1 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130, FRL- ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

State of Nevada; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Nevada 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to implement the regional haze 

program for the first planning period through July 31, 2018. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to prevent any future 

and remedy any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 156 

national parks and wilderness areas designated as Class I areas. 

Regional haze is caused by emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a broad geographic area. States 

must submit SIPs that assure reasonable progress toward the 

national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 

Class I areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below 

on or before [insert date 30 days from the date of publication 

in the Federal Register] 
2 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130 by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: Webb.Thomas@epa.gov

3. Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb) 

4. Mail: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Planning Office, Air 

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM, excluding federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-

OAR-2011-0130. Our policy is that EPA will include all comments 

received in the public docket without change. EPA may make 

comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information provided, unless the comment 

includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov web site is an “anonymous access” 

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
3 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, EPA will include your e-mail 

address as part of the comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 

and other contact information in the body of your comment and 

with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 

additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning 

Office of the Air Division, Air-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 
4 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy 

of the docket Monday through Friday, 9:00 – 5:30 PST, excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 

9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at

webb.thomas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our,” is used, 

we mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Table of Contents 

I. State Submittals 

II. Background 

 A. Description of Regional Haze 

 B. History of Regional Haze Regulations 

 C. Roles of Agencies in addressing Regional Haze 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

 A. Regional Haze Rule 
5 

 B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 

Conditions 

 C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

 D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

 E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

 F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment 

 G. Monitoring Strategy 

 H. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports 

 I. Coordination with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Nevada’s RH SIP 

 A. Affected Class I Areas 

 B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) 

 1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions 

 2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate 

 C. Nevada Emissions Inventories 

 1. Emissions Inventories for 2002 and 2018 

 2. Analysis of Statewide Emissions by Pollutant 

 3. Analysis of Natural versus Anthropogenic Emissions 

 D. Sources of Visibility Impairment 

 1. Sources of Visibility Impairment at Jarbidge 

 2. Nevada’s Contributions to Visibility Impairment in Class 

I Areas Outside of the State 
6 

 E. Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology 

 1. Sources eligible for BART 

 2. Sources subject to BART 

 3. BART Determinations 

 a. Tracy Generating Station 

 b. Fort Churchill Generating Station 

 

 c. Reid Gardner Generating Station 

 d. Mohave Generating Station 

 4. EPA’s Assessment 

 F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goal 

 1. Visibility Projections for 2018 

2. Establishing the Reasonable Progress Goal 

 3. Interstate Consultation 

 G. Long-Term Strategy 

 1. BART Controls 

 2. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs 

 3. Construction Activities 

 4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules 

 5. Smoke Management Programs 

 6. Other Measures supporting the LTS 

7. Interstate Transport Requirements for Visibility 

 H. Monitoring Strategy 

 1. Coordination of RAVI with RHR 

 2. Additional Monitoring Sites 
7 

 3. Using and Reporting Monitoring Data 

 4. Statewide Emissions Inventory 

 I. State and Federal Land Manager Coordination 

 J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-year Progress Reports 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. State Submittals 

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) 

adopted and transmitted its “Nevada Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan” (Nevada RH SIP) to EPA Region 9 in a letter 

dated November 18, 2009. EPA determined the plan complete by 

operation of law on May 18, 2010. The SIP was properly noticed 

by the State and available for public comment for 30 days prior 

to a public hearing held in Carson City, Nevada, on May 20, 

2009. There was a separate public notice and hearing on the 

proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

four stationary sources, which the State adopted on April 23, 

2009. The State submitted to EPA additional documentation of 

public process and adoption of a more stringent emission limit 

for one of the BART sources on February 18, 2010. Nevada 

included in its SIP responses to written comments from EPA 

Region 9, the National Park Service, and a consortium of 
8 

conservation organizations. As a result of the State’s 

participation with 13 other states, tribal nations and federal 

agencies in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), 

Nevada’s RH SIP reflects a consistent approach toward addressing 

regional visibility impairment at 116 Class I areas in the West. 

II. Background 

 A. Description of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is the impairment of visibility across a 

broad geographic area produced by numerous sources and 

activities that emit fine particles and their precursors, 

primarily sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), and in 

some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). 

Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), primarily sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust, which impair visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can 

see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality 

in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from existing visibility monitors, the “Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) network, 

indicate that visibility impairment caused by air pollution 
9 

occurs virtually all the time at most federally protected 

national parks and wilderness areas, known as Class I areas. 

The average visual range in many Class I areas in the western 

United States is 100 to 150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without man-made 

air pollution1. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the 

United States, the average visual range is less than 30 

kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would 

exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

 

 B. History of Regional Haze Regulations 

In section 169(A)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, 

Congress established as a national goal the “prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of 

visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment 

results from man-made air pollution.” Visibility was determined 

to be an important value in 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas2

 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which one 

can view a dark object against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks 

exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 

5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 

1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, 

in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 

areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 

(November 30, 1979). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 

additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important 

value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A 

of the CAA apply only to “mandatory Class I Federal areas.” Each mandatory 
10 

as listed in 40 CFR 81.400-437. In the first phase of 

visibility protection, EPA promulgated regulations on December 

2, 1980, to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that 

is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small group 

of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment” or RAVI. 45 FR 80084. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the 

relationship between pollutants and visibility impairment were 

improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to conduct 

scientific research on regional haze. This legislation 

established the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

(GCVTC), which issued its report, “Recommendations for Improving 

Western Vistas,” on June 10, 1996. These recommendations 

informed the regulatory development of a regional haze program, 

and provided an option for certain western states to address 

visibility at 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau under 40 

CFR 51.309. 

EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 

1999 known as the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35713). The 

RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to include 

 

Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a “Federal Land Manager.” 42 

U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean 

a “mandatory Class I Federal area.” 
11 

provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a 

comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. 

The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility protection regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the major elements of the RHR 

requirements are summarized in section III of this notice. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze plan revision applies to 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 

States were required to submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than 

December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b). Since most states, 

including Nevada, did not submit SIPs prior to the deadline, EPA 

made a Finding of Failure to Submit that extended the deadline 

to January 15, 2011, for EPA to approve a SIP or publish a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 

2009). EPA is publishing this proposal to meet this obligation. 

 C. Roles of Agencies in addressing Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the regional haze program will 

require long-term coordination among states, tribal governments 

and various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution 

affecting the air quality in Class I areas can result from the 

transport of pollutants over long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, states and tribal nations need to develop 
12 

coordinated strategies to take into account the effect of 

emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. 

To support a regional approach to the planning process, EPA 

founded five regional planning organizations (RPOs) to assist 

states and tribes in addressing regional haze and related 

issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 

better understand how emissions impact Class I areas across the 

country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies 

to reduce pollutants contributing to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), one of five 

RPOs nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, 

Federal, and local air agencies focusing on improving visibility 

at 116 Class I areas in the West. WRAP member states include: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and 

Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, 

Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. While Nevada is not a formal 

member of the WRAP, State representatives participated fully in 

the WRAP and relied on its technical services and products as 

the basis for its plan. 
13 

While EPA regulates visibility at Class I areas, Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) from the National Park Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Forest Service have a special role in the 

program because they have primary jurisdiction over Class I 

areas. FLMs may submit comments and make recommendations on a 

state’s plan, and states are required to coordinate and consult 

with FLMs on most major planning and implementation 

requirements. 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

 A. Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must establish a long-term strategy that 

ensures reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility 

conditions in each Class I area affected by the state’s 

emissions. For each Class I area within its boundaries, the 

state must establish a reasonable progress goal (RPG) for the 

first planning period that ends on July 31, 2018. The long-term 

strategy must include enforceable emission limits and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the RPG. State implementation 

plans must also give specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not 

in operation before August 7, 1962. These sources, where 

appropriate, are required to install Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) controls to eliminate or reduce visibility 
14 

impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are 

summarized below. 

 B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 

Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal 

metric for measuring visibility. This visibility metric 

expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality 

measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming 

the value of light extinction to deciviews using a logarithmic 

function. The 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 as perceived by the human eye. Most people can 

detect a change in visibility at one deciview.3 

The deciview is used to express reasonable progress goals; 

define visibility conditions; and track changes in visibility. 

To track changes in visibility at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 

 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview. 64 

FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999). 
15 

part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states 

must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at 

each Class I area and periodically review progress midway 

through each ten-year implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired 

(“best”) and 20 percent most impaired (“worst”) visibility days 

over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, states must develop an estimate of natural visibility 

conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the 

national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on 

those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating 

Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh envcurhr gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as "EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance"), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the 

Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaal/tl/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), 
16 

hereinafter referred to as "EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance"). 

For the first regional haze SIPS that were due by December 

17, 2007, "baseline visibility conditions" were the starting 

points for assessing "current" visibility impairment. Baseline 

visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility 

impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent 

most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. 

Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required 

to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for 

each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over 

the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 

visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates 

the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions 

to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which improvement in visibility is 

measured. 

 C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards 

achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 
17 

distinct goals, one for the “best” and one for the “worst” days) 

for every Class I area for each (approximately) ten-year 

implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific 

milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states to 

establish goals that provide for “reasonable progress” toward 

achieving natural (i.e., “background”) visibility conditions. In 

setting reasonable progress goals (RPGs), states must provide 

for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over 

the (approximately) ten-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the 

same period. 

States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, 

but are required to consider the following factors established 

in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) the costs of compliance; (2) the time 

necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 

selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility 

in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted in 

EPA’s Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. 
18 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1) 

(“EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance”). In setting the RPGs, 

states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach 

natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

“uniform rate of progress” (URP) or the “glide path”) and the 

emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 

represents a rate of progress that states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to 

achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I 

areas (“Class I state”) must also consult with potentially 

“contributing states,” i.e., other nearby states with emission 

sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class 

I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

 D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use 

of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, 

older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts 

from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the 

CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards 
19 

the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that 

certain categories of existing major stationary sources4 built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best 

Available Retrofit Technology” as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART 

controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions 

trading program or other alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards 

improving visibility than BART. 

EPA published on July 6, 2005, the Guidelines for BART 

Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 

CFR Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”) 

to assist states in determining which of their sources should be 

subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate 

emission limits for each applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant 

with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a 

state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A 

state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART 

 

4

The set of “major stationary sources” potentially subject to 

BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 
20 

Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants 

emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most 

significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOx and PM. 

EPA has indicated that states should use their best judgment in 

determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility in 

Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption 

threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BARTeligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must 

document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source 

with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 

subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the number of emission sources 

affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. An exemption threshold set by the 

state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 

described in the RHR as “BART-eligible sources”, and document 

their BART control determination analyses. In making BART 
21 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) the costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source; and, (5) the degree of improvement in visibility 

which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 

significance assigned to each factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART 

emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject 

to BART. Once a state has made its BART determination, the BART 

controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years after the date EPA 

approves the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include 

all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting for the BART controls on the source. States have 

the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will 

use to meet the requirements of BART. 
22 

 E. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the 

CAA that states include in their regional haze SIP a ten- to 

fifteen-year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 

51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a long-term 

strategy (LTS) in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include “enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures needed to 

achieve the reasonable progress goals” for all Class I areas 

within and affected by emissions from the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area 

located in another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with contributing states to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In 

such cases, the contributing state must demonstrate that it has 

included in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share 

of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class 

I area. The RPOs have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional consultation between 

states may be required to sufficiently address interstate 
23 

visibility issues (e.g., where two states belong to different 

RPOs). 

States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources 

of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including 

stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, 

states must describe how each of the following seven factors 

listed below are taken into account in developing their LTS: 

(1) emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 

programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions 

limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and 

control measures; and, (7) the anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

 F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding 

the long-term strategy for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan 
24 

must provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less 

frequently than every three years until the date of submission 

of the state's first plan addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the 

state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first 

regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic 

progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and 

periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's LTS 

must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must 

be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

 G. Monitoring Strategy 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR requires a monitoring 

strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on 

regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of 

all mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must 

be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met 

through “participation” in the Interagency Monitoring of 
25 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., review 

and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring 

strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also 

provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network 

is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met. The 

SIP must also provide for the following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 

in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the 

contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside 

the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 

in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 

contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 

Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the 

state, and where possible, in electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants 

that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most 

recent year for which data are available, and estimates of 
26 

future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment 

to update the inventory periodically; and, 

• Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility. 

 H. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports 

The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 

implementation period through 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, 

every ten years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet 

the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of 

BART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only 

to the first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must 

continue to comply with the BART provisions of section 

51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

Each state also is required to submit a report to EPA every 

five years that evaluates progress toward achieving the RPG for 

each Class I area within the state and outside the state if 

affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

The first progress report is due five years from submittal of 

the initial regional haze SIP revision. At the same time a 5-

year progress report is submitted, a state must determine the 
27 

adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve the established goals 

for visibility improvement. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The RHR contains 

more detailed requirements associated with these parts of the 

Rule. 

 I. Coordination with Federal Land Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least sixty days prior to holding 

any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include 

the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 

impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the 

development and implementation of strategies to address 

visibility impairment. Furthermore, a state must include in its 

SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state's 

visibility protection program, including development and review 

of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the 

implementation of other programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 
28 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Nevada’s RH SIP 

 A. Affected Class I Areas 

Nevada has one Class I area, the Jarbidge Wilderness Area 

(hereinafter referred to as Jarbidge), located within the 

Humboldt National Forest in the northeastern corner of the 

State. NDEP identified 24 other Class I areas5 located outside 

the State that may be affected by its emissions. These other 

Class I areas are in Arizona (5), California (11), Idaho (2), 

Oregon (3) and Utah (3). In Arizona, the Class I areas are 

Grand Canyon National Park (NP), Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area 

(WA), Pine Mountain WA, Mazatal WA, and Sierra Ancha WA. In 

California, they are Desolation WA, Dome Land WA, Hoover WA, 

Joshua Tree NP, Kaiser WA, Lassen Volcanic NP, Lava Beds WA, San 

Gabriel WA, San Gorgonio WA, Sequoia NP, and Yosemite NP. In 

Idaho, the areas are Craters of the Moon WA and Sawtooth WA. In 

Oregon, the areas are Crater Lake NP, Hells Canyon WA and Eagle 

Cap WA. In Utah, the areas are Bryce Canyon NP, Capitol Reef NP 

and Zion NP. EPA is proposing to find that NDEP has identified 

all affected Class I areas within and outside the State that are 

potentially affected by its emissions. 

 

5 These Class I areas were identified using Particle Source Apportionment 

Tracking (PSAT) modeling results for sulfate and nitrate extinction. Tables 

4-3 and 4-4 in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP identify the rank and percentage 

of the total modeled concentration due to SO2 emissions and NOx emissions from 

sources in Nevada to the IMPROVE monitors representing Class I areas in the 

five adjacent states. Where a monitoring site is not located within a 

specific national park or wilderness area, the closest Class I area is 

listed. 
29 

 B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress 

NDEP developed the visibility estimates in its RH SIP using 

air quality models and analytical tools provided by the WRAP. 

Based on EPA’s review of the WRAP’s technical analyses and 

products, we found that the models were used appropriately, and 

were consistent with EPA guidance in effect at the time of their 

use. The models used by the WRAP were state-of–the-science at 

the time the modeling was conducted, and model performance was 

adequate for the purposes that they were used.6

 1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions 

Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 

20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 

to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states 

are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. 

NDEP calculated that on the 20 percent worst days at 

Jarbidge, the baseline visibility condition is 12.07 dv and the 

natural visibility condition is 7.87 dv. The natural visibility 

condition represents the long-term national goal of no man-made 

impairment. Since a state must ensure visibility improvement on 

 

6

For our detailed review and discussion, please see “Technical Support Document for Technical Products Prepared 

by the Western Regional Air Partnership in support of Western Regional Haze Plans”, Final, February 2011 (WRAP 

TSD). 
30 

the worst days, a baseline of 12.07 dv and an endpoint of 7.87 

dv are used to measure progress. On the 20 percent best days, 

the baseline visibility condition is 2.56 dv and the natural 

visibility condition is 1.14 dv. The baseline visibility 

condition on best days is a value that must be maintained in 

future years. 

2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate 

NDEP calculated the uniform rate of progress (URP) estimate 

for Jarbidge using the deciviews for the 2000-2004 baseline and 

natural background conditions on the 20 percent worst days. The 

URP is represented as a straight line between a Class I area’s 

baseline value and natural conditions in 2064. 40 CFR Section 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). This line is linear and assumes the same 

increment of progress every year for 60 years. 

NDEP calculated the URP for Jarbidge in 2018 as 11.09 dv. 

This is listed below in Table 1 and illustrated below in Figure 

1 from Nevada’s RH SIP. Given baseline conditions of 12.07 dv 

and an estimate of natural conditions of 7.87 dv, the overall 

visibility improvement necessary to reach the national goal is 

4.20 dv. As the regional haze rule requires the URP to be 

calculated over a 60-year period from baseline to natural 

conditions (2004 to 2064), the URP is an average annual 

improvement of 0.07 dv (4.20 dv divided by 60 years). A uniform 

rate of progress in the first planning period (2004 to 2018) 
31 

would result in an improvement of 0.98 dv (14 years times .07 

dv). Therefore, the URP in 2018 for Jarbidge is 11.09 dv (12.07 

dv minus 0.98 dv). 

NDEP produced the following visibility estimates in 

deciviews for its one Class I area: baseline visibility 

conditions, uniform rate of progress estimate for 2018, and 

natural conditions estimate for 2064. We propose to find that 

these estimates are consistent with the requirements of the RHR, 

particularly the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) and 

(iii). 

TABLE 1—VISIBILITY CALCULATIONS FOR JARBIDGE 

(in deciviews) 

Class I 

Area 

2000-20004 

Baseline 

Condition 

(20% worst 

days) 

2018 

Uniform 

Rate of 

Progress 

(20% worst 

days) 

2018 

Reduction 

Needed 

(20% worst 

days) 

2064 

Natural 

Condition 

(20% worst 

days) 

2000-2004

Baseline 

Condition

(20% best 

days) 

Jarbidge 

Wilderness 

Area 

12.07 11.09 0.98 7.87 2.56

Source: Table 2-1, page 2-7, Nevada RH SIP 
32 

FIGURE 1—UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS FOR JARBIDGE 

 Source: Figure 2-5, page 2-7, Nevada RH SIP 

 C. Nevada’s Emissions Inventories

1. Emissions Inventories for 2002 and 2018 

The RHR requires a statewide emissions inventory of 

pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I 

area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). NDEP provides a statewide 

emissions inventory for 2002, representing the mid-point of the 

2000-2004 baseline period, and a projected emissions inventory 

for 2018, the end of the first 10-year planning period. The 

2018 inventory is based on visibility modeling conducted by the 
33 

WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center using the Community Multi-Scale 

Air Quality (CMAQ) model. The emissions inventories for 2002 

and 2018 provide estimates of annual emissions for haze 

producing pollutants by source category as summarized by EPA in 

Tables 2 and 3 based on information in Chapter 3 of Nevada’s RH 

SIP. The inventoried pollutants include sulfur oxides (SOx), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine 

particulate matter under 2.5 microns (PM2.5), coarse particulate 

matter under 10 microns (PM10), ammonia (NH3), primary organic 

aerosol (POA)7, and elemental carbon (EC). The emissions are 

divided into six source categories: point, area, mobile onroad, mobile off-road, natural and other. Natural sources 

include natural fire, biogenic and windblown dust. Other 

includes oil and gas, road dust, fugitive dust and anthropogenic 

fire. EPA is proposing to find that the emission inventories in 

Nevada’s RH SIP were calculated using approved EPA methods. 

 

7 Instead of using the category of Organic Carbon, Nevada used the POA primary 

organic aerosol that includes organic molecules or compounds that are 

directly emitted from the combustion of organic material. These organic 

compounds include organic carbon, hydrogen, oxygen as well as other organic 

atoms. 
34 

 TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 2000-2004 AVERAGE BASELINE EMISSIONS FOR NEVADA

(TONS PER YEAR) 

SOx NOx VOC PM2.5 PM10 NH3 POA EC

Point 50,947 59,873 2,215 2,158 4,093 339 256 13

Area 13,037 5,728 28,592 830 897 8,009 687 96

Mobile 

On-Road

510 41,089 36,257 0 245 2,030 314 235

Mobile 

Off-Road

1,672 32,565 18,094 0 0 22 572 1,354

Natural 2,784 23,103 811,745 11,844 99,122 1,684 22,501 4,674

Other 28 117 199 6,138 56,786 8 405 37

TOTAL 68,978 162,475 897,102 20,970 161,143 12,092 24,734 6,409

PERCENT (5) (12) (66) (1.5) (12) (1) (2) (0.5) 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF 2018 EMISSIONS FOR NEVADA

(TONS PER YEAR) 

SOx NOx VOC PM2.5 PM10 NH3 POA EC

Point 28,320 67,632 3,866 2,211 4,717 864 168 13

Area 14,280 7,418 53,014 1,150 1,012 8,535 776 115

Mobile 

On-Road

336 15,049 17,085 0 360 3,385 422 121

Mobile 

Off-Road

473 22,182 11,784 0 0 30 393 668

Natural 2,784 23,103 811,745 11,844 99,122 1,684 22,501 4,674

Other 30 114 213 8,928 83,076 5 561 47

TOTAL 46,223 135,498 897,707 24,133 188,287 14,503 24,822 5,638

PERCENT (3.5) (10) (67) (2) (14) (1) (2) (0.5) 

 2. Analysis of Statewide Emissions by Pollutant 

NDEP’s analysis of each pollutant in its emissions 

inventory, as summarized below, informs the relationship between 

the State’s emissions and visibility impairment at Jarbidge as 

well as Class I areas outside the State. 

• Sulfur Dioxide: SO2 emissions are mostly from coal 

combustion at electrical generation facilities, but smaller 

amounts are from natural gas combustion, mobile sources and wood 

combustion. In Nevada, SOx emissions are predominantly from 
35 

point sources (61 percent) and area sources (31 percent). 

Statewide emissions of SO2 are projected to decrease 33 percent 

by 2018 as compared to the baseline due to planned BART controls 

on power plants and to reductions in mobile source emissions due 

to federal diesel fuel standards. Comparing 2018 projections to 

the baseline, SOx emissions from point sources decrease 44 

percent; area sources increase 10 percent; off-road mobile 

decrease 72 percent; and on-road mobile decrease 34 percent. 

• Nitrogen Oxide: NOx is generated during any combustion 

process where nitrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere combine to 

form nitric oxide and to a lesser extent nitrogen dioxide. NOx

emissions are predominantly from point sources (50 percent) and 

mobile sources (27 percent). Statewide emissions of NOx are 

expected to decrease by 17 percent by 2018, primarily due to an 

estimated 36,423 ton reduction in emissions from mobile sources 

due to new federal vehicle emission standards. While NOx from 

point sources is projected to increase by 13 percent, the 2018 

emissions inventory data does not include NOx reductions from the 

installation of BART controls in Nevada. The projected increase 

of 29 percent in area sources by 2018 is largely due to 

forecasted increases in activity from population growth. 

• Volatile Organic Compounds: VOCs are gases emitted by a 

wide array of man-made products and sources, but in Nevada are 

mostly from living organisms (90 percent), a natural source 
36 

categorized as a biogenic. VOCs impact visibility as emissions 

condense in the atmosphere to form an organic aerosol. 

Projected emissions of VOCs are not expected to change by 2018. 

• PM2.5: PM fine emissions are composed of fine particulates 

that can remain suspended in the atmosphere for long periods of 

time and travel long distances. In Nevada, these emissions are 

generated mostly by natural fires (49 percent) and area sources 

(37 percent) such as woodstoves. Statewide emissions of PM2.5 

are expected to increase by 15 percent by 2018. Most of the 

increase is associated with fugitive dust related to increases 

in population. Overall, PM2.5 is a relatively small part of the 

visibility problem compared to other pollutants. 

• PM10: PM coarse emissions are larger particles that travel 

shorter distances, but still contribute to regional visibility 

impairment. In Nevada, PM coarse emissions are predominately 

due to windblown dust (50 percent) and fugitive dust (36 

percent). PM10 emissions are expected to increase about 17 

percent by 2018 due mostly to projected increases in road dust 

and fugitive dust linked to increases in population. Windblown 

dust is not projected to change by 2018, and remains the primary 

source category for these emissions. 

• Ammonia: NH3 emissions are from a variety of sources 

including wastewater treatment facilities, livestock operations, 

fertilizer applications and mobile sources. NH3 emissions are 
37 

predominantly from area sources (59 percent) and on-road mobile 

sources (23 percent). The 2018 projections indicate a net 

increase of 20 percent, mostly from on-road mobile sources due 

to projected increases in population, and by extension, 

vehicular traffic. While emission estimates for NH3 are hard to 

quantify, these pollutants are important because they react with 

SO2 and NOx to form ammonium sulfate (SO4) and ammonium nitrate 

(NO3) particles that are very effective in impairing visibility. 

• Primary Organic Aerosol: POA includes organic molecules or 

compounds directly emitted from the combustion of organic 

material. Natural fire emissions (91 percent) dominate this 

category of statewide emissions. 

• Elemental Carbon: EC particulates are emitted as a primary 

aerosol from fossil fuel combustion (vehicles, boilers, and 

other industrial processes), wild fires and other types of 

burning. In Nevada, the primary source of EC emissions is 

natural fire (83 percent) followed by off-road mobile (12 

percent). Total EC emissions are projected to decrease 12 

percent by 2018, mostly from mobile source emissions reductions 

resulting from federal regulations.

 3. Analysis of Natural versus Anthropogenic Emissions 

NDEP distinguishes between natural and anthropogenic 

sources of statewide emissions to indicate the type and level of 

emissions within the State that are amenable to controls. Table 
38 

4 provides a summary of anthropogenic and natural emissions 

based on the 2018 emissions inventory. The last column provides 

the percentage change in total emissions from the average 

emissions baseline. 

TABLE 4--NATURAL V. ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES 

Emissions Summary in 2018 (tons per year)

Anthropogenic Natural

Total in 

2018

Change 

from 

Baseline

Tons/ 

Year

% of 

Total

Tons/ 

Year

% of 

Total

SOx 43,440 94% 2,784 6% 46,224 -33.0%

NOx 112,394 83% 23,102 17% 135,496 -16.6%

EC 964 17% 4,674 83% 5,638 -12.0%

PM2.5 12,289 51% 11,845 49% 24,134 15.1%

PM10 89,165 47% 99,122 53% 188,287 16.8%

NH3 12,819 88% 1,684 12% 14,503 19.9%

POA 2,321 9% 22,501 91% 24,822 0.4%

VOC 85,962 10% 811,745 90% 897,707 0.1%

Total 359,354 27% 977,458 73% 1,336,811 -1.3% 

Source: Table 3-6, page 3-14, Nevada RH SIP 

NDEP estimates that about 73 percent of its statewide 

emissions in 2018 are projected to come from natural sources 

(i.e., natural fires, windblown dust and biogenics). Natural 

sources contribute most of the emissions of EC, POA and VOC, and 

about half the emissions of PM2.5 and PM10. While anthropogenic 

sources comprise only 27 percent of the projected inventory in 

2018, these sources are important contributors of SOx, NOx and 

NH3 as well as half of PM2.5 and PM10. 
39 

 D. Sources of Visibility Impairment

NDEP used baseline monitoring data presented in Table 5 to 

analyze the contribution of pollutants to light extinction 

(i.e., visibility impairment) on the worst days at Jarbidge. 

The pollutants causing the highest levels of light extinction 

are associated with the sources causing the most visibility 

impairment. The primary contributors to light extinction at 

Jarbidge are organic matter carbon (40 percent), coarse matter 

(22.3 percent), and sulfates (16.7 percent). Elevated levels of 

organic carbon and its seasonal pattern suggest these particles 

are from wildfires and biogenic sources. Two components of 

organic carbon, POA and VOCs, are each 90 percent from natural 

sources as listed above in the 2018 emissions inventory. While 

anthropogenic emissions contributing to organic carbon may 

include fossil fuels combustion and wood burning, these are not 

likely sources at Jarbidge, which is an isolated national park. 

Similarly, coarse matter, also known as PM10, is due mostly to 

naturally occurring events of windblown dust and fugitive dust 

based on the 2018 emissions inventory. Ammonia sulfate (SO4) is 

the third highest contributor to light extinction on the worst 

days (16.7 percent), and the one most closely associated with 

anthropogenic sources. Soil (PM2.5) and elemental carbon (EC) 

are mostly from natural fire, and ammonia nitrates (NO3) have 

only a minimal contribution to light extinction at Jarbidge. 
40 

This analysis indicates that most of the light extinction at 

Jarbidge is due to natural sources. 

TABLE 5—PERCENTAGE OF LIGHT EXTINCTION AT JARBIDGE

(BASELINE PERIOD8) 

Year SO4 NO3 OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt

20 Percent Worst Days 

2001 14.6 3.5 38.6 8.4 10.4 24.2 0.3 

2002 11.5 5.6 48.4 6.5 10.9 17.1 0.0 

2003 17.3 3.1 40.8 6.3 7.7 24.8 0.0 

2004 23.6 5.7 32.4 5.0 9.7 23.0 0.7 

Average 16.7 4.5 40.0 6.5 9.7 22.3 0.3

Source: Table 2-2, page 2-19, Nevada RH SIP 

 

 1. Sources of Visibility Impairment at Jarbidge

NDEP relied on source apportionment modeling9 conducted by 

the WRAP to determine the sources of sulfate and nitrate 

particles at Jarbidge since these pollutants are commonly 

associated with anthropogenic sources. The source apportionment 

modeling results for the WRAP region on the worst days at 

Jarbidge in 2018 indicate that the relative contribution of 

particulate sulfate concentrations is primarily from point 

sources and natural fires in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Nevada 

and California (in descending order). If one expands the 

 

8 While the baseline period is from 2000 to 2004, the monitoring data for 2000 

at Jarbidge was invalid because it failed to meet EPA’s data completeness 

criteria. 

9 The WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center used the Particulate Matter Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) algorithm in the Comprehensive Air Quality 

Model with Extensions (CAMx) to attribute particle species, particularly 

sulfate and nitrate, from specific source areas and source categories within 

the WRAP region. The PSAT algorithm applies nitrate-sulfate-ammonia 

chemistry to a system of tracers to track chemical transformation, transport 

and dissipation of emissions based on a 36 kilometer grid cell within a 

specified source area. 
41 

modeling domain to include all areas outside the WRAP region, 

the areas of greatest sulfate contribution are Outside Domain10

(43.8 percent), Idaho (10.3 percent), Oregon (7.2 percent), and 

Pacific Offshore (6.9 percent). Based on this analysis, Nevada 

contributes a relatively small amount (less than 5 percent) of 

sulfate at Jarbidge, which primarily comes from outside the 

United States. 

Source apportionment modeling indicates that the areas of 

greatest nitrate contribution in the WRAP region on the worst 

days at Jarbidge in 2018 is primarily from area and mobile 

sources in Idaho, and mobile sources in Utah and Nevada. Point 

sources in all three states are also significant contributors. 

Including all areas outside the WRAP region, Idaho is the 

largest source of nitrates on the worst days (30.3 percent), 

followed by Outside Domain (27.5 percent), Nevada (13.1 

percent), and Utah (10.6 percent). This analysis indicates that 

Nevada contributes a small amount of nitrates at Jarbidge. 

In summary, the analysis of light extinction indicates that 

organic carbon and coarse matter from natural sources account 

for most of the visibility impairment at Jarbidge. While 

sulfates are an important contributor to light extinction, the 

vast majority of sulfate particles are from outside of Nevada. 

 

10 Outside Domain represents the background concentrations of pollutants that 

enter the modeling domain from sources outside the United States as well as 

portions of Canada and Mexico that are included in the modeling domain. 
42 

 2. Nevada’s Contributions to Visibility Impairment in Class 

I Areas Outside of the State 

NDEP identified the rank and percentage of sulfate 

extinction and nitrate extinction due to Nevada’s emissions at 

IMPROVE monitors in each of 24 Class I areas in the five 

adjacent states.11 The results for the best and worst days in 

2002 and 2018 indicate that Nevada is responsible for a very 

small part of visibility impairment in Class I areas in Arizona, 

California, Idaho, Oregon and Utah. The highest concentration 

of sulfate extinction from Nevada’s emissions in 2018 on the 

best days is 7.2 percent at Sawtooth Wilderness Area in Idaho, 

and on the worst days is 5.6 percent at Zion National Park in 

Utah. For nitrate extinction in 2018, Nevada’s highest 

contribution on the best days is 12.4 percent at Joshua Tree 

National Park in California, and on the worst days is 20 percent 

at Desolation Wilderness in California. The next highest 

contribution of nitrate extinction is significantly lower, 8.8 

percent at Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah. The level of 

Nevada’s contributions to other Class I areas, mostly well below 

10 percent, indicate that the vast majority of sulfates and 

nitrates in other Class I areas are from sources outside of 

Nevada. In conclusion, NDEP relied on source apportionment 

 

11 See Table 4.3 Nevada’s Sulfate Extinction Contribution to Class I Areas Outside of Nevada (page 4-15) and Table 

4.4 Nevada’s Nitrate Extinction Contribution to Class I Areas Outside of Nevada (page 4-17). 
43 

modeling to determine the relative contributions of haze causing 

pollutants in Class I areas inside and outside Nevada. We found 

these analyses to be valid and technically correct. We propose 

to find that the State has met the requirements of CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(iii) and (iv). 

 E. Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Nevada is required to evaluate the use of BART controls at 

26 types of major stationary sources12 built between 1962 and 

1977 that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of any 

pollutant and may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area. 

CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.308(e). The state must 

submit a list of all BART-eligible sources within the state, and 

a determination of BART controls, including emissions 

limitations and schedules of compliance, for those sources 

subject to BART. Each source subject to BART is required to 

install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but 

not later than five years after EPA approval of the state’s 

regional haze SIP revision. CAA Section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

 

12 The set of “major stationary sources” potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 
44 

 1. Sources eligible for BART 

The first phase of the BART evaluation is to identify all 

the BART-eligible sources within a state’s boundaries. NDEP 

identified fourteen units at seven facilities as eligible for 

BART controls as listed below in Table 6. The seven facilities 

are Nevada Energy’s Tracy (Mustang, NV), Fort Churchill 

(Yerington, NV), Reid Gardner (Moapa, NV) and Sunrise (Las 

Vegas, NV) electrical generating stations; Southern California 

Edison’s Mohave generating station (Laughlin, NV); Nevada Cement 

Company’s Portland cement plant (Fernley, NV); and Chemical Lime 

Company’s Portland cement plant (Apex, NV). Mustang, Yerington, 

Moapa and Fernley are in eastern Nevada. Las Vegas, Laughlin 

and Apex are in southern Nevada. A map locating BART sources in 

relation to Class I areas is provided as Figure 1, page 5-5, in 

Nevada’s RH SIP. 
45 

TABLE 6—SOURCES ELIGIBLE FOR BART IN NEVADA

Source

(Location)

Unit Source 

Category 

Date 

in 

Operation 

Facility Potential to 

Emit (tons per year) 

NOx SO2 PM10

Tracy 

(Mustang) 

Boiler 1

Electric 

Generating 

Station

1963

1,167 21 125 Boiler 2 1965

Boiler 3 1974

Fort 

Churchill 

(Yerington)

Boiler 1 Electric 

Generating 

Station

1968

2,221 9 41 

Boiler 2 1971

Reid Gardner 

(Moapa)

Boiler 1 Electric 

Generating 

Station

1965

Boiler 2 1968 7,045 1,020 1,343 

Boiler 3 1976

Sunrise 

(Las Vegas) Boiler 1

Electric 

Generating 

Station

1964 851 1 13 

Mohave 

(Laughlin)

Boiler 1 Electric 

Generating 

Station

1969

20,267 40,347 1,958 

Boiler 2 1969

Nevada Cement 

Company 

(Fernley)

Kiln 1 Portland 

Cement 

Plant

1963

2,065 96 80 Kiln 2 1967-68

Chemical Lime 

Company 

(Apex)

Kiln 3

Portland 

Cement 

Plant

1968 1,121 178 241 

Source: Table 5-1, page 5-3, Nevada RH SIP 

 2. Sources subject to BART 

The second phase of the BART determination process is to 

identify those BART-eligible sources that one may reasonably 

anticipate to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 

any Class I area. These subject-to-BART sources are required to 

analyze what control measures, if any, constitute BART for the 

applicable SO2, NOx and PM10 emissions. A state may exempt a 

BART-eligible source from further BART review if the source is 
46 

not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment at any Class I area. As described in 

EPA’s BART Guidelines13, a state may chose to use dispersion 

modeling to estimate a source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment, an approach which requires the State to establish a 

threshold for contribution. Nevada established a 0.5 deciview 

threshold for exempting BART-eligible sources based on the 

results of dispersion modeling14. 

NDEP determined that four of the seven eligible facilities 

are subject to BART since these facilities contribute to 

visibility impairment higher than 0.5 deciviews in one or more 

Class I areas. Information on the four subject-to-BART 

facilities is listed below in Table 7. 

 

13 EPA’s Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule are 

at 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y or 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). For information 

on setting the contribution threshold refer to 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). 

14WRAP’s RMC used the CALPUFF modeling system to assess whether Nevada’s 

eligible sources were subject to or exempt from BART by estimating impacts 

from a single source on each Class I area within 300 km of any BART-eligible 

facility. The highest modeled impact in the fourth column is the maximum 

annual 98th percentile delta deciview (8th highest value) of the three years 

analyzed. 
47 

TABLE 7—SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART IN NEVADA

(Based on data from 2001-2003)

Facility Class I Areas 

within 300 km

Distance 

to 

Class I 

Area (km)

Highest 

Impact on 

Class I Area

 (dv)

Days 

Impact 

exceeds 

0.5 dv

Tracy Desolation 

Mokelumne 

Hoover 

Yosemite 

Caribou 

Lassen Volcanic 

South Warner 

Lava Beds

 81

101

142

153

170

175

189

286

1.20

0.88

0.52

0.50

1.03

0.94

0.99

0.74

47

32

11

11

48

44

62

25

Fort 

Churchill

Mokelumne 

Desolation 

Hoover 

Emigrant 

Yosemite 

Ansel Adams 

John Muir 

Caribou 

Lassen Volcanic 

South Warner 

Thousand Lakes 

78 

85 

99 

100 

112 

132 

169 

226 

231

245

265

1.24 

1.25 

1.00 

0.68 

1.00 

0.70 

0.56 

0.77 

0.77

0.72

0.60

69 

72 

32 

25 

29 

28 

24 

34 

33

62

21

Reid 

Gardner

Grand Canyon 

Zion 

Joshua Tree

 85

148

292

1.72

0.83

0.88

60

38

48

Mohave Grand Canyon 

Joshua Tree 

Sycamore Canyon 

San Gorgonio 

San Jacinto 

Zion 

Pine Mountain 

Dome Land 

Mazatal 

Aqua Tibia 

Cucamonga

110

137

223

225

234

262

265

268

279

 286

 287

4.61

4.58

1.51

1.44

1.62

2 58

1.21 

1.97

1.19

1.15

1.38

498

248

111

75

74

270

49

72

45

54

51

Source: Table 5-2, page 5-6, Nevada RH SIP 

 
48 

Nevada determined that three BART-eligible facilities are 

not required to evaluate control options because these 

facilities modeled below the visibility impairment threshold of 

0.5 deciviews based on the 98th percentile deciview. These 

facilities are the Sunrise Generating Station, the Nevada Cement 

Company, and the Chemical Lime Company listed below in Table 8. 

The fourth BART-eligible facility, Mohave Generating Station, 

has ceased operating15. A summary of the WRAP’s BART exemption 

modeling for these facilities is available at 

http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planmodeling/rhaze.html. 

 

15 The Mohave Generating Station has ceased all operations related to the 

generation of electricity from burning coal. NDEP approved Southern 

California Edison’s request to terminate their Air Quality Operating Permit 

(No. AP4911-0774, FIN A0013) on April 9, 2010. 
49 

TABLE 8—SOURCES EXEMPT FROM BART IN NEVADA

Facility Class I Areas 

within 300 km

Distance 

to 

Class I 

Area (km) 

Highest 

Impact on 

Class I Area

 (dv)

Days 

Impact 

exceeds 

0.5 dv

Sunrise 

Generating 

Station 

Grand Canyon 

Zion 

Joshua Tree 

Dome Land 

San Gorgonio 

John Muir 

Bryce Canyon 

Sequoia 

San Jacinto 

Sycamore Canyon 

95 

207 

228 

237 

271 

282 

284 

288 

290 

290 

0.20 

0.11 

0.16 

0.08 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.04 

0.06 

0.03 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Nevada 

Cement 

Company 

Desolation 

Mokelumne 

Emigrant 

Hoover 

Yosemite 

Caribou 

Ansel Adams 

Lassen Volcanic 

South Warner 

John Muir 

Thousand Lakes 

Kaiser 

Kings Canyon 

Lava Beds 

101 

115 

148 

150 

161 

185 

186 

191 

224 

224 

254 

267 

294 

294 

0.27 

0.31 

0.16 

0.22 

0.22 

0.48 

0.18 

0.46 

0.49 

0.14 

0.26 

0.08 

0.11 

0.22 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

6 

7 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

Chemical 

Lime 

Company 

Grand Canyon 

Zion 

Joshua Tree 

Dome Land 

Bryce Canyon 

John Muir 

Sycamore 

Sequoia 

San Gorgonio 

89 

185 

254 

256 

263 

290 

292 

296 

297 

0.05 

0.03 

0.04 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Source: Table 5-3, page 5-7, Nevada RH SIP 

 

NDEP based its contribution threshold on four factors. 

First, 0.5 deciviews equates to the five percent extinction 
50 

threshold for new sources under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and New Source Review rules. Second, this value 

is consistent with the threshold selected by all other states in 

the West. Third, it represents the limit of perceptible change. 

Fourth, there was no clear rationale or justification for 

selecting a lower level. This explanation, however, is 

inadequate for adopting a 0.5 dv threshold to determine whether 

a BART source may be reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Based on EPA’s review of the BART-eligible sources, however, EPA 

is proposing to find that a 0.5 dv threshold is appropriate, 

given the specific facts in Nevada. 

In the BART Guidelines, EPA recommended that States 

“consider the number of BART sources affecting the Class I areas 

at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources’ impacts. 

In general, a larger number of BART sources causing impacts in a 

Class I area may warrant a lower contribution threshold.” 70 FR 

39104, 39161 July 6, 2005. Since four of the sources are 

subject to BART, EPA focused its review on the modeled impacts 

of the three BART-exempt sources as listed in the fourth column 

of Table 8. Of those sources, Nevada Cement Company has 

estimated impacts of close to 0.5 dv at three of the fourteen 

potentially impacted Class I areas. Nevada Cement‘s highest 

modeled impacts are at Caribou WA (0.48 dv), Lassen Volcanic NP 
51 

(0.46 dv) and South Warner WA (0.49 dv). Of the BART-eligible 

sources, only Tracy and Fort Churchill also impact visibility in 

these three Class I areas. NDEP found both Tracy and Fort 

Churchill to be subject to BART based on its threshold of 0.5 

dv. Thus, only a small number of BART-eligible sources, two of 

which were found to be subject to BART, are impacting Caribou 

WA, Lassen Volcanic NP, and South Warner WA above or close to 

the threshold level of 0.5 dv. In comparison to Nevada Cement, 

Sunrise’s highest impact is 0.20 dv and Chemical Lime’s highest 

impact is 0.05, both on Grand Canyon NP. Of the other BARTsubject sources impacting visibility at the Grand Canyon, Mohave 

has closed and Reid Gardner is subject to BART controls. Given 

the relatively limited impact on visibility from the three 

exempted sources, NDEP could have reasonably concluded that a 

0.5 dv threshold was appropriate for identifying those BARTeligible sources with significant impacts on visibility in Class 

I areas. Based on our analysis, EPA is proposing to approve the 

0.5 dv threshold adopted by Nevada in its Regional Haze SIP. 

3. BART Determinations 

NDEP completed BART determinations and set emission limits 

for the eligible units at the Tracy, Churchill, and Reid Gardner 

electrical generating stations in conformance with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. Control technologies or measures identified by NDEP 

as BART are required to be installed and operating on units at 
52 

these three facilities by January 1, 2015, or no later than five 

years after approval of Nevada’s RH SIP, whichever occurs 

sooner. The designated BART controls, emission limits, and 

compliance deadlines are enforceable through Nevada State 

regulation R190-08, adopted on April 23, 2009. Nevada Energy’s 

BART reports and NDEP’s BART determinations are available at 

http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planmodeling/rhaze.html. Nevada Energy 

is the owner and operator of Tracy, Fort Churchill and Reid 

Gardner. NDEP made its BART determinations based on the BART 

reports from Nevada Energy, additional economic analysis, and 

baseline emission scenarios for NOx and SO2 using emissions data 

from EPA’s Acid Rain Program. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the 

Nevada RH SIP for further information. 

a. Tracy Generating Station 

Background: Tracy is a natural gas-fueled power plant 

complex with 12 generating units located about 17 miles east of 

Reno, Nevada. The plant consists of three BART-eligible steam 

boiler units completed in 1963, 1965 and 1974. These units have 

a generating capacity of about 251 megawatts (MW), of which unit 

1 is 55 MW, unit 2 is 83 MW and unit 3 is 113 MW. The Title V 

permit allows burning pipeline quality natural gas (PNG) or 

blended residual fuel oil (No. 2 and No. 6 and non-PCB mineral 

oil). Nevada Energy, the owner, completed a BART analysis for 

Tracy that investigated technology alternatives and potential 
53 

reductions in NOx, SO2 and PM10 emissions rates in a report dated 

October 2008. NDEP partially concurred with Nevada Energy’s 

analysis of BART controls, but disagreed that installation of 

only low NOx burners (LNB) for control of NOx emissions at units 

2 and 3 was BART. NDEP set lower NOx emission limits at all 

three units than those requested by Nevada Energy. NDEP 

reviewed Nevada Energy’s five-factor analysis for each unit at 

Tracy and determined that installation of LNB with flue gas 

recirculation (FGR) for units 1 and 2, as well as LNB with 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for unit 3, meet the 

BART criteria. Associated first year costs range from $2,383 to 

$3,050/ton of NOx removed. NDEP considered these values to be 

cost effective. Based on a review of Nevada Energy’s economic 

analysis, NDEP concluded that the dollars per ton of NOx removed 

for units 1 and 2 increased significantly for LNB with SNCR, 

rotating opposed fire air (ROFA) with Rotamix16, and selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR), with only slight improvements in 

visibility. For unit 2, although LNB with SNCR appears cost 

effective, that technology does not reduce the modeled average 

number of days above 0.5 deciviews at the Desolation Wilderness 

Area or Yosemite National Park. For unit 3, although the first 

year cost effectiveness for ROFA with Rotamix appears 

 

16 Rotamix is a technology for adding SNCR using ammonia or a urea-based 

reagent. 
54 

reasonable, the incremental cost effectiveness of ROFA with 

Rotamix is much higher than LNB with SNCR. It also does not 

reduce the modeled average number of days above 0.5 deciviews at 

Desolation Wilderness or Yosemite. Support documents for 

Nevada’s BART determinations are at 

http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planmodeling/rhaze.html. 

Regarding BART for SO2, NDEP agreed with Nevada Energy’s 

analysis to require Pipeline Quality Natural Gas (PNG) or low 

sulfur No. 2 fuel oil with an emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

over a 24-hour averaging time for all three units. NDEP also 

agreed with Nevada Energy that BART for PM10 for all three units 

is PNG or low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil with an emission limit of 

0.03 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour average. 

BART Controls: For units 1 and 2 at Tracy, EPA proposes to 

agree with NDEP’s analysis that BART for NOx is LNB with FGR and 

emission limits of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and 0.12 lb/MMBtu, 

respectively, based on a 12-month rolling average. For unit 3, 

EPA proposes to agree with NDEP’s analysis that BART for NOx is 

LNB with SNCR and an emission limit of 0.19 lb/MMBtu, based on a 

12-month rolling average. EPA also proposes to approve NDEP’s 

conclusion to eliminate the additional control options that 

Nevada Energy analyzed based on its finding those options had 

significantly higher incremental cost effectiveness and/or would 

not reduce the frequency of impaired visibility at Class I 
55 

areas. EPA proposes to agree that for all units at Tracy, BART 

for SO2 is PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil with an emission limit of 

0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. For PM10, EPA 

proposes to agree with NDEP’s analysis that BART is also PNG 

and/or No. 2 fuel oil, but with an emission limit of 0.03 

lb/MMBtu, based on a 3-hour averaging period for all units. 

Visibility Improvement: Based on visibility modeling, 

emissions reductions due to the installation of BART controls at 

Tracy result in 82 less days every year with visibility impacts 

greater than 0.5 dv at fifteen Class 1 areas within 300 km of 

the facility. NDEP anticipates even greater visibility 

improvement from BART than modeled because the actual NOx 

emission limits for BART (0.12-0.19 lb/MMBtu) are much lower 

than the emission rates (0.40 lb/MMBtu) used to model visibility 

improvement due to BART implementation. 

b. Fort Churchill Generating Station 

Background: Fort Churchill is a natural gas-fired power 

plant located in Yerington, Nevada, that uses steam boilers to 

drive turbine generators. The plant consists of two units, 

completed in 1968 and 1971, that are BART-eligible with a 

generating capacity of 113 megawatts each. The fuel currently 

used in units 1 and 2 is PNG or blended fuel oil (No. 6 residual 

oil and No. 2 distillate fuel oil). In its BART analysis, 

Nevada Energy investigated technology alternatives and 
56 

identified potential reductions in NOx, SO2 and PM10 emissions 

rates. NDEP partially concurred with Nevada Energy’s analysis 

of BART controls, but disagreed that installation of only LNB 

for control of NOx emissions was BART, and disagreed with the 

associated NOx emission limits. For unit 1, LNB with SNCR and 

ROFA with Rotamix appear cost effective in the first year costs, 

but have significantly higher incremental cost effectiveness 

than LNB with FGR. In addition, LNB with SNCR and ROFA with 

Rotamix do not show fewer modeled average number of days above 

0.5 deciviews at Mokelumne Wilderness Area and Yosemite. For 

unit 2, LNB with SNCR and ROFA with Rotamix appear to be cost 

effective in the first year, but have significantly higher 

incremental cost effectiveness than LNB with FGR. Nevada 

Energy’s modeling analysis shows that LNB with SNCR does not 

result in any fewer averaged number of days above 0.5 deciviews 

at Mokulumne and only one fewer averaged days above 0.5 delta 

deciviews at Yosemite. 

Regarding BART for SO2, NDEP agreed with Nevada Energy’s 

analysis to require PNG or low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil with an 

emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu over a 24-hour averaging time 

for all three units. NDEP also agreed with Nevada Energy that 

BART for PM10 for all three units is PNG or low sulfur No. 2 fuel 

oil with an emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour 

average. 
57 

BART Controls: For units 1 and 2 at Fort Churchill, EPA is 

proposing to approve NDEP’s determination that BART for NOx is 

LNB with FGR and emission limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu and 0.16 

lb/MMBtu, respectively, based on a 12-month rolling average. 

EPA proposes to approve NDEP’s decision to eliminate the 

additional control options that Nevada Energy analyzed based on 

its finding those options had significantly higher incremental 

cost effectiveness or would not reduce the frequency of impaired 

visibility at Class I areas. 

For SO2, EPA proposes to agree with NDEP’s analysis that 

BART is PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil for all units with an emission 

limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. 

For PM10, EPA proposes to find that BART is also PNG and/or No. 2 

fuel oil for all units, with an emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu, 

based on a 3-hour averaging period. 

Visibility Improvement: Based on visibility modeling, 

emission reductions due to the installation of BART controls at 

Fort Churchill result in 227 less days every year with 

visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv at fourteen Class 1 areas 

within 300 km of the facility. NDEP anticipates even greater 

visibility improvement from BART than modeled because the actual 

NOx emission limits for BART (0.12 and 0.16 lb/MMBtu) are much 

less than the emission rates (0.40 lb/MMBtu) used to model 

visibility improvement due to BART implementation. For Fort 
58 

Churchill, the total annual NOx emissions post-BART controls (963 

tpy) are 53 percent of those modeled (2,181 tpy). 

c. Reid Gardner Generating Station 

Background: Reid Gardner is a coal-fueled, steam-electric 

generating plant with four operating units producing a total of 

557 MW. Three of the units, built in 1965, 1968 and 1976 are 

BART-eligible. Each of these units produces about 100 MW with 

steam boilers that drive turbine-generators. The units are 

equipped with LNB and over-fire air (OFA) system, mechanical 

collectors for particulate control, wet scrubbers that use soda 

ash for SO2 removal, as well as recently installed baghouses. 

NDEP’s review of Nevada Energy’s BART report for Reid Gardner 

resulted in NDEP agreeing only with the control technologies 

proposed as BART for SO2 and PM10. For the three BART units, 

NDEP concurs that BART for SO2 is the existing wet soda ash FGD 

and BART for PM10 is the recently installed fabric filter 

baghouse. NDEP disagreed with Nevada Energy’s conclusion on 

BART for NOx, and on the proposed emission limits for NOx, SO2

and PM10. NDEP later responded to comments from EPA, FLMs and 

other non-governmental organizations regarding its proposed BART 

SO2 emission limit for Reid Gardner. After further evaluation of 

emission data that reflected compliance with existing controls 

at the facility, NDEP lowered the SO2 emissions limit at Reid 

Gardner from 0.25 lb/MMBtu to 0.15 lb/MMBtu on all three units. 
59 

The revised BART regulation was adopted by the Nevada 

Environmental Commission on February 11, 2009 and submitted to 

EPA as a revision to NDEP’s RH SIP on February 18, 2010. 

BART Controls: NDEP determined that for all units at Reid 

Gardner, BART controls for NOx are rotating opposed fire air 

(ROFA) with Rotamix and emission limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for 

units 1 and 2, and 0.28 lb/MMBtu for unit 3, based on a 12-month 

rolling average. To evaluate the cost of compliance, NDEP 

analyzed the cost per year of the various control technologies 

compared to the tons of NOx removed by each. NDEP determined 

that the additional cost per year for SCR technologies did not 

appear cost effective compared to the additional NOx reduction 

for each unit. NDEP also evaluated the second BART factor, 

energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, for requiring 

SCR or SNCR rather than ROFA with Rotamix. NDEP determined that 

there were negative non-air quality environmental impacts with 

SCR and SNCR, including the salability and ultimate disposal of 

fly ash due to higher ammonia levels. Moreover, NDEP found that 

SCR and SNCR increased the potential for creating a visible 

stack plume. NDEP also was concerned about the transportation 

of ammonia to Reid Gardner increasing the likelihood of an 

accidental release. EPA is proposing to approve these BART 

determinations for NOx based on NDEP’s approach. 
60 

EPA proposes to agree that BART controls for SO2 are wet 

soda ash flue gas desulfurization on all units with an emission 

limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. We 

also propose to agree that for PM10, BART controls are fabric 

filter baghouses on all units with an emission limit of 0.015 

lb/MMBtu, based on 3-hour averaging period. 

Visibility Improvement: Based on visibility modeling, 

emission reductions due to the installation of BART controls at 

Reid Gardner result in five less days with visibility impacts 

greater than 0.5 dv at five Class I areas within 300 kilometers 

of the facility. NDEP anticipates even greater visibility 

improvement from BART than modeled since the total annual 

emissions for NOx, SO2 and PM10 are about half of the emissions 

modeled due to more stringent emission limits. 

d. Mohave Generating Station 

Background: Mohave was a 1,580 MW coal-fired power plant 

with two units that ceased operations at the end of December 

2005. Located about 70 miles southwest of Grand Canyon National 

Park, Mohave was one of the single, largest sources of SO2 in the 

West. The facility closed after failing to meet emission 

limitations for SO2 and emission controls for NOx as required by 

a consent decree between the facility’s owners and environmental 
61 

organizations17. However, the owners did not officially decide 

to decommission the facility until June 10, 2009. Since Mohave 

was subject to BART and its final status was unknown at the time 

Nevada developed its SIP, the WRAP included Mohave in its 

emission inventory and NDEP prepared a BART determination for 

SO2, NOx and PM10 that was required prior to the facility 

restarting operations. NDEP estimates that BART controls, based 

on fuel switching from coal to natural gas, would have resulted 

in an additional reduction of 8,701 tons per year of SO2 (75 

percent reduction) and 19,595 tons per year of NOx (98 percent 

reduction) compared to the emission limits and control 

requirements in the consent decree. 

BART Controls: Since Mohave is permanently closed, with 

emissions of zero, EPA is satisfied with the State’s approach to 

determining BART. 

Visibility Improvement: NDEP relies on emission reductions 

required by the consent decree as well as their BART 

determination to characterize visibility improvement at eleven 

Class I areas located within 300 km of Mohave. While this 

method understates the visibility benefit resulting from the 

 

17 In a Consent Decree dated December 21, 1999, the owners of Mohave power 

plant agreed with the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, and National Parks and 

Conservation Association to limit opacity to 20 percent by implementing SO2

emission limitations and NOx control requirements on units 1 and 2 by 

December 31, 2005. The consent decree had no emission limitations for either 

NOx or PM. EPA promulgated a final rule on February 8, 2002, to include the 

consent decree requirements in Nevada’s Federal Implementation Plan for 

Visibility at 40 CFR 52.1488. Nevada included the requirements of the 

Visibility FIP in Mohave’s Title V operating permit. 
62 

plant’s closure, modeling indicates these emission reductions 

would result in 538 less days every year at the eleven Class I 

areas with visibility impairment of greater than 0.5 dv. With 

Mohave’s permanent shutdown, the annual emission reductions are 

equal to the WRAP’s baseline emissions for the plant: 55,047 

tons of SO2; 31,344 tons of NOx; and 3,417 tons of PM10. The 

closure of the Mohave generating station provided the largest 

reduction in haze-causing pollutants from a subject-to-BART 

source in Nevada, and should result in greater visibility 

improvement than modeling has projected. 

 4. EPA’s Assessment 

EPA is proposing to approve NDEP’s analyses and conclusions 

for the BART emissions units at Tracy, Fort Churchill and Reid 

Gardner generating stations. Based on our review, EPA is 

proposing to find that the BART determinations were conducted in 

a manner consistent with the RHR BART requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(e), the EPA’s BART Guidelines, and EPA’s Air Pollution 

Control Cost Manual 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/costmodels.html). We believe the 

outcome of Nevada’s BART determinations reflects a reasonable 

consideration of the relevant factors. 
63 

 F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goal 

The RHR requires states to establish a goal, expressed in 

deciviews, for each Class I area within the state that provides 

for reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility 

conditions by 2064. The RPG must provide for an improvement in 

visibility for the most impaired days, and ensure no degradation 

in visibility for the least impaired days over the period of the 

SIP. 

 1. Visibility Projections for 2018 

NDEP relied on the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

model used by the WRAP’s RMC to project visibility conditions at 

all western Class I areas in 2018. For Jarbidge, the model 

predicted 11.05 dv on the worst days and 2.50 dv on the best 

days in 2018. The visibility projection compares favorably to 

the URP estimate in 2018 of 11.09 dv as displayed in Table 9. 

The visibility projection was based on estimates of emissions 

reductions from all existing and known controls resulting from 

federal and state CAA programs as of March 2007. This data 

formed the basis for the State’s RH SIP submitted to EPA in 

November 2009.18 EPA addressed the uncertainties associated with 

 

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). It is EPA’s view that at this point in 

the SIP process, the discovery of a potential error in the visibility projections for 2018 does not call for a revision of 

the Nevada SIP. Because of the significant resources needed to model projected visibility impacts and the time 

needed for Nevada to repeat the SIP review and approval process, such action is not appropriate. Moreover, any 

correction to the modeling results at this time should be based on an update to all the data used in 2007 to model 
64 

modeled projections by making the RPG an analytic tool for the 

purpose of evaluating progress, not an enforceable standard. 

51.308(d)(1)(v) and 64 FR 35733. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF MODEL PREDICTED PROGRESS 

TOWARD 2018 UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS AT JARBIDGE (in deciviews)

Class I 

Area 

20% Worst Days 20% Best Days

2000-04 

Baseline 

Worst Days

2018 

URP 

Estimate

2018 

Modeling 

Result 

(RPG)

2000-04 

Baseline 

Best Days

2018 

Modeling 

Result

Jarbidge 12.07 11.09 11.05 2.56 2.50

Source: Table 6-3, page 6-15, Nevada RH SIP 

 2. Establishing the Reasonable Progress Goal 

In setting its RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge, NDEP considered a 

number of different factors as described on pages 6-16 and 6-17 

of the Nevada RH SIP. These factors included: 1) The URP of 

11.09 in 2018; 2) Reductions in Nevada’s anthropogenic emissions 

by 2018 estimated at 44 percent for SOx and 33 percent for NOx; 

3) Reductions in anthropogenic emissions consistent with 

Nevada’s share of emissions reductions at Class I areas in other 

states; 4) Major reductions in mobile source emissions; 5) Major 

contributions to visibility impairment from offshore marine 

shipping and international emissions; 6) Significant 

 

visibility projections. For example, the visibility modeling did not include emission reductions from more recent 

BART control decisions in Nevada and neighboring states, and did include emissions from proposed facilities in 

Nevada that now are not expected to be built. EPA is satisfied that the progress report and adequacy determination 

due in November 2014, see 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), will provide an opportunity to determine whether Nevada’s 

SIP is sufficient to ensure that the State is making reasonable progress. 
65 

contributions from natural sources of visibility impairment; and 

7) Consideration of the five BART factors. Based on its 

analysis of reasonable progress, Nevada concluded that 

additional control measures, beyond those documented for BART, 

are unreasonable at this time. 

EPA is proposing to agree with the State’s analysis and 

conclusion that it is reasonable not to seek additional controls 

on other sources within the State at this time. Importantly, 

the RPG for Jarbidge meets the URP in 2018, committing the State 

to make reasonable progress in the first planning period toward 

attaining natural background conditions. Nevada has 

demonstrated that the RPG provides for visibility improvement on 

the worst days and no degradation of visibility on the best days 

compared to the baseline average (see Table 9). The RPG also 

represents more visibility improvement than would result from 

implementation of other CAA requirements since emissions 

reductions from existing and known controls were included in the 

visibility modeling. EPA finds that the State’s decision not to 

seek additional control measures is supported by the attributes 

of regional haze at Jarbidge as well as the expected reductions 

in statewide emissions of SOx and NOx and BART controls on three 

facilities. The WRAP’s regional analysis indicates that haze at 

Jarbidge is mostly from natural sources like wildfires, and most 

of the anthropogenic sources contributing to that haze are 
66 

outside the State. Based upon everything NDEP considered in its 

SIP, EPA is proposing to approve Nevada’s demonstration that its 

RPG provides for reasonable progress in the first planning 

period as required in CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i), (ii) and (vi). 

 3. Interstate Consultation 

Nevada consulted with thirteen other western states through 

numerous WRAP meetings, workshops and conference calls that 

began in 1996. Through the WRAP’s consultative process, Nevada 

resolved technical tasks and policy decisions related to 

monitoring, emissions, modeling, BART application, control 

measures, and other issues. There were no comments from other 

states on Nevada’s RH SIP, implying that the consultative 

process was successful in resolving any potential conflicts that 

would undermine regional planning. EPA confirms that Nevada 

consulted with other states on its RPG through the WRAP process, 

and that there is no evidence of any disagreement on the RPG for 

Jarbidge. 

 G. Long-Term Strategy 

EPA is proposing to find that NDEP adequately addressed the 

RHR requirements in developing its LTS. We believe that the LTS 

provides sufficient documentation to ensure that Nevada will 

meet its emission reduction obligations for all Class I areas it 

affects in the first planning period. Nevada relied on 
67 

monitoring, emission inventories and modeling information from 

the WRAP as the technical basis for its LTS. Coordination and 

consultation occurred with other states through the WRAP, in 

which all western states participated in developing the 

technical analysis upon which their SIPs are based. This 

included identifying all anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment including major and minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility over the first planning period due to changes in 

point, area and mobile source emissions is a reduction in 

regional haze at Jarbidge. Nevada also analyzed its 

contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas in other 

states to ensure it is meeting its share of emission reductions 

obligations19. In particular, NDEP considered the following 

factors in developing its long-term strategy. 

 1. BART Controls 

The installation and operation of BART controls is an 

integral part of the State’s long-term strategy to achieve the 

RPG at Jarbidge, and to reduce Nevada’s share of emissions 

affecting Class I areas in neighboring states. As described in 

this notice and in more detail in Nevada’s RH SIP, NDEP is 

requiring three of Nevada Energy’s facilities (Tracy, Fort 

 

19 See Summary of Visibility Impairment at Nearby Class I Areas and Nevada’s 

Emissions Reductions, Table 7-6, page 7-21.
68 

Churchill and Reid Gardner) to install and operate BART controls 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 

2015 or five years after EPA approval of the SIP, whichever 

occurs first. Each source is required to establish procedures 

to ensure that the control equipment is properly operated and 

maintained. Nevada’s BART emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance are codified in a revision to the Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) adopted on February 11, 200920. The 

regulations identify the emission limits and control 

technologies required as BART on the Tracy, Fort Churchill and 

Reid Gardner facilities. NDEP also will incorporate BART 

control limits into Nevada Energy’s Title V operating permits 

for these facilities at the time of renewal. Regarding the 

Mohave generating station, Nevada terminated its Air Quality 

Operating Permit No. AP4911-0774 as documented in a letter to 

Southern California Edison on April 9, 2010. 

 2. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs 

Nevada continues to achieve significant reductions in SOx

and NOx from mobile sources through the implementation of 

Federal, State and local programs. Federal and State mobile 

source regulations are the primary air quality programs expected 

to reduce visibility impairment in the first planning period. 

These programs include limitations and schedules of compliance 

 

20 See Nevada RH SIP Appendix A for Nevada BART regulations.
69 

identified in rules and regulations that are unique to each 

program. For example, EPA has mandated new standards for onroad (highway) diesel fuel, known as ultra-low sulfur diesel 

(ULSD) beginning in 2006. This regulation dropped the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15 

ppm. ULSD fuel enables the use of cleaner technology diesel 

engines and vehicles with advanced emissions control devices, 

resulting in significantly lower emissions. Diesel fuel 

intended for locomotive, marine and non-road (farming and 

construction) engines and equipment is required to meet the low 

sulfur diesel fuel maximum specification of 500 ppm sulfur in 

2007, previously 5000 ppm. The ULSD fuel standard of 15 ppm 

sulfur will apply to all non-road diesel fuel by 2011. 

Locomotive and marine diesel fuel will be required to meet the 

ULSD standard beginning in 2012, resulting in further reductions 

of diesel emissions. Based on WRAP RMC models, implementation 

of the Federal programs alone will result in a 49 percent 

reduction in mobile source NOx emissions and a 63 percent 

reduction in mobile source SOx emissions from the baseline to 

2018. This trend is expected to provide significant visibility 

benefits for Jarbidge and at other Class I areas in neighboring 

states. 

The State’s continued implementation of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review (NSR) 
70 

program requirements, including FLM involvement in reviewing 

impacts on Class I areas, also supports achieving visibility 

goals. These programs will protect the least impaired days from 

further degradation and will assure that no Class 1 areas 

experience degradation from expansion or growth of a single new 

source or the regional development of stationary sources. 

Nevada also has emission control requirements for motor vehicles 

in Clark and Washoe Counties; for residential burning in Washoe 

County; for PM10 nonattainment/maintenance areas; and for dust 

suppression at construction sites and unpaved roads. Together 

with the State’s renewable energy requirements, these ongoing 

programs will contribute to improvements in visibility at 

protected Class I areas. 

 3. Construction Activities 

Nevada manages the release of fugitive dust related to 

construction activities through the implementation of 

regulations set forth in the Nevada Administrative Code 

445B.22037. The State requires fugitive dust to be controlled 

regardless of the size or amount of acreage disturbed, and 

requires the use of best practical methods to prevent airborne 

particulate matter. All activities that have the potential to 

adversely affect local air quality must include all appropriate 

measures to limit controllable emissions. Appropriate measures 

for dust control may consist of a phased approach to acreage 
71 

disturbance rather than disturbing the entire area all at once; 

using wet suppression through such application methods as water 

trucks or water sprays systems to control windblown dust; the 

application of soil binding agents or chemical surfactant to 

roadways and areas of disturbed soil; as well as the use of 

wind-break or wind-limiting fencing designed to limit wind 

erosion of soils. 

 4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules 

While NDEP did not include any repair or replacement 

schedules for large point sources, EPA is satisfied with the 

explanation that it is very difficult for the regulatory 

community to predict potential permit revisions for large 

sources. In general, repair and replacement of current 

facilities over time will reduce emissions as new technology is 

incorporated in industrial processes. Similarly, the 

construction of new sources may contribute to the early or 

scheduled retirement of older, less well-controlled sources. 

Five proposed power plants for Nevada were included in the 

projected emissions inventory for 2018. Whether these new 

sources are built will influence the future activity of existing 

sources. 

 5. Smoke Management Programs 

Preventing and managing emissions from prescribed fires in 

Nevada is achieved through implementation of the Nevada Smoke 
72 

Management Program (SMP) and through Open Burning regulations. 

The State’s SMP was developed to coordinate and facilitate the 

statewide management of prescribed outdoor burning, specifically 

for land management purposes. This program is designed to meet 

the requirements of Nevada’s air quality statutes listed in 

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 445B.100 through 445B.845, 

inclusive, and the requirements of the USEPA Interim Air Quality 

Policy on Wild Land and Prescribed Fires (EPA OAQPS, April 23, 

1998). The SMP supports the visibility protection goals for 

Class I areas. This program does not, however, supersede the 

authority of local governments to regulate and control smoke and 

air pollution under NRS 244.361 and NRS 268.410 or the authority 

of the State forester to regulate controlled fires under NRS 

527.122 through 527.128. 

Open burning is controlled through a comprehensive set of 

regulations that are found in NAC 445B.22067. These regulations 

apply to federal, state and private lands and prohibit open 

burning of combustible refuse, waste, garbage, oil or open 

burning for any salvage operation. Exemptions are granted for 

open burning conducted for the purposes of weed abatement, 

conservation, disease control, game or forest management, and 

fire training. Burning for agricultural purposes is exempt, as 

is the burning of yard waste and untreated wood at single-family 
73 

residences. Small fires used for cooking, recreation, education 

or ceremonial purposes are also exempt. 

 6. Other Measures Supporting the LTS 

NDEP intends to evaluate additional controls for sources 

that impact visibility in Class I areas in the required progress 

report due in 2014. This evaluation will take into account new 

monitoring and modeling information, new regulations, and new 

guidance that may result in additional control measures 

consistent with the reasonable progress requirement of the RHR. 

If additional controls are identified, the progress report will 

update the plan to include an implementation schedule for 

controls, necessary rulemaking, projected visibility 

improvements, and revised RPGs for 2018. 

 7. Interstate Transport Requirements for Visibility 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires SIP 

revisions to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source 

or other types of emission activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will interfere with 

another state’s plan to protect visibility. Nevada submitted 

its SIP for Interstate Transport to EPA on February 7, 2007, 

which EPA approved and promulgated in the Federal Register on 

July 31, 2007 (70 FR 41629). In our Federal Register Notice, we 

deferred action on whether Nevada interferes with other states’ 

plans to address regional visibility impairment caused by 
74 

regional haze until we received Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. As 

explained in Section IV.D.2. of this notice, NDEP relied on the 

WRAP’s source apportionment modeling to demonstrate that 

Nevada’s emissions are projected to have a minimal contribution 

to sulfate and nitrate extinction in each of 24 Class I areas in 

five adjacent states. Moreover, none of the neighboring western 

states have requested emission reductions from Nevada in order 

to meet their RPGs. Therefore, in proposing to approve Nevada’s 

RH SIP, we are proposing to find that this plan revision 

contains adequate provisions to protect visibility in other 

states. 

 H. Monitoring Strategy 

Nevada’s SIP includes the required monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing and reporting on regional haze 

visibility impairment as required in 51.308(d)(4). The primary 

source of monitoring data for the regional haze program in 

Nevada is the IMPROVE network. There is currently one IMPROVE 

monitoring site at Jarbidge. IMPROVE monitoring data serves as 

the baseline for the regional haze program, and is the source of 

data for states to comply with the regional haze monitoring 

requirements now and in the future. States have access to the 

IMPROVE data and data analysis tools through the Visibility 

Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS), which is maintained by 
75 

the WRAP and other regional planning organizations. The 

operation of the IMPROVE network is dependent on EPA funding. 

 1. Coordination of RAVI with RHR 

Nevada’s monitoring strategy is coordinated with the 

monitoring required for Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) that is codified under a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for the State. RAVI, which predates 

the RHR, is visibility impairment that is caused by the emission 

of air pollutants from one or a small number of sources. The 

provisions of visibility monitoring for RAVI in 40 CFR 52.26 are 

incorporated into the visibility FIP for Nevada in 40 CFR 

52.1488. Under the FIP, EPA has responsibility in cooperation 

with the appropriate FLMs to monitor visibility in Nevada’s 

Class I area. NDEP coordinates its regional haze monitoring 

with the FIP for RAVI by participating in the IMPROVE network, 

and utilizing data from the same IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge. 

 2. Additional Monitoring Sites 

EPA agrees with Nevada’s assessment that the existing 

IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge, its only class I area, is 

sufficient to address regional haze and determine reasonable 

progress toward the national visibility goal. The monitor is 

located in the Humboldt National Forest in northeastern Nevada, 

about one kilometer north of the city of Jarbidge in the 

Jarbidge River drainage. 
76 

 3. Using and Reporting Monitoring Data 

Nevada will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network, 

technical support from the WRAP, and regional technical tools 

(e.g., VIEWS and WRAP’s Technical Support System) to assess the 

contribution of emissions to visibility impairment at Class I 

areas within and outside the State. The IMPROVE network was 

established in the 1980s to measure visibility impairment in 

mandatory class I areas throughout the United States. The 

IMPROVE monitors were used by WRAP and NDEP as the source of 

data for the 2000-2004 baseline and for future projections, and 

is the source of record for air quality professionals to track 

visibility improvement or degradation. Visibility monitoring 

data is available to the public, states and EPA in an electronic 

format at the IMPROVE and VIEWS websites 

 4. Statewide Emissions Inventory 

NDEP commits to updating periodically its statewide 

emissions inventory, tracking emissions changes, determining 

trends, and utilizing the WRAP’s services to evaluate reasonable 

progress. Nevada has a statewide emissions inventory of 

pollutants reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment as described in section III.B. of this 

notice. NDEP annually updates its inventory of major point 

sources and its entire inventory every three years as required 

by EPA’s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule. The State’s 
77 

capacity to fulfill future requirements to project emissions and 

evaluate progress depend on the continued existence of the 

IMPROVE program as well as the technical support of the WRAP or 

a similar regional planning organization 

 

 I. State and Federal Land Manager Coordination 

Nevada participated fully in the WRAP process, the primary 

forum for consultation among western states, tribal nations, 

federal agencies, stakeholder groups and the public. FLMs from 

the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service were 

actively engaged in the WRAP’s development of technical analyses 

and reports for the western region and individual states. To 

facilitate consultation, NDEP provided a list of its agency 

contacts to the FLMs in a letter dated September 15, 2006. The 

FLMs had numerous opportunities throughout the WRAP process to 

participate fully in the development and review of regional 

technical documents that form the basis of the western states’ 

plans. Nevada provided additional opportunities for 

coordination and consultation with FLMs through local meetings 

and stakeholder workshops. NDEP provided its draft RH SIP to 

the FLMs on January 5, 2009 for a 60-day review and comment 

period. Comments were received from the FLMs on March 4 and 6, 

2009. NDEP’s responses to the FLMs’ comments are in Appendix C 
78 

of the Nevada RH SIP. EPA believes that NDEP adequately 

addressed the FLMs’ concerns either through revisions to the 

SIP, or in responses to their comments. NDEP also has committed 

to provide the FLMs an opportunity to review and comment on 

future SIP revisions, the 5-year progress reports, and the 

implementation of other programs that may contribute to class I 

visibility impairment. All SIP revisions will include a 

description of how the state consulted with and addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. At a minimum, NDEP will meet 

with the FLMs on an annual basis through the WRAP, as long as 

the WRAP continues to provide this forum. EPA is satisfied that 

Nevada has coordinated with the FLMs as required in 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(1-4). 

 J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports 

Nevada affirmed its commitment to submit a report to EPA 

every five years evaluating progress toward the RPG for its 

Class I area as well as Class I areas outside the State that may 

be affected by emissions from within the State as required in 40 

CFR 51.308(g). The first report is due five years after the 

State’s submittal, which is November 18, 2014. The required 

elements for these reports are listed in section III of this 

notice. 
79 

Nevada commits to making an adequacy determination of the 

current SIP at the same time it submits the five-year progress 

report as required in 40 CFR 51.308(h). If Nevada determines 

that the current implementation plan is or may be inadequate due 

to emissions from within the State, Nevada will develop 

additional strategies to address the plan deficiencies and 

revise the SIP within one year from the date that the progress 

report is due. If Nevada determines that the plan is or may be 

inadequate due to emissions from other states, Nevada will 

notify EPA and the other states. The affected states are 

required to address the deficiency through the regional planning 

process by developing additional strategies. 

Nevada also commits to complete and submit a comprehensive 

RH SIP revision to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every 10 years 

thereafter as required in 40 CFR 51.308 (f). In these 

comprehensive revisions, the State must evaluate and reassess 

all of the elements required in 40 CFR 51.308(d), taking into 

account improvements in monitoring data collection and analysis 

techniques and control technologies. The State must also 

address current visibility conditions, actual progress toward 

natural conditions, effectiveness of the long-term strategy, and 

the reasonable progress goal. 
80 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA believes the Nevada RH SIP fulfills all the relevant 

requirements of CAA Section 169A and the Regional Haze Rule. 

Therefore, we are proposing a full approval of the plan as 

described in Section 110(k)(3) of the Act. Regarding the major 

requirements, we find that Nevada has: established baseline 

visibility conditions and a reasonable progress goal for its one 

Class I area; developed a long-term strategy with enforceable 

measures to ensure reasonable progress toward achieving the RPG 

in the first planning period ending in 2018; adequately applied 

Best Available Retrofit Technology to specific stationary 

sources; developed a regional haze monitoring strategy; provided 

for periodic progress reports and revisions; provided for 

consultation and coordination with federal land managers; and 

provided for the regional haze plan’s future review and 

revisions. We also are proposing to find that emissions from 

Nevada do not interfere with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility as required by CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

 Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of 

the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 
81 

is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 

law. For that reason, this action: 

• is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review 

by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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); 
82 

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not interfere with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) because EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law.