82 FR 37020 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze Progress Report
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 151 (August 8, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 151 (August 8, 2017)
| Page Range | 37020-37025 | |
| FR Document | 2017-16491 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 37020-37025] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-16491] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316; FRL-9964-74-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze Progress Report AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The revision consists of the ``Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report'' that addresses Regional Haze Rule requirements under the Clean Air Act to document progress towards achieving visibility goals by 2018 in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and nearby states. The EPA is taking final action to approve Nevada's determination that the regional haze requirements in the existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP do not require any substantive revision at this time. DATES: This rule is effective September 7, 2017. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi- volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be available at either location (e.g., confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy materials that are publicly available, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed directly below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Krishna Viswanathan may be reached at (520) 999-7880 or [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Overview of Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. Summary of Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Overview of Proposed Action The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP or ``the State'') submitted the Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (``Progress Report'') to the EPA on November 18, 2014, to satisfy the Regional Haze Rule requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). As described in our proposal, NDEP has demonstrated in its Progress Report that the emission control measures in the existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP are adequate to make progress towards the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and in nearby states that may be affected by emissions from sources in Nevada without requiring any substantive revisions to the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. Our proposal discussed each element required under 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) for an approvable progress report, summarized how the Progress Report addressed each element, and provided our evaluation of the adequacy of the Progress Report for each element. Please refer to our proposed rule for background information on the Regional Haze Rule, the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, and the specific requirements for progress reports. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses We received comment letters on our proposed approval of the Progress Report from NDEP,\1\ the Sierra Club jointly with the National Parks Conservation Association (``NGOs''),\2\ and two additional, anonymous commenters.\3\ The following discussion contains our summary of the comments and our response to each significant comment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Letter from Jeffrey Kinger (NDEP) to Vijay Limaye (EPA) (October 19, 2015). \2\ Letter from Gloria D. Smith (Sierra Club) and Stephanie Kodish (NPCA) to Vijay Limaye (EPA) (October 19, 2015)(``NGOs' Comment Letter''). \3\ See Comments EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316-0070 and EPA-R09-OAR- 2015-0316-0073 in the docket. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments From NDEP Comment: NDEP commented that the EPA's characterization of the retirement of Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) units 1, 2 and 3 and Tracy Generating Station units 1 and 2, as well as switching of several units at Tracy and Fort Churchill Generating Stations to natural gas as ``largely in response to Senate Bill (SB) 123 (2013 Legislative Session)'' was not accurate. NDEP commented that the retirement of units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS was a response to [[Page 37021]] Nevada Senate Bill 123, but that the other facilities undertook retirement or fuel switching to comply with Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements. Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval of the Progress Report. Comment: NDEP requested that the EPA rescind the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for RGGS as part of our final rulemaking on the Progress Report because units 1, 2 and 3 of RGGS permanently shut down in 2014. Response: The EPA intends to rescind the FIP applicable to units 1, 2 and 3 of RGGS in a separate action. Comment: NDEP commented on Table 5, which mistakenly referenced Table 4-2 from the Progress Report rather than Table 4-4, and the last paragraph on 80 FR at 55811, which incorrectly cited the range of annual sulfate averages as ``4.10 to 50.5 percent'' rather than ``41.0 to 50.5 percent.'' Response: The EPA acknowledges these corrections. The corrections do not have any effect on our proposed approval of the Progress Report. Comment: NDEP commented that in the third paragraph of the EPA's proposed rulemaking, the EPA states that NDEP attributed the large contribution from particulate organic matter (POM) on the worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness Area (``Jarbidge'') mostly to wildfires and windblown dust, while NDEP itself attributes POM largely to emissions from wildfires. Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval. Comment: NDEP expressed support for the EPA's proposal to approve NDEP's determination that its Nevada Regional Haze SIP requires no substantive revisions at this time, given the demonstrated improvement to nitrate and sulfate visibility impairment. Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment. Comments From the NGOs Comment: The NGOs asserted that ``NDEP's and EPA's findings that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP is adequate to show reasonable progress for Jarbidge towards the national visibility goal are not supported.'' The commenters noted that the preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule explains that a state may submit a declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) ``if the state finds that the emission management measures in the SIP are being implemented on schedule, and visibility improvement appears to be consistent with reasonable progress goals.'' \4\ The commenter noted that NDEP proposed such a declaration, and that the EPA had proposed to concur with the State's declaration, despite the fact that visibility improvement at Jarbidge was not improving at a rate consistent with achieving NDEP's 2018 RPG. The commenter also noted that NDEP's RPG for the worst days at Jarbidge was based on modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) that was subsequently found to be in error and that revised modeling predicts 2018 visibility impacts for the worst days at Jarbidge that are not on the ``glide path'' towards the national visibility goal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 64 FR 35747 (July 1, 1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: Initially, we note that, while the commenters refer to ``the national visibility goal'' (i.e., 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'' \5\), their primary concern appears to be progress toward the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. The EPA agrees that the Progress Report does not demonstrate that visibility conditions at Jarbidge will necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 deciviews (dv) on the 20 percent worst days by 2018. The EPA acknowledged this fact in our proposal to approve the Progress Report. We stated that the visibility conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the 20 percent worst days for Jarbidge were relatively flat or only slightly improving. However, this fact does not preclude NDEP from making a declaration under Sec. 51.301(h)(1). The statement in the preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule described one possible basis for such a declaration that may be the most concise in certain situations, but was not a statement of the only possible basis. Rather, the Regional Haze Rule itself allows a state to submit a declaration if, ``based upon the information presented in the progress report . . . the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions . . .'' \6\ In this instance, NDEP presented information in the Progress Report that establishes that the overall lack of progress in monitored visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge is not due to a flaw in the SIP itself, but due in large part to extrinsic factors, as described below, that could not be addressed through a substantive revision to the SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1). \6\ 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In particular, as explained in our proposal, the Progress Report demonstrates that current (i.e., 2008-2012) visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are strongly influenced by light extinction due to POM, which derives primarily from natural sources, as well as coarse particulate mass, which partially derives from natural sources.\7\ POM was the largest contributor to light extinction on the 20 percent worst days in each of the 5-year periods from the baseline to current time period, accounting for 35.5 to 43.0 percent of extinction, followed by coarse particulate mass (21.9 to 26.1 percent), and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0 percent). Furthermore, over the course of the progress period there was a significant increase in extinction from POM (1.1 dv) and a small increase in extinction from coarse particulate mass. By contrast, there were small decreases in extinction from sulfate and nitrate (which derive primarily from anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NOX )).\8\ Thus, the overall lack of improvement in monitored visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge is largely attributable to an increase in extinction from non- anthropogenic pollutants, which could not be remedied by a revision to the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ 80 FR 55811. \8\ 80 FR 55812, Table 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to demonstrating the large influence of non- anthropogenic pollutants, the Progress Report also establishes the significant impact of out-of-state sources on Jarbidge. In particular, the Progress Report refers to source apportionment modeling performed by the WRAP to evaluate source areas that contribute to sulfate and nitrate extinction on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. As noted in our proposal, this modeling indicated that the Outside Domain source category (i.e., the background concentrations of pollutants from international sources) was expected to contribute 43.8 percent of the modeled sulfate and 27.5 percent of the modeled nitrate at Jarbidge in 2018.\9\ The WRAP source apportionment modeling also indicated that emissions from upwind states, particularly Idaho and Oregon, also contribute substantially to visibility impairment at Jarbidge. As with non-anthropogenic emissions, these out-of- [[Page 37022]] state emissions could not be directly addressed through a revision to the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. While NDEP could potentially have provided notification concerning these out-of-state emissions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(2) and/or (h)(3), we find it was reasonable for the State not to have done so, given that the overall contributions of sulfate and nitrate on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are modest and have declined since the baseline period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 80 FR 55816. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, with regard to the modeling underlying the 2018 RPG, as explained in response to a similar comment below, no revision to the Nevada Regional Haze SIP is required to address the WRAP modeling correction noted by the commenters. For these reasons, and taking into consideration the large reductions in anthropogenic emissions of SO2 and NOX already achieved in Nevada during this planning period,\10\ we find that the State has adequately supported its determination that no further substantive revision to the Nevada Regional Haze SIP is needed at this time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See 80 FR 55810 for a summary of these reductions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The NGOs reiterated that visibility improvement at Jarbidge is not consistent with NDEP's 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days.\11\ The commenters also criticized NDEP's reliance in its declaration on emission reductions from units that have shut down or converted to natural gas at the Mohave, Reid Gardner, Tracy and Fort Churchill generating stations because those units affect Class I Federal areas in other states, rather than Jarbidge. The NGOs noted that NDEP did not provide modeling to evaluate the impact of these emissions reductions on visibility at Jarbidge and asserted that data from the IMPROVE monitors at Jarbidge do not demonstrate a significant improvement in visibility on the 20 percent worst days. The comment concluded that, ``visibility on the 20 percent worst days at the Jarbidge Class I area is not improving in a manner consistent with Nevada's 2018 [RPG] of 11.05 [dv] for the 20 percent worst days, and . . . emission reductions from the Reid Gardner, Tracy, and Fort Churchill power plants are not likely to ensure the Jarbidge Wilderness achieves the 11.05 dv [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days by 2018.'' \12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 2. \12\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: As noted previously, the EPA agrees that the Progress Report does not demonstrate that visibility conditions at Jarbidge will necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 at Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst days by 2018. However, there is no regulatory requirement for NDEP to demonstrate in the Progress Report that Nevada will meet the RPG. Rather, the purpose of a Progress Report is to ``evaluat[e] progress towards the [RPG]'' \13\ by providing specific types of data and analyses concerning visibility conditions and emissions and to make a determination of adequacy under 40 CFR 51.308(h), based on this information. If a state determines that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within that state, it is required to revise its SIP within one year to address the issue. Our proposal evaluated the Progress Report with respect to each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), and concluded that it was adequate. The NGOs' comment has not provided any new information or data that would change our proposed approval of the Progress Report as meeting these requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 40 CFR 51.308(g). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We also do not agree with the commenters that it was improper for the State to rely on emission reductions from power generating stations that are not located near Jarbidge in making its declaration. The Regional Haze Rule requires progress reports to include a ``summary of emission reductions'' and specifically refers to such reductions as a relevant consideration in determining whether substantive revision to the SIP is required.\14\ Such consideration is not limited to those emissions that have been demonstrated to affect in-state Class I areas. Rather, the Regional Haze Rule expressly requires progress reports to consider ``each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State, which may be affected by emissions from within the State.'' \15\ Therefore, it was appropriate for the State to consider all emissions reductions within the State that could affect any in-state or out-of- state Class I Federal area. In this case, we find that NDEP appropriately took into account emission reductions throughout the State. Thus, the comment letter does not provide any basis for us to change our proposed finding that the Progress Report complies with the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h) and (i) and that NDEP is not required to make any substantive revisions to the Nevada Regional Haze SIP at this time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) and (h)(1). \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(g). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The NGOs' second comment contends that the 11.05 dv RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge was based on flawed modeling and preliminary emissions projections for 2018, rather than later, updated projections. The commenters assert that the EPA is ignoring this issue and thereby implying that Jarbidge will be on the glide path ``based on the emission reductions that have occurred and that will occur at Nevada sources in the next few years.'' The NGOs commented that there is ``no modeling or other data demonstrating that that the reduction of haze-forming pollution from these sources will provide sufficient and reasonable visibility improvement at Jarbidge Wilderness area.'' The NGOs also requested that the EPA ``not allow NDEP to rely on an unjustified and unsupported 2018 reasonable progress goal for the 20% worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness.'' Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the WRAP submitted additional information in April 2011 relevant to the modeling that established the 2018 RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst days. However, the regulations governing the required contents for a Progress Report do not include reviewing and revising RPGs, and the NGOs have not provided any citation to such a requirement for an approvable Progress Report. The RPGs for Jarbidge were established in Nevada's Regional Haze SIP. The EPA approved the Nevada Regional Haze SIP in 2012, and in doing so approved the RPG of 11.05 dv on the 20 percent worst days for Jarbidge.\16\ In our proposed approval, we noted that ``the EPA addressed the uncertainties associated with modeled projections by making the RPG an analytic tool for the purpose of evaluating progress, not an enforceable standard.'' \17\ We then concluded that the WRAP modeling correction and revisions to emissions projections did not require NDEP to withdraw and revise its Regional Haze SIP after it had already been adopted and submitted. The commenter has not pointed to any basis for us to reconsider this determination at this time. Furthermore, if NDEP had revised the RPG to 11.82 dv to reflect the WRAP modeling correction, the monitoring data at Jarbidge would be assessed relative to a lower amount of progress, so Jarbidge would now be closer to achieving the RPG. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See 76 FR 36450, 36465 (June 22, 2011) (proposed approval); 77 FR 17334, 17339 (March 26, 2012) (final approval). \17\ Id. at 36464 (citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v) and 64 FR 35733). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We also agree with the commenter that there is uncertainty regarding what [[Page 37023]] the ultimate effect of recent emissions reductions on visibility conditions at Jarbidge will be as of 2018. However, contrary to the commenter's suggestion, in the context of the Progress Report, there is no requirement for NDEP or the EPA to conduct modeling to evaluate whether these emissions reductions are sufficient for Jarbidge to be on the glide path (i.e., to achieve natural conditions by 2064) or to meet the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days. Thus, we do not agree with the commenter that NDEP is improperly ``rely[ing]'' on the existing 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. Rather, in its Progress Report, NDEP has used this approved 2018 RPG as a benchmark for measuring progress that has occurred to date, as required by the Regional Haze Rule.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(g) (requiring submittal of ``a report . . . evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goal''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The NGOs' comment letter asserts that the visibility impact of wildfires does not exempt NDEP from adopting measures to address contributions from stationary and area emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at Jarbidge.\19\ The comment letter claims specifically that the North Valmy Generating Station (NVGS) should have been evaluated to determine if reasonable progress controls were required because it is located 160 kilometers from Jarbidge and emits SO2 and NOX without modern pollution controls. The comment letter contrasts the emissions from NVGS to the projected emissions from Ely Energy Center, a proposed new facility that was analyzed for visibility impact but was not constructed. The commenters suggested that, since the Ely Energy Center was projected to have an impact on Jarbidge, NVGS likely also has an impact on Jarbidge. The comment letter faults NDEP for failing to require reasonable progress controls at NVGS. The NGOs also state that NDEP should use ``appropriate regulatory tools'' to minimize emissions from oil and gas development in Nevada. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: The EPA agrees that wildfire emissions do not ``exempt'' NDEP from requirements to address anthropogenic pollution, but we find that NDEP has met the applicable requirements for a Progress Report. Specifically, NDEP established in its Progress Report that progress toward achieving the RPG of 11.05 dv at Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst days by 2018 has not been impeded by any significant anthropogenic emission changes within or outside the State.\20\ NDEP reached this conclusion by evaluating significant emission decreases from stationary sources within Nevada, the effect of emissions from sources outside of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada's emissions on nearby Class I Federal areas that are outside of Nevada. In the Progress Report, NDEP documented a substantial reduction in anthropogenic emissions from stationary sources 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. NDEP also demonstrated that relative to contributions from Idaho, Oregon, and sources outside the U.S. (Outside Domain), Nevada's overall stationary source contribution to visibility impairment at Jarbidge is small on the 20 percent worst days.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report, Chapter Six-- Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress (40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)). \21\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October 2009, Chapter 4, Table 4-5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With regard to NVGS, we note that in the EPA's approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, we determined that NDEP had reasonably weighed the cost of additional emissions controls against the potential benefits and concluded that additional controls were not warranted for non-BART sources such as NVGS during the first planning period. NDEP would only be required to revisit this conclusion during this first planning period if it had determined that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP ``is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within the State'' under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4). However, as discussed elsewhere in this document, NDEP instead made a well-supported declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), and the EPA is approving this declaration. One of the elements of the State's analysis supporting its negative declaration was its showing that the overall lack of improvement on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge has been largely due to non-anthropogenic pollutants and out-of-state emissions, rather than to emissions of SO2 and NOX from anthropogenic sources such as NVGS. For example, in the 2008-2012 time period (the most recent data provided in the Progress Report), nitrates and sulfates accounted for 3.5 percent and 15.1 percent of total extinction on the 20 percent worst days respectively.\22\ Furthermore, source apportionment modeling indicates that the majority of this extinction is from out-of-state sources, rather than in-state sources such as NVGS.\23\ Thus, additional emission reductions from sources such as NVGS would have relatively little effect on progress toward the RPG for the 20 percent worst days for this first planning period.\24\ Accordingly, NDEP is not required to re-evaluate controls on non-BART sources such as NVGS for the first planning period. NDEP will be required to evaluate such controls in developing its Regional Haze SIP for the next planning period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report Table 4-4. \23\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October 2009, Chapter 4, Tables 4-5 and 4-6. \24\ We note that in the recent revisions to the Regional Haze Rule, the EPA finalized a requirement that states select the 20 percent most impaired days, i.e., the days with the most impairment from anthropogenic sources, as the ``worst'' days in SIPs and in progress reports. See 82 FR 3103 (January 10, 2017) (codified at 40 CFR 51.301). Thus, we expect that in the next planning period, anthropogenic sources such as NVGS will have a larger influence on the worst days at Jarbidge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The NGOs' comment letter concludes that the EPA ``must require NDEP to evaluate and adopt measures to ensure the Jarbidge Wilderness achieves reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4) and no later than the revised regional haze plan due in 2018.'' Specifically, the NGOs are requesting that the EPA: (1) Find that NDEP's [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness is not based on a proper modeling analysis; (2) Establish a more realistic RPG goal, a goal based on proper modeling and planned emission reduction requirements required under the Nevada regional haze plan and state law. A proper goal would show that visibility is not expected to improve at the Jarbidge Wilderness in a manner consistent with achieving natural background visibility by 2064; and (3) Ensure that NDEP evaluates and adopts additional measures to achieve reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal at the Jarbidge Wilderness.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 6-7. Response: The EPA's role is to review progress reports as they are submitted by the states and to either approve or disapprove the reports based on their compliance with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. There is no requirement or basis for the EPA to reassess or revise the RPGs for Jarbidge as part of our review of NDEP's Progress Report. Furthermore, as explained in our prior responses, nothing in the Regional Haze Rule requires NDEP to adopt additional reasonable progress measures based solely on the fact that Jarbidge will not necessarily meet its 2018 RPG for the worst 20 percent days [[Page 37024]] or based solely on the fact that Jarbidge is not on the glide path. The Progress Report complies with all applicable requirements and contains a reasoned justification for determining that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP is adequate without additional measures. NDEP will undertake a new round of planning in the next few years, at which time it will be required to evaluate additional control measures and set new RPGs for Jarbidge for the next planning period based on updated, current information, including new emissions inventories and modeling. Anonymous Comments Comment: Two anonymous commenters requested that the EPA ``require the best possible reductions in air pollution from Rocky Mountain Power's coal plants'' via its action on Utah's Regional Haze plan. Response: These comments appear to be misdirected and are not relevant to the current rulemaking action. The EPA took final action on the Utah Regional Haze plan on July 5, 2016.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ 81 FR 43894. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Summary of Final Action The EPA is taking final action to approve the Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-Year Progress Report submitted to the EPA on November 18, 2014, as meeting the applicable Regional Haze Rule requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). In addition, we are re-codifying our prior approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP in order to correct its location within 40 CFR 52.1470(e). This recodification has no effect on the substantive content of the Nevada SIP. IV. 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.\27\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); 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 (Public Law 104-4); does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 10, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Organic carbon, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 24, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart DD--Nevada 0 2. Section 52.1470, paragraph (e), the table is amended by: 0 a. Removing the last entry ``Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (October 2009), excluding the BART determination for NO X at Reid Gardner Generating Station in sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2, which EPA has disapproved''; and 0 b. Adding, under the heading ``Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada'' two entries before the entry ``Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program''. The addition reads as follows: Sec. 52.1470 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * [[Page 37025]] EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicable Name of SIP provision geographic or State EPA approval date Explanation nonattainment area submittal date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * Nevada Regional Haze State State-wide........ 11/18/09 77 FR 50936 (8/23/ Excluding Appendix A Implementation Plan (October 12). (``Nevada BART 2009), excluding the BART Regulation''). The determination for NOX at Reid Nevada BART Gardner Generating Station in regulation, including sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2, NAC 445B.029, which the EPA has disapproved. 445B.22095, and 445B.22096, is listed above in 40 CFR 52.1470(c). Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5- State-wide........ 11/18/2014 [Insert Federal ....................... Year Progress Report. Register citation], 8/8/ 2017. * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada's original 1972 SIP, which was divided into 12 sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans, are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or quasi- regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR 52.1470(c). 0 3. Section 52.1488 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: Sec. 52.1488 Visibility protection. * * * * * (g) Approval. On November 18, 2014, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection submitted the ``Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5- Year Progress Report'' (``Progress Report''). The Progress Report meets the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. [FR Doc. 2017-16491 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![37020 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI REGULATIONS—Continued
State State effective
Title/subject EPA approval date Explanation
citation date
Rule 5.2 Adoption of Federal Rules 5/28/2016 8/8/2017, [Insert ci- The version of Rule 5.2 in the SIP does not incorporate by
by Reference. tation of publica- reference: (1) The provisions amended in the Ethanol Rule
tion]. (published in the Federal Register May 1, 2007) to ex-
clude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural fer-
mentation process from the definition of ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ in the major NSR source permitting program found
at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and (b)(1)(iii)(t), or (2) the provi-
sions at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(v) and (b)(3)(iii)(c) that were
stayed indefinitely by the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule
(published in the Federal Register March 30, 2011). As
discussed in [Insert citation of publication], EPA approved
renaming and reformatting changes to the State’s SIP-ap-
proved PSD regulations via a July 20, 2017 Letter Notice.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * while many of the documents in the any substantive revisions to the Nevada
[FR Doc. 2017–16616 Filed 8–7–17; 8:45 am] docket are listed at https:// Regional Haze SIP. Our proposal
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P www.regulations.gov, some information discussed each element required under
may be publicly available only at the 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) for an
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted approvable progress report, summarized
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION material, large maps, multi-volume how the Progress Report addressed each
AGENCY reports, or otherwise voluminous element, and provided our evaluation of
materials), and some may not be the adequacy of the Progress Report for
40 CFR Part 52 available at either location (e.g., each element. Please refer to our
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316; FRL–9964–74- confidential business information). To proposed rule for background
Region 9] inspect the hard copy materials that are information on the Regional Haze Rule,
publicly available, please schedule an the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, and the
Approval and Promulgation of State appointment during normal business specific requirements for progress
Implementation Plans; Nevada; hours with the contact listed directly reports.
Regional Haze Progress Report below. II. Public Comments and EPA
AGENCY: Environmental Protection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Responses
Agency (EPA). Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, We received comment letters on our
ACTION: Final rule. Air Division, AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne proposed approval of the Progress
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Report from NDEP,1 the Sierra Club
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Krishna Viswanathan may be reached at jointly with the National Parks
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to (520) 999–7880 or Conservation Association (‘‘NGOs’’),2
the Nevada Regional Haze State viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov. and two additional, anonymous
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: commenters.3 The following discussion
the Nevada Division of Environmental contains our summary of the comments
Table of Contents
Protection. The revision consists of the and our response to each significant
‘‘Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress I. Overview of Proposed Action comment.
Report’’ that addresses Regional Haze II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
Rule requirements under the Clean Air III. Summary of Final Action Comments From NDEP
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Act to document progress towards Comment: NDEP commented that the
achieving visibility goals by 2018 in I. Overview of Proposed Action EPA’s characterization of the retirement
Class I Federal areas in Nevada and The Nevada Division of of Reid Gardner Generating Station
nearby states. The EPA is taking final Environmental Protection (NDEP or ‘‘the (RGGS) units 1, 2 and 3 and Tracy
action to approve Nevada’s Generating Station units 1 and 2, as well
State’’) submitted the Nevada Regional
determination that the regional haze as switching of several units at Tracy
Haze 5-Year Progress Report (‘‘Progress
requirements in the existing Nevada and Fort Churchill Generating Stations
Report’’) to the EPA on November 18,
Regional Haze SIP do not require any to natural gas as ‘‘largely in response to
2014, to satisfy the Regional Haze Rule
substantive revision at this time. Senate Bill (SB) 123 (2013 Legislative
requirements codified at 40 CFR
DATES: This rule is effective September Session)’’ was not accurate. NDEP
51.308(g), (h), and (i). As described in
7, 2017. commented that the retirement of units
our proposal, NDEP has demonstrated
1, 2 and 3 at RGGS was a response to
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established in its Progress Report that the emission
docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– control measures in the existing Nevada 1 Letter from Jeffrey Kinger (NDEP) to Vijay
0316 for this action. Generally, Regional Haze SIP are adequate to make Limaye (EPA) (October 19, 2015).
documents in the docket are available progress towards the reasonable 2 Letter from Gloria D. Smith (Sierra Club) and
electronically at https:// progress goals (RPGs) in Class I Federal Stephanie Kodish (NPCA) to Vijay Limaye (EPA)
(October 19, 2015)(‘‘NGOs’ Comment Letter’’).
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at areas in Nevada and in nearby states 3 See Comments EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316–
EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San that may be affected by emissions from 0070 and EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316–0073 in the
Francisco, California. Please note that sources in Nevada without requiring docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM 08AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_37171/page/1.svg)
![37022 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
state emissions could not be directly meet the RPG of 11.05 at Jarbidge on the RPG for the 20 percent worst days at
addressed through a revision to the 20 percent worst days by 2018. Jarbidge was based on flawed modeling
Nevada Regional Haze SIP. While NDEP However, there is no regulatory and preliminary emissions projections
could potentially have provided requirement for NDEP to demonstrate in for 2018, rather than later, updated
notification concerning these out-of- the Progress Report that Nevada will projections. The commenters assert that
state emissions under 40 CFR meet the RPG. Rather, the purpose of a the EPA is ignoring this issue and
51.308(h)(2) and/or (h)(3), we find it Progress Report is to ‘‘evaluat[e] thereby implying that Jarbidge will be
was reasonable for the State not to have progress towards the [RPG]’’ 13 by on the glide path ‘‘based on the
done so, given that the overall providing specific types of data and emission reductions that have occurred
contributions of sulfate and nitrate on analyses concerning visibility and that will occur at Nevada sources in
the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are conditions and emissions and to make the next few years.’’ The NGOs
modest and have declined since the a determination of adequacy under 40 commented that there is ‘‘no modeling
baseline period. CFR 51.308(h), based on this or other data demonstrating that that the
Finally, with regard to the modeling information. If a state determines that reduction of haze-forming pollution
underlying the 2018 RPG, as explained the implementation plan is inadequate from these sources will provide
in response to a similar comment below, to ensure reasonable progress due to sufficient and reasonable visibility
no revision to the Nevada Regional Haze emissions from sources within that improvement at Jarbidge Wilderness
SIP is required to address the WRAP state, it is required to revise its SIP area.’’ The NGOs also requested that the
modeling correction noted by the within one year to address the issue. EPA ‘‘not allow NDEP to rely on an
commenters. For these reasons, and Our proposal evaluated the Progress unjustified and unsupported 2018
taking into consideration the large Report with respect to each of the reasonable progress goal for the 20%
reductions in anthropogenic emissions requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness.’’
of SO2 and NOX already achieved in (h), and concluded that it was adequate. Response: The EPA agrees with the
Nevada during this planning period,10 The NGOs’ comment has not provided commenter that the WRAP submitted
we find that the State has adequately any new information or data that would additional information in April 2011
supported its determination that no change our proposed approval of the relevant to the modeling that
further substantive revision to the Progress Report as meeting these established the 2018 RPG of 11.05 dv for
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is needed at requirements. Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst days.
this time. We also do not agree with the However, the regulations governing the
Comment: The NGOs reiterated that commenters that it was improper for the required contents for a Progress Report
visibility improvement at Jarbidge is not State to rely on emission reductions do not include reviewing and revising
consistent with NDEP’s 2018 RPG for from power generating stations that are RPGs, and the NGOs have not provided
the 20 percent worst days.11 The not located near Jarbidge in making its any citation to such a requirement for an
commenters also criticized NDEP’s declaration. The Regional Haze Rule approvable Progress Report. The RPGs
reliance in its declaration on emission requires progress reports to include a for Jarbidge were established in
reductions from units that have shut ‘‘summary of emission reductions’’ and Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. The EPA
down or converted to natural gas at the specifically refers to such reductions as approved the Nevada Regional Haze SIP
Mohave, Reid Gardner, Tracy and Fort a relevant consideration in determining in 2012, and in doing so approved the
Churchill generating stations because whether substantive revision to the SIP RPG of 11.05 dv on the 20 percent worst
those units affect Class I Federal areas is required.14 Such consideration is not
days for Jarbidge.16 In our proposed
in other states, rather than Jarbidge. The limited to those emissions that have
approval, we noted that ‘‘the EPA
NGOs noted that NDEP did not provide been demonstrated to affect in-state
addressed the uncertainties associated
modeling to evaluate the impact of these Class I areas. Rather, the Regional Haze
with modeled projections by making the
emissions reductions on visibility at Rule expressly requires progress reports
RPG an analytic tool for the purpose of
Jarbidge and asserted that data from the to consider ‘‘each mandatory Class I
evaluating progress, not an enforceable
IMPROVE monitors at Jarbidge do not Federal area located outside the State,
standard.’’ 17 We then concluded that
demonstrate a significant improvement which may be affected by emissions
the WRAP modeling correction and
in visibility on the 20 percent worst from within the State.’’ 15 Therefore, it
revisions to emissions projections did
days. The comment concluded that, was appropriate for the State to consider
not require NDEP to withdraw and
‘‘visibility on the 20 percent worst days all emissions reductions within the
revise its Regional Haze SIP after it had
at the Jarbidge Class I area is not State that could affect any in-state or
already been adopted and submitted.
improving in a manner consistent with out-of-state Class I Federal area. In this
The commenter has not pointed to any
Nevada’s 2018 [RPG] of 11.05 [dv] for case, we find that NDEP appropriately
basis for us to reconsider this
the 20 percent worst days, and . . . took into account emission reductions
determination at this time. Furthermore,
emission reductions from the Reid throughout the State. Thus, the
if NDEP had revised the RPG to 11.82
Gardner, Tracy, and Fort Churchill comment letter does not provide any
dv to reflect the WRAP modeling
power plants are not likely to ensure the basis for us to change our proposed
correction, the monitoring data at
Jarbidge Wilderness achieves the 11.05 finding that the Progress Report
Jarbidge would be assessed relative to a
dv [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days complies with the requirements under
lower amount of progress, so Jarbidge
by 2018.’’ 12 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h) and (i) and that
would now be closer to achieving the
Response: As noted previously, the NDEP is not required to make any
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
RPG.
EPA agrees that the Progress Report substantive revisions to the Nevada
We also agree with the commenter
does not demonstrate that visibility Regional Haze SIP at this time.
that there is uncertainty regarding what
conditions at Jarbidge will necessarily Comment: The NGOs’ second
comment contends that the 11.05 dv 16 See 76 FR 36450, 36465 (June 22, 2011)
10 See80 FR 55810 for a summary of these (proposed approval); 77 FR 17334, 17339 (March
reductions. 13 40 CFR 51.308(g). 26, 2012) (final approval).
11 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 2. 14 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) and (h)(1). 17 Id. at 36464 (citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v) and
12 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 3. 15 40 CFR 51.308(g). 64 FR 35733).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM 08AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_37171/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 37023
the ultimate effect of recent emissions changes within or outside the State.20 out-of-state sources, rather than in-state
reductions on visibility conditions at NDEP reached this conclusion by sources such as NVGS.23 Thus,
Jarbidge will be as of 2018. However, evaluating significant emission additional emission reductions from
contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, decreases from stationary sources sources such as NVGS would have
in the context of the Progress Report, within Nevada, the effect of emissions relatively little effect on progress toward
there is no requirement for NDEP or the from sources outside of Nevada on the RPG for the 20 percent worst days
EPA to conduct modeling to evaluate Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada’s for this first planning period.24
whether these emissions reductions are emissions on nearby Class I Federal Accordingly, NDEP is not required to re-
sufficient for Jarbidge to be on the glide areas that are outside of Nevada. In the evaluate controls on non-BART sources
path (i.e., to achieve natural conditions Progress Report, NDEP documented a such as NVGS for the first planning
by 2064) or to meet the 2018 RPG for the substantial reduction in anthropogenic period. NDEP will be required to
20 percent worst days. Thus, we do not emissions from stationary sources in evaluate such controls in developing its
agree with the commenter that NDEP is Nevada as well as an improvement in Regional Haze SIP for the next planning
improperly ‘‘rely[ing]’’ on the existing visibility at Jarbidge even though BART period.
2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days controls and other state and federal Comment: The NGOs’ comment letter
at Jarbidge. Rather, in its Progress measures are not yet fully implemented. concludes that the EPA ‘‘must require
NDEP also demonstrated that relative to NDEP to evaluate and adopt measures to
Report, NDEP has used this approved
contributions from Idaho, Oregon, and ensure the Jarbidge Wilderness achieves
2018 RPG as a benchmark for measuring
sources outside the U.S. (Outside reasonable progress towards the
progress that has occurred to date, as
Domain), Nevada’s overall stationary national visibility goal in accordance
required by the Regional Haze Rule.18 source contribution to visibility with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4) and no later
Comment: The NGOs’ comment letter impairment at Jarbidge is small on the than the revised regional haze plan due
asserts that the visibility impact of 20 percent worst days.21 in 2018.’’ Specifically, the NGOs are
wildfires does not exempt NDEP from With regard to NVGS, we note that in requesting that the EPA:
adopting measures to address the EPA’s approval of the Nevada
(1) Find that NDEP’s [RPG] for the 20
contributions from stationary and area Regional Haze SIP, we determined that percent worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness
emissions sources that may be affecting NDEP had reasonably weighed the cost is not based on a proper modeling analysis;
visibility impairment at Jarbidge.19 The of additional emissions controls against (2) Establish a more realistic RPG goal, a
comment letter claims specifically that the potential benefits and concluded goal based on proper modeling and planned
the North Valmy Generating Station that additional controls were not emission reduction requirements required
(NVGS) should have been evaluated to warranted for non-BART sources such under the Nevada regional haze plan and
as NVGS during the first planning state law. A proper goal would show that
determine if reasonable progress visibility is not expected to improve at the
controls were required because it is period. NDEP would only be required to
Jarbidge Wilderness in a manner consistent
located 160 kilometers from Jarbidge revisit this conclusion during this first
with achieving natural background visibility
and emits SO2 and NOX without modern planning period if it had determined by 2064; and
pollution controls. The comment letter that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP ‘‘is (3) Ensure that NDEP evaluates and adopts
contrasts the emissions from NVGS to or may be inadequate to ensure additional measures to achieve reasonable
reasonable progress due to emissions progress towards the national visibility goal
the projected emissions from Ely Energy
from sources within the State’’ under 40 at the Jarbidge Wilderness.25
Center, a proposed new facility that was
CFR 51.308(h)(4). However, as Response: The EPA’s role is to review
analyzed for visibility impact but was
discussed elsewhere in this document, progress reports as they are submitted
not constructed. The commenters
NDEP instead made a well-supported by the states and to either approve or
suggested that, since the Ely Energy declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1),
Center was projected to have an impact disapprove the reports based on their
and the EPA is approving this compliance with the requirements of the
on Jarbidge, NVGS likely also has an declaration. One of the elements of the
impact on Jarbidge. The comment letter Regional Haze Rule. There is no
State’s analysis supporting its negative requirement or basis for the EPA to
faults NDEP for failing to require declaration was its showing that the
reasonable progress controls at NVGS. reassess or revise the RPGs for Jarbidge
overall lack of improvement on the 20 as part of our review of NDEP’s Progress
The NGOs also state that NDEP should percent worst days at Jarbidge has been
use ‘‘appropriate regulatory tools’’ to Report. Furthermore, as explained in
largely due to non-anthropogenic our prior responses, nothing in the
minimize emissions from oil and gas pollutants and out-of-state emissions,
development in Nevada. Regional Haze Rule requires NDEP to
rather than to emissions of SO2 and NOX adopt additional reasonable progress
Response: The EPA agrees that from anthropogenic sources such as measures based solely on the fact that
wildfire emissions do not ‘‘exempt’’ NVGS. For example, in the 2008–2012 Jarbidge will not necessarily meet its
NDEP from requirements to address time period (the most recent data
2018 RPG for the worst 20 percent days
anthropogenic pollution, but we find provided in the Progress Report),
that NDEP has met the applicable nitrates and sulfates accounted for 3.5 23 Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation
requirements for a Progress Report. percent and 15.1 percent of total Plan, October 2009, Chapter 4, Tables 4–5 and 4–
Specifically, NDEP established in its extinction on the 20 percent worst days 6.
Progress Report that progress toward respectively.22 Furthermore, source 24 We note that in the recent revisions to the
apportionment modeling indicates that Regional Haze Rule, the EPA finalized a
achieving the RPG of 11.05 dv at
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
requirement that states select the 20 percent most
Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst days by the majority of this extinction is from impaired days, i.e., the days with the most
2018 has not been impeded by any impairment from anthropogenic sources, as the
20 Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report, ‘‘worst’’ days in SIPs and in progress reports. See
significant anthropogenic emission Chapter Six—Assessment of Changes Impeding 82 FR 3103 (January 10, 2017) (codified at 40 CFR
Visibility Progress (40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)). 51.301). Thus, we expect that in the next planning
18 See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(g) (requiring submittal 21 Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation period, anthropogenic sources such as NVGS will
of ‘‘a report . . . evaluating progress towards the Plan, October 2009, Chapter 4, Table 4–5. have a larger influence on the worst days at
reasonable progress goal’’). 22 Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report Jarbidge.
19 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 5. Table 4–4. 25 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 6–7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM 08AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_37171/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 37025
EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Applicable EPA
geographic or State submittal
Name of SIP provision approval Explanation
nonattainment date date
area
Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 1
* * * * * * *
Nevada Regional Haze State Implemen- State-wide .............. 11/18/09 77 FR 50936 (8/23/ Excluding Appendix A (‘‘Nevada BART
tation Plan (October 2009), excluding 12). Regulation’’). The Nevada BART reg-
the BART determination for NOX at ulation, including NAC 445B.029,
Reid Gardner Generating Station in 445B.22095, and 445B.22096, is list-
sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2, which ed above in 40 CFR 52.1470(c).
the EPA has disapproved.
Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-Year State-wide .............. 11/18/2014 [Insert Federal
Progress Report. Register cita-
tion], 8/8/2017.
* * * * * * *
1 The
organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada’s original 1972 SIP, which was divided into 12
sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans, are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small
Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or
quasi-regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR 52.1470(c).
■ 3. Section 52.1488 is amended by progress budgets. Additionally, the EPA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553–
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: is conditionally approving Reasonable 0256; email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
Further Progress (RFP), Quantitative SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
§ 52.1488 Visibility protection.
Milestones (QMs), and revised MVEBs
* * * * * for the Idaho portion of the Table of Contents
(g) Approval. On November 18, 2014, nonattainment area, based on Idaho’s I. Background Information
the Nevada Division of Environmental commitment to adopt and submit II. Final Action
Protection submitted the ‘‘Nevada updates to these attainment plan III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Regional Haze Plan 5-Year Progress elements within one year of the effective
Report’’ (‘‘Progress Report’’). The I. Background Information
date of this final action.
Progress Report meets the requirements On June 1, 2017, the EPA proposed to
of the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR DATES: This final rule is effective
September 7, 2017. approve Idaho’s attainment
51.308. demonstration and 2014 MVEBs as early
[FR Doc. 2017–16491 Filed 8–7–17; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a progress budgets (82 FR 25208). As part
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
docket for this action under Docket ID of the same action, the EPA also
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0067. All proposed to conditionally approve RFP,
documents in the docket are listed on QMs, and revised MVEBs for the Idaho
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the http://www.regulations.gov Web portion of the nonattainment area. An
AGENCY site. Although listed in the index, some explanation of the CAA requirements, a
information may not be publicly detailed analysis of the submittals, and
40 CFR Part 52 available, i.e., Confidential Business the EPA’s reasons for proposing
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0067; FRL–9965–67– Information or other information the approval were provided in the notice of
Region 10] disclosure of which is restricted by proposed rulemaking, and will not be
statute. Certain other material, such as restated here. The public comment
Air Plan Approvals, Idaho: Logan Utah/ copyrighted material, is not placed on period for the proposal ended July 3,
Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area the Internet and is publicly available 2017. We received no comments.
only in hard copy form. Publicly
AGENCY: Environmental Protection II. Final Action
available docket materials are available
Agency (EPA).
at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA For the reasons set forth in the
ACTION: Final rule. Region 10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200 proposed rulemaking for this action, the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington EPA is approving the attainment
Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 98101. The EPA requests that you demonstration in Idaho’s 2012 and 2014
Idaho’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) contact the person listed in the FOR revisions to the SIP (Idaho attainment
submitted in 2012 and 2014 to address FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to plan) for the Idaho portion of the Logan
Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for schedule your inspection. The Regional UT–ID area. The EPA is also approving
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
the Idaho portion of the Logan, Utah- Office’s official hours of business are the 2014 MVEBs as early progress
Idaho fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, budgets, in that they are consistent with
nonattainment area (Logan UT–ID area). excluding Federal holidays. making progress toward attainment of
Based on newly available air quality FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 National
monitoring data, the EPA is approving Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air Ambient Air Quality Standards by
Idaho’s attainment demonstration and and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental December 31, 2015. Lastly, the EPA is
approving Idaho’s 2014 Motor Vehicle Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 conditionally approving RFP, QMs, and
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) as early Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA revised MVEBs in the Idaho attainment
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM 08AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_37171/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2017-08-08 00:18:05
Document Modified: 2017-08-08 00:18:05
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective September 7, 2017. | |
| Contact | Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Krishna Viswanathan may be reached at (520) 999-7880 or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 37020 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental 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