36450 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule 

involves establishing a temporary safety 

zone. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add a temporary section, 

§ 165.T05–0426 to read as follows: 

§ 165–T05–0426 Safety Zone; Patuxent 

River, Patuxent River, MD. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

locations are regulated areas: 

(1) All waters of the lower Patuxent 

River, near Patuxent River, Maryland, 

located between Fishing Point and the 

base of the break wall marking the 

entrance to the East Patuxent Basin at 

Naval Air Station Patuxent River, within 

an area bounded by a line connecting 

position latitude 38°17′39′′ N, longitude 

076°25′47′′ W; thence to latitude 

38°17′47′′ N, longitude 076°26′00′′ W; 

thence to latitude 38°18′09′′ N, longitude 

076°25′40′′ W; thence to latitude 

38°18′00′′ N, longitude 076°25′25′′ W, 

located along the shoreline at U.S. Naval 

Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. 

(2) All waters of the lower Patuxent 

River, near Patuxent River, Maryland, 

located north of the West Patuxent 

Basin at Naval Air Station Patuxent 

River, within an area bounded by a line 

drawn from a position at latitude 

38°18′04′′ N, longitude 076°27′35′′ W; to 

latitude 38°18′09′′ N, longitude 

076°27′33′′ W; thence to latitude 

38°17′51′′ N, longitude 076°26′22′′ W; 

thence to latitude 38°17′46′′ N, longitude 

076°26′23′′ W; thence to point of origin, 

located adjacent to the shoreline at U.S. 

Naval Air Station Patuxent River, 

Maryland. All coordinates reference 

Datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions: As used in this 

section: (1) Captain of the Port 

Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

(2) Designated representative means 

any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore to assist in enforcing the 

safety zone described in paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

Regulations: (1) All persons are 

required to comply with the general 

regulations governing safety zones 

found in 33 CFR 165.23. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

Baltimore. Vessels already at berth, 

mooring, or anchor at the time the safety 

zone is implemented do not have to 

depart the safety zone. All vessels 

underway within this safety zone at the 

time it is implemented are to depart the 

zone. 

(3) Persons desiring to transit the area 

of the safety zone must first request 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Baltimore or his designated 

representative. To seek permission to 

transit the area, the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore and his designated 

representatives can be contacted at 

telephone number 410–576–2693 or on 

Marine Band Radio, VHF–FM channel 

16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard 

vessels enforcing this section can be 

contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF– 

FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon 

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard 

vessel, or other Federal, State, or local 

agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing 

lights, or other means, the operator of a 

vessel shall proceed as directed. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore or his designated 

representative and proceed at the 

minimum speed necessary to maintain a 

safe course while within the zone. 

(4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone by Federal, 

State, and local agencies. 

(d) Enforcement periods: This section 

will be enforced as follows; (1) During 

the air show practice from 8 a.m. until 

6 p.m. on September 1, 2011. 

(2) Air show practice and modified 

show from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on 

September 2, 2011. 

(3) Twilight performance from 4:30 

p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on September 2, 

2011. 

(4) Air show performances from 8 

a.m. until 7 p.m. on September 3, 2011 

and from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m. on 

September 4, 2011. 

Dated: May 30, 2011. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore Maryland. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15586 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130, FRL–9320–5] 

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 July 22, 2011. 

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 a.m.–4:30 p.m., 

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– 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36451 

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 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 

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, 9–5:30 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 

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 

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 

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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36452 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which one can view a dark 

object against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). Although states and 

Tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 

which they consider to have visibility as an 

important value, the requirements of the visibility 

program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply 

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

mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility 

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

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

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

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 occurs virtually all the time at 

most Federally protected national parks 

and wilderness areas, known as Class I 

areas. The average visual range in many 

Class I areas in the western United 

States is 100 to 150 kilometers, or about 

one-half to two-thirds of the visual 

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

eastern Class I areas of the United 

States, the average visual range is less 

than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of 

the visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. History of Regional Haze Regulations 

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

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

established as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

man-made air pollution.’’ Visibility was 

determined to be an important value in 

156 mandatory Class I Federal areas 2 as 

listed in 40 CFR 81.400–437. In the first 

phase of visibility protection, EPA 

promulgated regulations on December 2, 

1980, to address visibility impairment 

in Class I areas that is ‘‘reasonably 

attributable’’ to a single source or small 

group of sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment’’ or 

RAVI. 45 FR 80084. EPA deferred action 

on regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationship between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to conduct scientific 

research on regional haze. This 

legislation established the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC), which issued its 

report, ‘‘Recommendations for 

Improving Western Vistas,’’ on June 10, 

1996. These recommendations informed 

the regulatory development of a regional 

haze program, and provided an option 

for certain western states to address 

visibility at 16 Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau under 40 CFR 51.309. 

EPA promulgated a rule to address 

regional haze on July 1, 1999 known as 

the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 

35713). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to include 

provisions addressing regional haze 

impairment and established a 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. 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 longterm 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 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36453 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

4The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

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

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 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/ttncaaa1/t1/

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), 

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 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. 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 the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 4 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing 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 BART-eligible 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 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. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a tento 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 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 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 Protected Visual 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36455 

5These 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. 

6For 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). 

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 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 

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. 

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 areas 5 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. 

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–thescience 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. (See Table 1). 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) 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. 

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 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 

on-road, 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. 

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) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36457 

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 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 

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 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 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

8While 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. 

9The 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. 

10Outside Domain represents the background 

concentrations of pollutants that enter the modeling 

domain from sources outside the United States as 

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. 

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. 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 Period 8] 

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 

modeling 9 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 modeling domain to 

include all areas outside the WRAP 

region, the areas of greatest sulfate 

contribution are Outside Domain 10


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36459 

well as portions of Canada and Mexico that are 

included in the modeling domain. 

11See 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). 

12The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

(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. 

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 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 sources 12 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). 

1. Sources Eligible for BART 

The first phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify all the BARTeligible 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. 

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 ..................................

Boiler 2 

Boiler 3 

Electric Generating Station ... 1963 

1965 

1974 

1,167 21 125 

Fort Churchill (Yerington) ...... Boiler 1 ..................................

Boiler 2 

Electric Generating Station ... 1968 

1971 

2,221 9 41 

Reid Gardner (Moapa) ........... Boiler 1 ..................................

Boiler 2 

Boiler 3 

Electric Generating Station ... 1965 

1968 

1976 

7,045 1,020 1,343 

Sunrise (Las Vegas) .............. Boiler 1 .................................. Electric Generating Station ... 1964 851 1 13 

Mohave (Laughlin) ................. Boiler 1 ..................................

Boiler 2 

Electric Generating Station ... 1969 

1969 

20,267 40,347 1,958 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36460 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

13EPA’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. 

TABLE 6—SOURCES ELIGIBLE FOR BART IN NEVADA—Continued 

Source 

(location) Unit Source category 

Date 

in 

operation 

Facility potential to emit 

(tons per year) 

NOX SO2 PM10

Nevada Cement Company 

(Fernley).

Kiln 1 .....................................

Kiln 2 

Portland Cement Plant .......... 1963 

1967–68 

2,065 96 80 

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 not 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

at any Class I area. As described in 

EPA’s BART Guidelines,13 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 modeling.14

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. 

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 

Days 

impact 

exceeds 

0.5 dv 

Tracy ........................................................................ Desolation ............................................................... 81 1.20 47 

Mokelumne .............................................................. 101 0.88 32 

Hoover ..................................................................... 142 0.52 11 

Yosemite ................................................................. 153 0.50 11 

Caribou .................................................................... 170 1.03 48 

Lassen Volcanic ...................................................... 175 0.94 44 

South Warner .......................................................... 189 0.99 62 

Lava Beds ............................................................... 286 0.74 25 

Fort Churchill ............................................................ Mokelumne .............................................................. 78 1.24 69 

Desolation ............................................................... 85 1.25 72 

Hoover ..................................................................... 99 1.00 32 

Emigrant .................................................................. 100 0.68 25 

Yosemite ................................................................. 112 1.00 29 

Ansel Adams ........................................................... 132 0.70 28 

John Muir ................................................................ 169 0.56 24 

Caribou .................................................................... 226 0.77 34 

Lassen Volcanic ...................................................... 231 0.77 33 

South Warner .......................................................... 245 0.72 62 

Thousand Lakes ...................................................... 265 0.60 21 

Reid Gardner ........................................................... Grand Canyon ......................................................... 85 1.72 60 

Zion ......................................................................... 148 0.83 38 

Joshua Tree ............................................................ 292 0.88 48 

Mohave .................................................................... Grand Canyon ......................................................... 110 4.61 498 

Joshua Tree ............................................................ 137 4.58 248 

Sycamore Canyon ................................................... 223 1.51 111 

San Gorgonio .......................................................... 225 1.44 75 

San Jacinto ............................................................. 234 1.62 74 

Zion ......................................................................... 262 2.58 270 

Pine Mountain ......................................................... 265 1.21 49 

Dome Land .............................................................. 268 1.97 72 

Mazatal .................................................................... 279 1.19 45 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36461 

15The 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. 

TABLE 7—SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART IN NEVADA—Continued 

[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 

Days 

impact 

exceeds 

0.5 dv 

Aqua Tibia ............................................................... 286 1.15 54 

Cucamonga ............................................................. 287 1.38 51 

Source: Table 5–2, page 5–6 Nevada RH SIP. 

Nevada determined that three BARTeligible 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 

operating.15 A summary of the WRAP’s 

BART exemption modeling for these 

facilities is available at http:// 

ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planmodeling/ 

rhaze.html. 

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 

Days impact exceeds 0.5 

dv 

Sunrise Generating Station ...................................... Grand Canyon ......................................................... 95 0.20 1 

Zion ......................................................................... 207 0.11 0 

Joshua Tree ............................................................ 228 0.16 0 

Dome Land .............................................................. 237 0.08 0 

San Gorgonio .......................................................... 271 0.08 0 

John Muir ................................................................ 282 0.06 0 

Bryce Canyon .......................................................... 284 0.04 0 

Sequoia ................................................................... 288 0.04 0 

San Jacinto ............................................................. 290 0.06 0 

Sycamore Canyon ................................................... 290 0.03 0 

Nevada Cement Company ...................................... Desolation ............................................................... 101 0.27 3 

Mokelumne .............................................................. 115 0.31 3 

Emigrant .................................................................. 148 0.16 0 

Hoover ..................................................................... 150 0.22 0 

Yosemite ................................................................. 161 0.22 0 

Caribou .................................................................... 185 0.48 6 

Ansel Adams ........................................................... 186 0.18 0 

Lassen Volcanic ...................................................... 191 0.46 6 

South Warner .......................................................... 224 0.49 7 

John Muir ................................................................ 224 0.14 0 

Thousand Lakes ...................................................... 254 0.26 4 

Kaiser ...................................................................... 267 0.08 0 

Kings Canyon .......................................................... 294 0.11 0 

Lava Beds ............................................................... 294 0.22 0 

Chemical Lime Company ......................................... Grand Canyon ......................................................... 89 0.05 0 

Zion ......................................................................... 185 0.03 0 

Joshua Tree ............................................................ 254 0.04 0 

Dome Land .............................................................. 256 0.02 0 

Bryce Canyon .......................................................... 263 0.01 0 

John Muir ................................................................ 290 0.01 0 

Sycamore ................................................................ 292 0.01 0 

Sequoia ................................................................... 296 0.01 0 

San Gorgonio .......................................................... 297 0.02 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

16Rotamix is a technology for adding SNCR using 

ammonia or a urea-based reagent. 

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 (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 

BART-subject 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 BART-eligible 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 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 gasfueled 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 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 Rotamix,16 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 

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 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36463 

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 BARTeligible 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 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. 

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 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 coalfueled, 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 BARTeligible. 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. 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 

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. 

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 

organization.17 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 

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 hazecausing pollutants from a subject-toBART 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. 

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 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36465 

19See Summary of Visibility Impairment at 

Nearby Class I Areas and Nevada’s Emissions 

Reductions, Table 7–6, page 7–21. 20See Nevada RH SIP Appendix A for Nevada 

BART regulations. 

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 

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 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 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 obligations.19 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 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, 2009.20 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 identified in rules and 

regulations that are unique to each 

program. For example, EPA has 

mandated new standards for on-road 

(highway) diesel fuel, known as ultralow 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) program requirements, 

including FLM involvement in 

reviewing impacts on Class I areas, also 

supports achieving visibility goals. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 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 

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 

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 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36467 

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. 

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 Web 

sites 

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 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 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. 

Nevada commits to making an 

adequacy determination of the current 

SIP at the same time it submits the fiveyear 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not interfere with Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994)) because EPA lacks the 

discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15238 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0386–201137; FRL9322–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; North 

Carolina: Clean Smokestacks Act 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of North 

Carolina for the purpose of establishing 

in North Carolina’s SIP the system-wide 

emission limitations from the North 

Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA). 

On August 21, 2009, the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air 

Quality (DAQ), submitted an attainment 

demonstration for the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir and GreensboroWinston Salem-High Point 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

areas. That submittal includes a request 

that the system-wide emission 

limitations from the North Carolina CSA 

be incorporated into the State’s 

Federally approved SIP. EPA proposes 

to determine that the SIP revision is 

approvable pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0386, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: spann.jane@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9029. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0386, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Jane 

Spann, Acting Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0386.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made 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 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, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS