) emissions, 90                                fugitive and road dust (56,799 to
                                                natural source.44 Area sources of                                          percent of the total in 2002 (22,501 of                            161,532 tpy) and in natural windblown
                                                ammonia emissions decreased by about                                       a total 24,734 tpy) and 58 percent in                              dust (93,946 to 153,459 tpy). Fugitive
                                                29 percent (8,009 to 5,717 tpy) from                                       2008 (6,831 of a total 11,816 tpy).                                dust includes sources such as
                                                2002 to 2008. On-road mobile sources,                                      Anthropogenic sources, namely area                                 agricultural operations, construction,
                                                the next largest category of                                               and mobile, also are important                                     and mining operations. Windblown dust
                                                anthropogenic emissions, decreased by                                      contributors. Overall, total emissions of                          is largely from vacant lands. NDEP
                                                about 58 percent (2,030 to 849 tpy).                                       POA decreased by 52 percent from 2002                              attributes these increases in part to
                                                Despite an increase of 48 percent in                                       to 2008. Natural fire emissions of POA                             updates in the inventory development
                                                natural fire (1,684 to 2,490 tpy), there                                   decreased 70 percent (22,501 to 6,831                              methods rather than actual increases.
                                                was a net decrease in statewide                                            tpy), reflecting the high variability of                           Nonetheless, increases in fugitive dust
                                                emissions. Ammonia is not a criteria                                       wildfires from year to year. Except for                            may be due to increases in population,
                                                pollutant and is not included in the NEI,                                  anthropogenic fire, all other categories                           while increases in road dust may be due
                                                so no data for 2011 were provided.                                         of anthropogenic sources of POA                                    to increases in vehicle miles traveled.
                                                   Volatile Organic Compounds: Data                                        (primarily area, mobile, and fugitive)                             Point source and natural fire emissions
                                                from the 2002 and 2008 inventories as                                      increased during this time period with                             decreased.
                                                well as from the NEI for the 2008 to                                       the total anthropogenic emissions
                                                2011 time period show large reductions                                                                                                        2. EPA’s Evaluation
                                                                                                                           increasing by 123 percent from 2,233 to
                                                in volatile organic compounds (VOC)                                        4,985 tpy.                                                           We propose to find that NDEP
                                                emissions from natural sources with                                                                                                           adequately addresses the requirement in
                                                                                                                              Elemental Carbon: Natural fire (i.e.,
                                                lesser reductions from anthropogenic                                                                                                          40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to analyze the
                                                                                                                           wildfires) also dominate EC emissions at
                                                sources. Biogenic emissions from                                                                                                              change in emissions over the past five
                                                                                                                           73 percent of the 2002 inventory (4,674
                                                natural sources dominate the Nevada                                                                                                           years of pollutants contributing to
                                                                                                                           of 6,409 tpy), but only 23 percent of the
                                                VOC emissions inventory. Total                                                                                                                visibility impairment from all sources
                                                                                                                           2008 inventory (1,130 to 4,425 tpy), a
                                                statewide VOC emissions decreased by                                                                                                          and activities within the state, using the
                                                                                                                           reduction of 76 percent (4,674 to 1,130
                                                61 percent from 897,102 tpy in 2002 to                                                                                                        most recently updated emission
                                                                                                                           tpy). Consequently, total emissions
                                                351,142 tpy in 2008. This large                                                                                                               inventories. NDEP’s analysis of
                                                                                                                           decreased by 31 percent (6,409 to 4,425
                                                reduction is mostly due to a decrease in                                                                                                      emission data makes a strong case that
                                                                                                                           tpy) mostly due to the decrease in
                                                biogenic emissions over this time period                                                                                                      the State is reducing emissions of SO2
                                                                                                                           natural fire. Total anthropogenic
                                                by 67 percent from 794,139 tpy to                                                                                                             and NOX from anthropogenic sources,
                                                                                                                           emissions increased by 90 percent
                                                262,912 tpy. NDEP notes that these                                                                                                            especially point sources.
                                                                                                                           (1,735 to 3,295 tpy) due mostly to an
                                                changes may reflect enhancements to
                                                                                                                           increase in on-road mobile sources from                            E. Assessment of Anthropogenic
                                                the inventory method, use of different
                                                                                                                           235 to 1,891 tpy over this time period.                            Emissions Impeding Progress
                                                meteorological years, and improved
                                                                                                                           On-road mobile is the largest source of
                                                emission factors and data sources. There                                                                                                      1. NDEP’s Analysis
                                                                                                                           elemental carbon in the 2008 inventory
                                                were also decreases in on-road mobile
                                                                                                                           at 43 percent, while the next largest                                 NDEP reports that progress toward
                                                (36,257 to 21,302 tpy) and natural fire
                                                                                                                           category is natural fire emissions
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                                                                                                              achieving its visibility goal of 11.05 dv
                                                  44 The WRAP has created an operational policy
                                                                                                                           contributing 26 percent. Area and point                            at Jarbidge by 2018 has not been
                                                level definition of fire activity as discretely natural                    sources, by contrast, contribute less than                         impeded by any significant
                                                or anthropogenic. See the WRAP Regional Haze                               one percent each to the 2008 inventory.                            anthropogenic emission changes within
                                                Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report, section                              Fine Soil: Total emissions of fine soils                        or outside the State. NDEP reaches this
                                                3.2.1 and the WRAP’s Policy for Categorizing Fire
                                                Emissions (November 15, 2001), available at
                                                                                                                           increased by 90 percent (21,208 to                                 conclusion by evaluating significant
                                                http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/                              40,301 tpy) from the 2002 to the 2008                              emission changes within Nevada, the
                                                nbtt/FirePolicy.pdf.                                                       inventory. The largest increases were in                           effect of emissions from sources outside


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014         16:33 Sep 16, 2015         Jkt 235001       PO 00000       Frm 00019        Fmt 4702      Sfmt 4702       E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                55816                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of                                    extinction, due to a spike in 2012 that                           presented in Table 11.47 The years 2002,
                                                Nevada’s emissions on nearby Class I                                        NDEP attributes to wildfires.45 On the                            2005, 2008, and 2011 are the most
                                                areas.                                                                      best days, visibility impairment is                               complete inventory years submitted to
                                                   Emission Changes within Nevada and                                       reduced from the baseline to the current                          EPA for the NEI. The data for 2012 are
                                                Visibility Conditions at Jarbidge: NDEP                                     period due to decreases in extinction                             actual emission values for major and
                                                analyzes the baseline and rolling five-                                     from sulfate, nitrate, POM, and                                   minor point sources from Nevada’s
                                                year annual averages of light extinction                                    elemental carbon. Light extinction for                            permitting database. As shown in the
                                                data from the JARB1 monitor for the                                         soil, coarse mass, and sea salt remain                            table, SO2 emissions from point sources
                                                best and worst days from 2005 through                                       fairly constant on best days.                                     dropped dramatically after the closure
                                                2012. For the worst days, the data show                                        Actual emissions of SO2, NOX, PM10,                            of Mohave in 2005, and decreased by
                                                a reduction in sulfate and nitrate                                          and VOC from point sources in                                     another 50 percent from 2008 to 2012.
                                                extinction for the three most recent five-                                  Nevada 46 have decreased significantly                            Likewise, NOX emissions decreased by
                                                year periods (2006–2010, 2007–2011,                                         over a 10-year period (2002–2012) and                             30,000 tpy after 2005, and decreased
                                                and 2008–2012), but an increase in POM                                      over the last five years (2008–2012) as                           another 62 percent from 2008 to 2012.

                                                                                                 TABLE 11—ACTUAL EMISSIONS OF NEVADA POINT SOURCES (TPY)
                                                                                                      Year                                                                       SO2            NOX                PM10                VOC

                                                2002   .................................................................................................................           50,619           55,876              6,868               2,132
                                                2005   .................................................................................................................           54,243           52,087              4,643               1,646
                                                2008   .................................................................................................................           10,497           21,680              3,465               1,600
                                                2011   .................................................................................................................            5,959           10,548              3,331                 971
                                                2012   .................................................................................................................            5,278            8,324              2,629                 986
                                                   PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns.


                                                   Emissions from Outside Sources                                           on the worst days at Jarbidge. The area                           extinction from sulfates and nitrates at
                                                Effecting Jarbidge: NDEP’s analysis                                         of greatest sulfate contribution is                               Class I areas in adjacent states in 2018.50
                                                focuses on three BART sources in Idaho                                      Outside Domain 49 (43.8 percent),                                 In light of the 75 percent reduction in
                                                and Oregon to determine whether these                                       followed by Idaho (10.3 percent),                                 Nevada’s SO2 emissions (see Table 9)
                                                previously identified point sources are                                     Oregon (7.2 percent), and Pacific                                 and 26 percent reduction in NOX
                                                impeding progress on the worst days at                                      Offshore (6.9 percent). The area of                               emissions (see Table 10) between 2002
                                                Jarbidge. Comparing baseline emissions                                      greatest nitrate contribution is Idaho                            and 2008, NDEP concludes that
                                                to the NEI in 2011, total SO2 emissions                                     (30.3 percent), followed by Outside                               Nevada’s emission reductions are not
                                                from these three sources decrease by                                        Domain (27.5 percent), Nevada (13.1                               impeding progress in reducing visibility
                                                about 40 percent (26,243 to 15,782 tpy)                                     percent), and Utah (10.6 percent). Based                          impairment at Class I areas in adjacent
                                                from 2002 to 2011. Total NOX emissions                                      on these results, Idaho is the second                             states.
                                                decrease by about 31 percent (11,010 to                                     largest contributor of modeled sulfate
                                                7,611 tpy) over the same time period.                                       and the largest contributor of modeled                            2. EPA’s Evaluation
                                                Moreover, emissions from these sources                                      nitrate concentrations. Oregon is the                                EPA proposes to find that NDEP
                                                will continue to decline over time given                                    third largest contributor of modeled                              adequately addresses the requirement in
                                                staggered compliance dates through                                          sulfate concentrations. While this                                40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to assess any
                                                2018. With visibility impairment                                            analysis supports the focus on                                    significant changes in anthropogenic
                                                resulting from sulfate and nitrate                                          emissions from Idaho and Oregon, the                              emissions within or outside the state
                                                trending downward at Jarbidge and the                                       fact that Outside Domain contributes                              over the past five years that have limited
                                                implementation of BART controls in                                          43.8 percent of the modeled sulfate and                           or impeded progress in reducing
                                                Idaho and Oregon, NDEP concludes that                                       27.5 percent of the modeled nitrate is                            emissions and improving visibility.
                                                there are no significant changes in                                         another indication that Nevada has                                NDEP provides a comprehensive
                                                anthropogenic emissions from outside                                        limited control over a large subset of the                        analysis of emission changes within and
                                                the State that are impeding progress at                                     emissions impairing visibility at                                 outside the State, and examines the
                                                Jarbidge.                                                                   Jarbidge.                                                         potential effect of these changes at
                                                   In assessing point source emissions                                        Nevada’s Emissions Effect on Nearby                             Jarbidge and at other Class I areas. All
                                                from Idaho and Oregon, NDEP                                                 Class I Areas: NDEP also addresses the                            indications are that the total statewide
                                                references source apportionment                                             potential effect of Nevada’s emissions                            emissions of SO2 and NOX are
                                                modeling of particulate sulfate and                                         on nearby Class I areas in other states                           decreasing (see Tables 9, 10, and 11),
                                                nitrate extinction for 2018 that was                                        using particulate source apportionment                            and most of the pollutants are already
                                                performed by the WRAP for the Nevada                                        modeling conducted by the WRAP for                                at levels below those in the projected
                                                Regional Haze SIP.48 The purpose of the                                     the first round of regional haze SIPs.                            emission inventory for 2018 (see Table
                                                modeling is to determine source areas                                       This modeling estimated Nevada’s                                  8). Based on NDEP’s analysis, EPA
                                                that contribute to visibility impairment                                    projected contributions to light                                  proposes to concur with NDEP that
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  45 Progress   Report, Chapter 6, pages 6–2 thru                              48 Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Table 4–               domain, in this case the western United States and
                                                6–3.                                                                        5: Summary of 2018 Model Results for Jarbidge                     portions of Canada and Mexico.
                                                  46 SO emissions from point sources were 68
                                                        2                                                                   Wilderness Area, based on Particulate Matter                        50 Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Tables
                                                percent of the total anthropogenic emissions in                             Source Attribution Tracking, page 31.                             4–3: Nevada’s Sulfate Extinction Contribution to
                                                Nevada in 2008 (WestJump2008). Area source                                     49 Outside Domain as a source category represents              Class I Areas Outside of Nevada and Table 4–4:
                                                emissions of SO2 were 29 percent of total
                                                anthropogenic emissions in 2008.                                            the background concentrations of pollutants from                  Nevada’s Nitrate Extinction Contribution to Class I
                                                  47 Progress Report, Table 6–1, page 6–4.                                  international sources that enter the modeling                     Areas Outside of Nevada, pages 14–17.




                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:33 Sep 16, 2015           Jkt 235001        PO 00000        Frm 00020        Fmt 4702        Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                                          Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                   55817

                                                there is no evidence that any recent                                     much of the anthropogenic emissions                  assess whether the current elements and
                                                changes in emissions from any specific                                   are from out-of-state. NDEP states that              strategies in the Regional Haze
                                                sources or source categories are                                         given the current and expected SO2 and               Implementation Plan are sufficient to
                                                impeding progress.                                                       NOX emission reductions from power                   enable Nevada, and other states affected
                                                                                                                         plants, further reductions from any                  by Nevada’s emissions, to meet all
                                                F. Assessment of Plan Elements and
                                                Strategy                                                                 other non-utility or industrial point                established RPGs.
                                                                                                                         sources are unnecessary at this time.                   In particular, the Report analyzes
                                                1. NDEP’s Analysis                                                          Regarding visibility conditions, trend            trends in statewide emissions and
                                                   The Progress Report concludes that                                    analysis of monitoring data at Jarbidge              visibility conditions at Jarbidge, as well
                                                the existing elements and strategies in                                  from 2000 to 2012 demonstrates                       as the additional emission reductions
                                                the Nevada Regional Haze                                                 improvement in visibility impairment                 expected through 2018. The Report
                                                Implementation Plan are sufficient to                                    from sulfate and nitrate on the worst                indicates that anthropogenic emissions
                                                enable Nevada and other neighboring                                      and best days, both on an annual                     of SO2, NOX, ammonia and VOC are
                                                states to meet the RPGs by 2018 in terms                                 average basis as well as five-year annual            decreasing. In particular, the emission
                                                of reducing emissions from                                               averages.51 NDEP notes that, although                reductions reflect substantial decreases
                                                anthropogenic sources. Nevada has                                        the visibility benefit from anthropogenic            in total anthropogenic emissions of SO2
                                                already achieved significant emission                                    emission reductions is overshadowed by               and NOX. However, anthropogenic
                                                reductions in the first phase of the                                     contributions from natural sources,                  emissions of POA, fine soil, elemental
                                                regional haze program, with additional                                   visibility is slowly improving at Jarbidge           carbon and coarse mass are increasing.
                                                reductions expected by 2018. Actual                                      on the worst days and shows                          While these increases may be partially
                                                emissions of visibility impairing                                        considerable improvement on the best                 attributable to changes in inventory
                                                pollutants in 2008, with the exception                                   days (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). Where it              development methodologies, they
                                                of fine soil and coarse mass, are already                                appears that visibility improvement on               highlight the need for greater attention
                                                less than the projected emissions in                                     worst days is not keeping pace with                  to these pollutants in future planning
                                                2018 (see Table 8). Notably actual SO2                                   emission reductions (e.g., the 14.9 dv               periods.
                                                emissions in 2008 are about 40 percent                                   annual average for 2012 in Table 4),                    With regard to visibility trends, the
                                                and actual NOX emissions are about 90                                    NDEP asserts that this is due to large               Progress Report explains that Jarbidge is
                                                percent of the respective totals in the                                  contributions from natural sources (e.g.,            not on track to meet the 2018 RPG for
                                                projected emission inventory for 2018.                                   light extinction from POM of 23.97                   the worst days due to the large
                                                The NEI data for 2008 and 2011 also                                      Mm¥1 in 2012). In terms of                           contribution from POM, which NDEP
                                                demonstrate further reductions in SO2                                    anthropogenic sources, NDEP notes that               attributes mostly to wildfires and
                                                and NOX emissions from point sources                                     sulfate contributes the most to visibility           windblown dust. EPA concurs that POM
                                                in Nevada (see Table 11). Moreover,                                      impairment on worst days at Jarbidge,                has a large impact on the worst days and
                                                further reductions in anthropogenic                                      but most of the sulfate is from out-of-              that much of the POM is attributable to
                                                emissions are expected from the power                                    state sources. Nitrate has only a small              natural sources, particularly wildfires.
                                                sector as a result of BART                                               contribution to visibility impairment on             Furthermore, we note that the trend of
                                                implementation, shutdowns, and                                           the worst days.                                      high POM extinction (with significant
                                                conversions to natural gas or lower                                                                                           interannual variability) dominating the
                                                                                                                         2. EPA’s Evaluation
                                                sulfur fuels. In the case of Jarbidge,                                                                                        worst days at Jarbidge has continued
                                                NDEP notes that emissions from natural                                     EPA proposes to find that the Progress             during 2013 and 2014, for which the
                                                sources can dominate visibility                                          Report adequately addresses the                      IMPROVE data are now available, as
                                                impairment on the worst days, and                                        requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) to                shown in Tables 12 and 13.

                                                               TABLE 12—2013 AND 2014 AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR WORST AND BEST DAYS AT JARBIDGE
                                                                                                                          Haze                                                                        Coarse
                                                                                                                                      Sulfate        Nitrate       POM          EC            Soil              Sea salt
                                                                               Year                                       index                                                                        mass
                                                                                                                                     (Mm¥1)         (Mm¥1)        (Mm¥1)      (Mm¥1)        (Mm¥1)    (Mm¥1)    (Mm¥1)
                                                                                                                           (dv)

                                                                                                                                          Worst Days

                                                2013 .................................................................       11.7           3.5           1.0          8.4            1.3       2.7       5.9        0.1
                                                2014 .................................................................       12.2           3.1           0.6         14.5            2.3       2.2       4.5        0.2

                                                                                                                                           Best Days

                                                2013 .................................................................        1.5           0.9           0.1           0.2           0.0       0.1       0.2        0.0
                                                2014 .................................................................        1.8           1.0           0.2           0.3           0.1       0.1       0.2        0.1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  51 Progress Report, Chapter 4, Section 4.6:

                                                Visibility Trends, pages 4–15 thru 4–19.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014         16:33 Sep 16, 2015        Jkt 235001       PO 00000   Frm 00021   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                55818                    Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                           TABLE 13—FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR WORST AND BEST DAYS AT JARBIDGE
                                                                                                                     Haze                                                                        Coarse
                                                                                                                                 Sulfate        Nitrate       POM          EC            Soil              Sea salt
                                                                             Year                                    index                                                                        mass
                                                                                                                                (Mm¥1)         (Mm¥1)        (Mm¥1)      (Mm¥1)        (Mm¥1)    (Mm¥1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                           (Mm¥1)
                                                                                                                      (dv)

                                                                                                                                     Worst Days

                                                2009–2013 .......................................................       12.0           3.8           0.9         10.7            1.5       2.5       5.9        0.2
                                                2010–2014 .......................................................       12.2           3.6           0.9         12.1            1.8       2.5       5.6        0.2

                                                                                                                                      Best Days

                                                2009–2013 .......................................................        1.9           1.0           0.2           0.4           0.1       0.1       0.3        0.0
                                                2010–2014 .......................................................        1.9           1.0           0.2           0.4           0.1       0.1       0.3        0.0



                                                  However, we also note that not all                                any modifications as necessary. We are               visibility conditions on the worst days
                                                POM is from natural sources. POA and                                not aware of any evidence of a need to               are relatively flat or only slightly
                                                VOC, the precursors to POM, are also                                modify Nevada’s monitoring strategy for              improving. However, this lack of
                                                emitted by anthropogenic sources,                                   measuring visibility at this time.                   progress on the worst days is largely
                                                particularly area and mobile sources.                                                                                    attributable to the impact of POM,
                                                                                                                    H. Determination of Adequacy
                                                Moreover, other pollutants, particularly                                                                                 which results primarily from natural
                                                coarse mass and sulfates, both of which                             1. NDEP’s Determination                              sources. Therefore, we propose to
                                                have a significant anthropogenic                                                                                         approve NDEP’s determination that the
                                                                                                                      NDEP has determined that no
                                                component, also contribute to                                                                                            Nevada Regional Haze Implementation
                                                                                                                    substantive revision of the Nevada
                                                impairment on the worst days at                                                                                          Plan requires no substantive revisions at
                                                                                                                    Regional Haze Implementation Plan is
                                                Jarbidge. Accordingly, in developing its                                                                                 this time.
                                                                                                                    warranted at this time in order to
                                                Regional Haze SIP for the next planning
                                                                                                                    achieve the RPGs in 2018 for visibility              I. Consultation With Federal Land
                                                period, NDEP should consider
                                                                                                                    improvement at Jarbidge and at other                 Managers
                                                implementing additional control
                                                                                                                    Class I areas affected by emissions from
                                                measures to address anthropogenic                                                                                        1. NDEP’s Consultation
                                                                                                                    Nevada. NDEP concludes that no
                                                emissions of POA, VOC, SO2, and coarse
                                                                                                                    additional controls are necessary based                 NDEP provided FLMs with a draft
                                                mass.
                                                                                                                    on the evidence presented in the                     Progress Report on June 14, 2014, for a
                                                  Nonetheless, given the substantial                                Progress Report regarding the first half             60-day review prior to the public
                                                reductions in anthropogenic emissions                               of the first phase of the program. The               comment period, received comments
                                                of SO2 and NOX, improvement in                                      Report documents a substantial                       from the U.S. Department of Interior
                                                visibility conditions on the best days,                             reduction in anthropogenic emissions in              National Parks Service (NPS) and the
                                                and evidence that the worst days are                                Nevada as well as an improvement in                  U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
                                                slowly improving, we propose to find                                visibility at Jarbidge even though BART              Service (USFS), and responded to those
                                                that the current plan is sufficient for                             controls and other state and federal                 comments as documented in Appendix
                                                meeting the RPGs.                                                   measures are not yet fully implemented.              C of the Progress Report. The letter from
                                                G. Review of Visibility Monitoring                                  Further changes in source activity that              NPS dated August 15, 2014, supported
                                                Strategy                                                            were not included in the State’s plan                the Report’s findings, and provided four
                                                                                                                    further support the conclusion that                  short comments on how to improve
                                                1. NDEP’s Analysis                                                  progress is adequate.                                specific aspects of the analyses. The
                                                   The primary monitoring network,                                                                                       letter from USFS dated August 29, 2014,
                                                                                                                    2. EPA’s Evaluation
                                                nationally and in Nevada, for the                                                                                        acknowledged the opportunity to work
                                                measurement and characterization of                                    EPA proposes to find that NDEP                    with NDEP, but provided no specific
                                                pollutants contributing to regional haze                            adequately addresses the requirements                comments. In the Progress Report, NDEP
                                                is the IMPROVE network. NDEP intends                                in 40 CFR 51.308(h) by determining that              reaffirmed its commitment to continue
                                                to rely on the continued availability of                            the existing Nevada Regional Haze                    participating in the WRAP and
                                                quality assured data collected through                              Implementation Plan requires no                      consulting with other states, FLMs, and
                                                the IMPROVE network to comply with                                  substantive revisions at this time to                tribes regarding SIP revisions and
                                                the regional haze monitoring                                        achieve the established RPGs at Jarbidge             implementation of other programs that
                                                requirements in the RHR. NDEP finds                                 and at other Class I areas affected by               may contribute to visibility impairment.
                                                that the IMPROVE site at Jarbidge,                                  emissions from Nevada. We propose to
                                                                                                                    concur with the State’s negative                     2. EPA’s Evaluation
                                                Nevada’s only Class I area, is
                                                sufficiently representative to support a                            declaration based on the analysis and                  EPA proposes to find that NDEP has
                                                determination of reasonable progress.                               documentation presented in the                       addressed the requirements in 40 CFR
                                                NDEP concludes that no modification to                              Progress Report.                                     51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                the State’s visibility monitoring strategy                             NDEP demonstrates that emissions                  FLMs with an opportunity for
                                                is necessary at this time.                                          from anthropogenic sources within the                consultation in person and at least 60
                                                                                                                    State are decreasing as are emissions                days prior to a public hearing on the
                                                2. EPA’s Evaluation
                                                                                                                    from point sources in Idaho and Oregon               revised plan; include a description in
                                                  EPA proposes to find that NDEP                                    that contribute to visibility impairment             the revised plan of how it addressed any
                                                adequately addresses the requirement in                             at Jarbidge. While the monitoring data               comments from the FLMs; and provide
                                                40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) to review its                                   indicates that best days at Jarbidge are             procedures for continuing consultation
                                                visibility monitoring strategy and make                             getting better, we are concerned that                between the State and FLMs. These


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014       16:33 Sep 16, 2015       Jkt 235001     PO 00000   Frm 00022   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                         55819

                                                procedural requirements for the                         Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,                   DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                                Progress Report, a revision to the                      October 4, 1993);
                                                Regional Haze SIP in this case, are                        • does not impose an information                   National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                                documented in Appendices C and D                        collection burden under the provisions                Administration
                                                attached to the Report.                                 of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
                                                                                                        U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);                                 50 CFR Part 622
                                                J. Public Participation
                                                                                                           • is certified as not having a                     RIN 0648–BD76
                                                1. NDEP’s Public Process                                significant economic impact on a
                                                   NDEP provided a 30-day public                        substantial number of small entities                  Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
                                                comment period on the draft Progress                    under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5               Mexico, and South Atlantic; Dolphin
                                                Report as well as an opportunity for a                  U.S.C. 601 et seq.);                                  and Wahoo Fishery Off the Atlantic
                                                public hearing. The public hearing,                        • does not contain any unfunded                    States and Snapper-Grouper Fishery of
                                                scheduled for October 15, 2014, was                     mandate or significantly or uniquely                  the South Atlantic Region;
                                                cancelled because no request for a                      affect small governments, as described                Amendments 7/33
                                                hearing was received. During the public                 in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
                                                comment period, NDEP received one set                   of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);                              AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries
                                                of comments from the Sierra Club and                       • does not have Federalism                         Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
                                                National Parks Conservation                             implications as specified in Executive                Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
                                                Association in a letter dated October 16,               Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,                  Commerce.
                                                2014.52 These organizations questioned                  1999);                                                ACTION: Notice of availability; request
                                                whether NDEP’s analysis supports its                       • is not an economically significant               for comments.
                                                determination that progress in                          regulatory action based on health or
                                                                                                                                                              SUMMARY:   The South Atlantic Fishery
                                                implementing the Nevada Regional                        safety risks subject to Executive Order
                                                                                                                                                              Management Council (Council) has
                                                Haze Implementation Plan is adequate                    13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
                                                                                                                                                              submitted Amendment 7 to the Fishery
                                                to achieve the 2018 RPGs for Jarbidge                      • is not a significant regulatory action
                                                and other Class I areas affected by                                                                           Management Plan (FMP) for the Dolphin
                                                                                                        subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
                                                Nevada’s emissions. NDEP provided                                                                             and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic
                                                                                                        28355, May 22, 2001);
                                                                                                                                                              States (Dolphin and Wahoo FMP) and
                                                detailed responses to these comments in                    • is not subject to requirements of                Amendment 33 to the FMP for the
                                                Appendix D of the Progress Report.                      Section 12(d) of the National                         Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
                                                2. EPA’s Evaluation                                     Technology Transfer and Advancement                   Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP)
                                                                                                        Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because              (Amendments 7/33) for review,
                                                   EPA proposes to find that NDEP has                   it does not involve technical standards;
                                                fulfilled the requirements of CAA 110(a)                                                                      approval, and implementation by
                                                                                                        and                                                   NMFS. Amendments 7/33 propose
                                                and (l) and 40 CFR 51.102 regarding                        • does not provide EPA with the
                                                reasonable notice and public hearings.                                                                        actions to revise the landing fish intact
                                                                                                        discretionary authority to address, as                provisions for vessels that lawfully
                                                VI. EPA’s Proposed Action                               appropriate, disproportionate human                   harvest dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-
                                                  EPA is proposing to approve the                       health or environmental effects, using                grouper in or from Bahamian waters and
                                                Nevada Regional Haze Progress Report                    practicable and legally permissible                   return to the U.S exclusive economic
                                                submitted to EPA on November 18,                        methods, under Executive Order 12898                  zone (EEZ). The U.S. EEZ as described
                                                2014, as meeting the applicable                         (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).                      in this document refers to the Atlantic
                                                requirements of the CAA and RHR.                           In addition, this proposed action does             EEZ for dolphin and wahoo and the
                                                                                                        not apply on any Indian reservation                   South Atlantic EEZ for snapper-grouper.
                                                VII. Statutory and Executive Order                      land or in any other area where EPA or                The purpose of Amendments 7/33 is to
                                                Reviews                                                 an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a               improve the consistency and
                                                  Under the CAA, the Administrator is                   tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of             enforceability of Federal regulations
                                                required to approve a SIP submission                    Indian country, the rule does not have                with regards to landing fish intact and
                                                that complies with the provisions of the                tribal implications and will not impose               to increase the social and economic
                                                Act and applicable Federal                              substantial direct costs on tribal                    benefits related to the recreational
                                                regulations.53 Thus, in reviewing SIP                   governments or preempt tribal law as                  harvest of these species.
                                                submissions, EPA’s role is to approve                   specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
                                                                                                                                                              DATES: Written comments must be
                                                state decisions, provided that they meet                FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
                                                                                                                                                              received on or before November 16,
                                                the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,                   List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52                    2015.
                                                this proposed action is to approve state
                                                law as meeting Federal requirements,                      Environmental protection, Air                       ADDRESSES:   You may submit comments
                                                and does not impose additional                          pollution control, Incorporation by                   on Amendments 7/33 identified by
                                                requirements beyond those imposed by                    reference, Intergovernmental relations,               ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0047’’ by any of
                                                state law. For that reason, this proposed               Nitrogen oxides, Organic carbon,                      the following methods:
                                                action:                                                 Particulate matter, Reporting and                        • Electronic submissions: Submit
                                                  • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory                   recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur                    electronic comments via the Federal e-
                                                action’’ subject to review by the Office                oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic                  Rulemaking Portal: http://
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                of Management and Budget under                          compounds.                                            www.regulations.gov. Go to
                                                                                                          Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                   www.regulations.gov/
                                                  52 The letter to Adele Malone, NDEP, is signed by                                                           #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-
                                                                                                          Dated: September 1, 2015.
                                                David VonSeggern, Chair, Sierra Club Toiyabe                                                                  0047, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
                                                Chapter; Gloria Smith, Managing Attorney, Sierra        Jared Blumenfeld,                                     complete the required fields, and enter
                                                Club; and Lynn Davis, Senior Program Manager,           Regional Administrator, Region IX.
                                                Nevada Field Office, National Parks Conservation                                                              or attach your comments.
                                                Association.                                            [FR Doc. 2015–23272 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am]              • Mail: Submit written comments to
                                                  53 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).                BILLING CODE 6560–50–P                                Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:33 Sep 16, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00023   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM   17SEP1



Document Created: 2015-12-15 09:34:00
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 09:34:00
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesComments must be received by the designated contact at the
ContactVijay Limaye, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Vijay Limaye may be reached at telephone number (415) 972-3086 and via electronic mail at [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 55805 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Oxides; Organic Carbon; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides; Visibility and Volatile Organic Compounds

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR