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

heading. The Treasury Department and 

the IRS request comments on all aspects 

of the proposed rules. All comments 

will be available at http://

www.regulations.gov or upon request. 

A public hearing will be scheduled if 

requested in writing by any person who 

timely submits comments. If a public 

hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, 

time, and place for the public hearing 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal authors of these 

regulations are Martin L. Osborne and 

Robert Basso of the Office of the 

Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax 

and Accounting). However, other 

personnel from the Treasury 

Department and the IRS participated in 

their development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendment to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 170A–13 is amended 

by revising paragraph (f)(18) and adding 

paragraph (f)(19) to read as follows: 

§ 1.170A–13. Recordkeeping and return 

requirements for deductions for charitable 

contributions. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(18) Donee organization reporting—(i) 

Prescribed form. [Reserved] 

(ii) Content of return. A document 

will not qualify as a return for purposes 

of section 170(f)(8)(D) unless it contains 

all of the following information: 

(A) The name and address of the 

donee; 

(B) The name and address of the 

donor; 

(C) The taxpayer identification 

number of the donor; 

(D) The amount of cash and a 

description (but not necessarily the 

value) of any property other than cash 

contributed by the donor to the donee; 

(E) Whether any goods and services 

were provided by the donee 

organization in consideration, in whole 

or in part, for the contribution by the 

donor; and 

(F) A description and good faith 

estimate of the value of any goods and 

services provided by the donee 

organization or a statement that such 

goods and services consist solely of 

intangible religious benefits. 

(iii) Time for filing return. Every 

donee organization filing a return 

described in section 170(f)(8)(D) shall 

file such return on or before February 28 

of the year following the calendar year 

in which the contribution was made. If 

the return is not filed timely, the return 

does not qualify under section 

170(f)(8)(D), and section 170(f)(8)(A) 

through (C) applies to the contribution. 

(iv) Furnishing a copy to donor. Every 

donee organization filing a return 

described in section 170(f)(8)(D) shall 

furnish a copy of the return to the donor 

whose contribution is reported on such 

return on or before February 28 of the 

year following the calendar year in 

which the contribution was made. The 

copy of the return shall be provided to 

the donor at the address the donor 

provides for this purpose. 

(v) Donee organization reporting at 

option of donee. Donee organization 

reporting is not required. Donee 

reporting is available solely at the 

option of a donee organization, and, the 

requirements of section 170(f)(8)(A) 

through (C) apply to all contributions 

that are not reported using donee 

reporting. 

(19) Effective/applicability date. 

Paragraphs (f)(1) through (17) of this 

section apply to contributions made on 

or after December 16, 1996. However, 

taxpayers may rely on the rules of 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (17) for 

contributions made on or after January 

1, 1994. Paragraph (f)(18) of this section 

applies to contributions made on or 

after the date of publication of a 

Treasury decision adopting these rules 

as final regulations in the Federal 

Register. 

John Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23291 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316; FRL–9933–82– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposes to approve a revision to the 

Nevada Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP) to document that the 

existing plan is adequate to achieve 

established goals for visibility 

improvement and emissions reductions 

by 2018. The Nevada Regional Haze SIP 

revision addresses the Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report 

describing progress in achieving 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to 

improve visibility in federally 

designated Class I areas in Nevada and 

in nearby states that may be affected by 

emissions from sources in Nevada. EPA 

is proposing to approve Nevada’s 

determination that the existing Nevada 

Regional Haze Implementation Plan is 

adequate to meet the visibility goals, 

and requires no substantive revision at 

this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

the designated contact at the address 

listed below on or before October 19, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0316, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. If you need to 

include CBI as part of your comment, 

please visit http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets/comments.html for instructions. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. 

For additional submission methods, 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. 

The index to the docket (docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316) for 

this proposed rule is available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, such as CBI or other 

information that is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is publicly 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55806 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1The Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan 

consists of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, 

submitted to EPA in November 2009 and partially 

approved and partially disapproved by EPA in 

several related actions in 2012, and the partial 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

promulgated in 2012 and revised in 2013, as 

described further below. 

2The Progress Report was deemed complete by 

operation of law on May 18, 2015. 

3 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979. 

4See 64 FR 35713. 

5 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Planning Office of the Air Division, 

AIR–2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. To 

view hard copies of documents listed in 

the docket index, EPA requests that you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vijay Limaye, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Vijay Limaye may be reached at 

telephone number (415) 972–3086 and 

via electronic mail at 

Limaye.Vijay@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

II. Background 

A. Description of Regional Haze 

B. History of Regional Haze Rule 

C. Nevada’s Regional Haze Plan 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress 

Reports 

IV. Context for Understanding Nevada’s 

Progress Report 

A. Framework for Measuring Progress 

B. Relevant Class I Areas 

C. Data Sources 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s Progress 

Report 

A. Status of Implementation of All 

Measures 

B. Summary of Emission Reductions 

Achieved 

C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and 

Changes at Jarbidge 

D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions 

E. Assessment of Anthropogenic Emissions 

Impeding Progress 

F. Assessment of Plan Elements and 

Strategy 

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy 

H. Determination of Adequacy 

I. Consultation with Federal Land 

Managers 

J. Public Participation 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve NDEP’s 

determination that the existing Nevada 

Regional Haze Implementation Plan 1 is 

adequate to achieve the established 

RPGs (i.e., visibility goals) for Class I 

areas by 2018, and therefore requires no 

substantive revision at this time. The 

State’s determination and EPA’s 

proposed approval are based on the 

Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress 

Report (‘‘Progress Report’’ or ‘‘Report’’) 

submitted by NDEP to EPA on 

November 18, 2014, that addresses 40 

CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) of the RHR.2

Specifically, we propose to find that the 

Progress Report demonstrates that the 

emission control measures in the 

existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP are 

sufficient to enable Nevada, as well as 

other states with Class I areas affected 

by emissions from sources in Nevada, to 

meet all established RPGs for 2018 in 

accordance with § 51.308(g). As a result, 

we propose to approve NDEP’s 

determination that the existing 

Implementation Plan is adequate, and 

requires no further substantive revision 

at this time to achieve the established 

goals for visibility improvement in 

accordance with § 51.308(h). In 

addition, we are proposing to find that 

NDEP fulfilled the requirements in 

§ 51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) regarding 

State coordination with Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs). This coordination 

includes providing FLMs with an 

opportunity for consultation on the 

Progress Report, describing how NDEP 

addressed any comments from the 

FLMs, and providing procedures for 

continuing consultation with the FLMs. 

Finally, we propose to find that NDEP 

has fulfilled the requirements of CAA 

110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR 51.102 

regarding reasonable notice and public 

hearings with regard to the Progress 

Report. 

II. Background 

A. Description of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

produced by many sources and 

activities located across a broad 

geographic area that emit fine particles 

that impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light, thereby reducing the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. These fine particles also 

can cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contribute to 

environmental impacts, such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication of water 

bodies. 

The RHR uses the deciview as the 

principle metric for measuring visibility 

and for the RPGs that serve as interim 

visibility goals toward meeting the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions by 2064. A 

deciview expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews 

are determined by using air quality 

measurement to estimate light 

extinction, and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithmic function. A deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction because each deciview 

change is an equal incremental change 

in visibility perceived by the human 

eye. Most people can detect a change in 

visibility at one deciview. 

B. History of Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA 

Amendments of 1977, Congress created 

a program to protect visibility in 

designated national parks and 

wilderness areas, establishing as a 

national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ In accordance with section 

169A of the CAA and after consulting 

with the Department of Interior, EPA 

promulgated a list of 156 mandatory 

Class I Federal areas where visibility is 

identified as an important value.3 In this 

notice, we refer to mandatory Class I 

Federal areas on this list as ‘‘Class I 

areas.’’ Nevada has one Class I area, 

Jarbidge Wilderness Area (‘‘Jarbidge’’), 

in the northeast corner of the State. 

With the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

Congress added section 169B to address 

regional haze issues. EPA promulgated 

a rule to address regional haze on July 

1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze 

Rule.4 The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations in 40 CFR 51.308 

to integrate provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and to 

establish a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. As 

defined in the RHR, the RPGs must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days (‘‘worst 

days’’) over the period of the 

implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days (‘‘best days’’) over the 

same period.5

C. Nevada’s Regional Haze Plan 

NDEP submitted its Regional Haze SIP 

to EPA on November 18, 2009, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308 for the first 

regional haze planning period ending in 

2018. EPA approved most of the Nevada 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55807 

6See 77 FR 17334. 

7See 77 FR 21896. 

8See 77 FR 50936. 

9See proposed rule to grant extension, 78 FR 

18280 (March 26, 2013), and final rule granting 

extension, 78 FR 53033 (August 28, 2013). 

10 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

11Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(g) for the exact 

requirements. 

12 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

13 Id. 

14 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). 

15 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) and (4). 

Regional Haze SIP on March 26, 2012,6

with the exception of NDEP’s 

determination of best available retrofit 

technology (BART) to control emissions 

of nitrogen oxides (NOX) at the Reid 

Gardner Generating Station (Reid 

Gardner). EPA published a new 

proposal on April 12, 2012, to approve 

in part and disapprove in part NDEP’s 

BART determination for NOX at Reid 

Gardner.7 EPA published a final rule on 

August 23, 2012, approving NDEP’s 

BART determination for NOX on Units 

1 and 2, but disapproving NDEP’s 

determination for Unit 3 and the 

averaging time for the emission limits at 

all three units.8 This final rule included 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

the disapproved elements. EPA 

subsequently agreed to reconsider the 

compliance date for Units 1, 2, and 3 at 

Reid Gardner in the FIP, which we 

extended by 18 months.9

III. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Progress Reports 

The RHR requires states to submit a 

report every five years in the form of a 

SIP revision to evaluate progress toward 

achieving the RPGs for each Class I area 

in the state and for those areas outside 

the state that may be affected by 

emissions from within the state.10 The 

first progress reports are due five years 

from the submittal date of each state’s 

initial Regional Haze SIP. Progress 

reports must be in the form of SIP 

revisions that comply with the 

procedural requirements of 40 CFR 

51.102 and 51.103. These reports must 

contain an evaluation of seven elements, 

at a minimum, and include a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing Regional Haze SIP. In 

summary,11 the seven elements are: (1) 

A description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the current Regional Haze 

SIP for achieving the RPGs in Class I 

areas within and outside the state; (2) a 

summary of the emission reductions 

achieved in the state through 

implementation of these measures; (3) 

an assessment of visibility conditions 

and changes on the most impaired and 

least impaired days for each Class I area 

in the state in terms of five-year 

averages of the annual values; (4) an 

analysis of changes in emissions over 

the past five years contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the state based on 

the most recently updated emissions 

inventory; (5) an assessment of any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the state 

over the past five years that have limited 

or impeded progress in reducing 

pollutant emissions and improving 

visibility; (6) an assessment of whether 

the elements and strategies in the 

current Regional Haze SIP are sufficient 

to enable the state, or other states 

affected by its emissions, to achieve the 

established RPGs; and (7) a review of 

the state’s visibility monitoring strategy 

and any necessary modifications. 

Based on an evaluation of the factors 

listed above as well as any other 

relevant information, a state is required 

to determine the adequacy of its existing 

Regional Haze SIP.12 The state must take 

one of four possible actions based on the 

analysis in its progress report. In 

summary, these actions are to (1) 

provide a negative declaration to EPA 

that no further substantive revisions to 

the state’s existing Regional Haze SIP is 

needed to achieve the RPGs; (2) provide 

notification to EPA and to other states 

in its region that its Regional Haze SIP 

is or may be inadequate to ensure 

reasonable progress due to emissions 

from sources in other states, and 

collaborate with other states to develop 

additional strategies to address the 

deficiencies; (3) provide notification 

and available information to EPA that 

the state’s Regional Haze SIP is or may 

be inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress due to emissions from sources 

in another country; or (4) revise its 

Regional Haze SIP within one year to 

address the deficiencies if the state 

determines that its existing plan is or 

may be inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress in one or more Class I areas 

due to emissions from sources within 

the state.13

A state also must document that it 

provided FLMs with an opportunity for 

consultation prior to holding a public 

hearing on a Regional Haze SIP or plan 

revision.14 A state must include a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments from the FLMs, and provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

with the FLMs.15

IV. Context for Understanding Nevada’s 

Progress Report 

To facilitate a better understanding of 

the Progress Report as well as EPA’s 

evaluation of the Report, this section 

provides background information on 

how the regional haze program applies 

to Nevada. This information describes 

the framework for measuring visibility 

progress, a profile of the relevant Class 

I areas, and the sources of data used in 

the Progress Report. 

A. Framework for Measuring Progress 

Visibility conditions at Class I areas 

are described by a ‘‘haze index’’ 

measured in deciviews and calculated 

using data collected from the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

network monitors. Nevada has an 

IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge that is 

designated ‘‘JARB1.’’ To measure 

progress in deciviews, current visibility 

conditions (2008–2012) are compared to 

baseline conditions (2000–2004), and to 

projected conditions at the end of the 

planning period (2018). A state 

establishes two RPGs for each of its 

Class I areas: One for the 20 percent best 

days and one for the 20 percent worst 

days. The RPGs must provide for an 

improvement in visibility on the 20 

percent worst days and ensure no 

degradation in visibility on the 20 

percent best days, compared to average 

visibility conditions during the baseline 

period. In establishing the RPG, a state 

must consider the uniform rate of 

improvement in visibility (from the 

baseline to natural conditions in 2064) 

and the emission reductions measures 

needed to achieve it. Nevada set the 

RPGs for Jarbidge using atmospheric air 

quality modeling based on projected 

emission reductions from control 

strategies in the Nevada Regional Haze 

SIP as well as emission reductions 

expected to result from other Federal, 

state and local air quality programs, 

among other factors. The purpose of a 

progress report is to assess whether a 

state’s plan is adequate to achieve the 

established RPGs and emissions 

reductions goals for 2018, and if not, 

whether additional emission reduction 

strategies are needed. 

B. Relevant Class I Areas 

Nevada’s one Class I area, the Jarbidge 

Wilderness Area, is located within the 

Humboldt National Forest in the 

northeastern corner of the State within 

the populated Snake River Basin and 

less than 10 miles from the Idaho 

border. The baseline visibility 

conditions (2000–2004) at Jarbidge are 

12.07 deciviews (dv) on the worst days 

and 2.56 dv on the best days. The RPG 

for the worst days in 2018 at Jarbidge is 

11.05 dv, which is slightly under, and 

therefore better than, the uniform rate of 

progress (URP) in 2018, which is 11.09 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55808 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

16The URP is a straight line from the baseline 

visibility condition (5-year annual average from 

2000–2004) to the estimated natural background 

condition in 2064, as measured on the 20 percent 

best and worst days. The URP values for 2018 are 

the number of deciviews where the lines drawn to 

2064 for best and worst days intersect 2018. 17See 76 FR 36464, June 22, 2011, footnote 18 

(‘‘In April 2011, the WRAP issued a draft report 

regarding an error in its visibility projections for 

about 15 Class I areas in the West, including 

Jarbidge. The draft report indicated that, as a result 

of the error, the projected visibility at Jarbidge in 

2018 is 11.8 dv instead of 11.1 dv (rounded up from 

11.05 dv).’’). 18Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan, Chapter 4.3.3, October 2009. Light extinction 

is based on a model known as Particulate Matter 

Source Attribution Tracking (PSAT). 19 76 FR 36459, June 22, 2011. 20 40 CFR 51.302. 

21Progress Report, Chapter Two, Status of 

Implementation of Control Measures, pages 2–1 

thru 2–13. 

22Even though Mohave’s closure in 2005 predates 

the first phase of the RH program (2008–2018), 

NDEP addresses Mohave’s emissions in its Progress 

Report because these emissions are included in the 

inventories and modeling that form the basis for the 

Nevada Regional Haze SIP. For example, the 

projected emission inventory for 2018 includes 

about 19,595 tpy of NOX and 8,701 tpy of SO2 from 

Mohave. 

23See Reid Gardner Generating Station Fact Sheet 

from Nevada Energy (May 2015), Frank A. Tracy 

Generating Station Fact Sheet from Nevada Energy 

(June 2015). 

dv.16 While a subsequent correction for 

the worst days in 2018 resulted in 

projected visibility impairment of 11.8 

dv on the worst days,17 NDEP has 

retained the RPG of 11.05 dv for 

Jarbidge. The RPG for the best days in 

2018 at Jarbidge is 2.50 dv, which 

represents a slight improvement from 

baseline conditions. The Progress 

Report addresses whether Nevada’s RH 

SIP is making adequate progress from 

the baseline toward these RPGs. 

The Nevada Regional Haze SIP 

identified 24 other Class I areas located 

in five neighboring states that are 

potentially affected by emissions of 

sulfates and nitrates from sources in 

Nevada.18 Based on projections from air 

quality modeling for 2018, the highest 

contribution to sulfate extinction on the 

worst days from Nevada’s emissions is 

5.6 percent at Zion National Park in 

Utah, and on the best days is 7.2 percent 

at Sawtooth Wilderness Area in Idaho. 

For nitrate extinction in 2018, Nevada’s 

highest contribution on the worst days 

is 20 percent at Desolation Wilderness 

in California, and on the best days is 

12.4 percent at Joshua Tree National 

Park in California.19 The remaining 20 

Class I areas outside Nevada are 

projected to have smaller fractions of 

haze attributable to Nevada’s emissions. 

C. Data Sources 

Nevada’s Progress Report is based on 

information available prior to March 

2014. For the most part, NDEP relies on 

technical data and analysis in two 

reports from the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP), the regional 

planning organization that provides 

technical support to western states. The 

WRAP’s reports are based on monitoring 

data from the IMPROVE network and 

emissions data from EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The first 

report is the ‘‘Western Regional Air 

Partnership Regional Haze Rule 

Reasonable Progress Summary Report,’’ 

dated June 28, 2013, which includes 

Section 6.8 Nevada (Appendix A of the 

Progress Report). This report is based on 

the time period 2005–2009 and relies on 

the NEI from 2008. The WRAP updated 

the inventory before completing a 

second report titled ‘‘West-Wide JumpStart Air Quality Modeling Study— 

Final Report’’ dated September 30, 

2013. NDEP also uses NEI data from 

2011, State emission inventory data for 

2012, acid rain data from EPA’s Air 

Market Program Database, and 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 2008 to 

2012 to provide more current 

information and additional analysis. 

NDEP further relies on the WRAP’s 

Technical Support System and the 

Visibility Information Exchange Web 

System as analytic tools. 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s 

Progress Report 

This section describes Nevada’s 

Progress Report and EPA’s evaluation of 

the Report in relation to the seven 

elements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g), the 

determination of adequacy in 40 CFR 

51.308(h), the requirement for state and 

FLM coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i) 

and the requirements for public 

participation in CAA section 110(a) and 

(l) and 40 CFR 51.102. While the 

Progress Report focuses on the elements 

of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, the 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

(h) apply to ‘‘implementation plans,’’ 

which are defined to include approved 

SIPs and FIPs.20 Accordingly, EPA has 

considered our regional haze BART FIP 

for Reid Gardner as well as the Nevada 

Regional Haze SIP in assessing the 

Progress Report. However, as described 

further below, all three of the BARTeligible units at Reid Gardner have been 

shut down. Therefore, the partial 

disapproval and partial FIP for Reid 

Gardner does not substantively 

influence our evaluation of the Progress 

Report. 

A. Status of Implementation of All 

Measures 

1. NDEP’s Analysis 

The Progress Report describes the 

status of state and federal measures in 

the Nevada Regional Haze SIP as well as 

new programs, rules, and legislation 

that will provide further emission 

reductions before the first phase of the 

regional haze program ends in 2018. 

Nevada’s measures to control or 

otherwise reduce emissions that 

contribute to haze are organized into 

three broad categories: Review of BART 

Determinations, State Measures Other 

than BART, and Federal Programs.21

The status of measures in each of these 

categories is summarized below. 

BART Implementation: NDEP 

describes BART implementation in 

Nevada and in neighboring states that 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Jarbidge. The four BART facilities in 

Nevada are Reid Gardner, Tracy 

Generating Station (Tracy), Fort 

Churchill Generating Station (Fort 

Churchill), and Mohave Generating 

Station (Mohave). Mohave closed in 

2005.22 The Nevada Regional Haze SIP 

requires the remaining three facilities to 

meet the emission limits associated with 

all BART control measures by January 1, 

2015, with the exception of NOX at Reid 

Gardner, which has a compliance date 

of June 30, 2016, as shown in Table 1. 

As noted in the table, three units at Reid 

Gardner and two units at Tracy were 

scheduled to retire by the compliance 

date. Subsequent to NDEP’s submittal of 

the Progress Report, all five of these 

units were shut down and are now in 

the process of being decommissioned 

and demolished.23 The retirement of 

these five units, and the switching of 

three other units at Tracy and Fort 

Churchill to natural gas, is largely in 

response to the passage of Senate Bill 

(SB) 123 by the Nevada legislature in 

2013, which is described in more detail 

in the next section regarding other State 

measures. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55809 

24Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Section 4.3, 

November 2009. 

25Newmont TS is a 220-megawatt power plant 

using coal-fired boilers with modern control 

technologies operating since 2008. Chuck Lenzie is 

1,102-megawatt generating station using gas-fired 

steam engines operating since 2006. 

26Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, Docket 

No. 14–05003, May 1, 2014, (Appendix C). 

27Progress Report, Chapter 2, pages 2–8 thru 

2–9. 

28Progress Report, Chapter 2, pages 2–3 thru 

2–6. 

TABLE 1—STATUS OF BART CONTROL MEASURES

Facility Units BART Control measures 

Reid Gardner Generating Station ......... 1, 2, 3 .......................... NV Energy retired these three units as of December 31, 2014, as approved 

by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) 

Tracy Generating Station ...................... 1, 2 .............................. NV Energy retired these two units as of December 31, 2014, as approved by 

the PUCN and in response to SB 123. 

3 .................................. NV Energy is relying on alternative control technology and burning only natural gas to comply with the BART emissions limits as of the December 31, 

2014, compliance date. 

Fort Churchill Generating Station ......... 1, 2 .............................. NV Energy is relying on alternative control technology and burning only natural gas to comply with the BART emissions limits as of the December 31, 

2014, compliance date. 

Mohave Generating Station .................. All ................................ This facility ceased operations in December 2005 and was subsequently fully 

decommissioned and demolished. 

NDEP explains in the Progress Report 

that BART implementation in 

neighboring states is expected to 

contribute to visibility improvement at 

Jarbidge, which is located very near the 

Idaho border and downwind from 

sources in Oregon. Since source 

apportionment modeling identified 

substantial contributions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) from point sources in 

Idaho and Oregon,24 NDEP provides 

updates on two facilities in Idaho 

(Amalgamated Sugar Company in 

Nampa and Monsanto/P4 Production in 

Soda Springs) and one facility in Oregon 

(Boardman Power Plant) that are subject 

to BART control measures. Each of these 

three facilities is reportedly in 

compliance with the required BART 

emission limits for SO2 and NOX. 

However, since some of the compliance 

dates are not yet effective, more 

emission reductions are expected by 

2018. 

Other State Measures: Other State 

measures contributing to reasonable 

progress at Jarbidge and other Class I 

areas include cancellations of 

applications to build power plants, State 

legislation to reduce emissions from 

coal-fired power plants (i.e., SB 123), an 

expanded renewable energy portfolio, 

and implementation of control measures 

to attain the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) as listed in 

Table 2. Regarding cancellations, NDEP 

explains that these measures represent 

additional emission reductions because 

the emissions from these unbuilt 

sources were included in the baseline 

and projected emission inventories in 

the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. Of the 

five proposed power plants that NDEP 

assumed would be producing emissions, 

three withdrew applications (White 

Pine, Toquop, and Copper Mountain), 

and two were built (Newmont TS Power 

Plant near Dunphy in northern Nevada 

and Chuck Lenzie Generating Station 

near Las Vegas).25

The Nevada Legislature in 2013 

enacted SB 123 requiring the reduction 

of emissions from coal-fired power 

plants in Clark County, Nevada. SB 123 

requires the retirement or elimination of 

not less than 800 megawatts of coalfired electric generating capacity: 300 

MW by December 2014, an additional 

250 MW by December 2017, and an 

additional 250 MW by December 2019. 

This legislation also mandates the 

construction or acquisition of 350 MW 

from new renewable energy facilities. 

NV Energy must construct or acquire 

and own facilities with a total capacity 

of 550 MW to replace the coal-fired 

capacity eliminated between 2014 and 

2019.26 NV Energy’s decision to retire 

BART units at Reid Gardner and Tracy, 

and to convert other BART units to 

natural gas at Tracy and Fort Churchill, 

was in response to this legislation. 

NDEP also reports that Nevada is one 

of the first states to adopt a renewable 

portfolio standard that establishes a 

schedule requiring electric utilities to 

generate, acquire, or save a percentage 

of electricity from renewable energy 

systems or efficiency measures. Not less 

than 20 percent must come from 

renewable energy or efficiency measures 

from 2015 to 2019. The Nevada 

legislature also has enacted the ‘‘Solar 

Energy Systems Incentive Program,’’ 

which requires the Public Utilities 

Commission of Nevada to set incentives 

and schedules to produce at least 250 

MW of capacity from solar energy by 

2021. At the time of the Progress Report, 

Nevada had installed 38 MW of capacity 

at a cost of $160 million. Another 

example of renewable energy is the 

‘‘Solar Thermal Demonstrations 

Program’’ that promotes the installation 

of at least 3,000 solar thermal systems 

in homes, businesses, schools, and 

government buildings throughout the 

State. The Progress Report mentions 

several other programs to establish 

solar, wind, and waterpower energy 

systems along with a list of proposed 

generation plants that will rely on 

renewable energy.27

TABLE 2—STATUS OF OTHER STATE

MEASURES

State measure Effective date 

Three Power Plants included 

in Inventory for 2018.

Never Built. 

Legislation to Retire CoalFired Plants (800 mw).2014–2019. 

Legislation for New Renewable Energy (350 mw).2014–2021. 

Renewable Energy Portfolio 2015–2025. 

NAAQS Attainment/Maintenance Regulations.Ongoing. 

Federal Measures: The Progress 

Report provides a summary of existing 

federal measures, those that were 

included in the Nevada Regional Haze 

SIP, as well as new federal measures as 

listed in Table 3. NDEP describes in the 

Report how each of these federal 

programs, rules, and standards 

contribute further reductions in 

visibility impairing pollutants.28 All 

eight areas in Nevada that were 

designated non-attainment for one more 

NAAQS either have been redesignated 

to attainment and are operating under a 

maintenance plan or have a 

determination of attainment indicating 

that the area is attaining the NAAQS. 

The control measures for attainment 

that remain in place include fugitive 

dust regulations, oxygenated fuel 

programs, gasoline vapor recovery, 

transportation control measures, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55810 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

29USEPA Clean Air Markets Division, Air 

Markets Program Data, Acid Rain Program. 

30Progress Report, Chapter 3, Table 3–2, page 

3–5. 

31Progress Report, Chapter 3, Table 3–1, page 

3–4. 

residential wood burning regulations, 

woodstove replacement programs, and 

alternative fuel vehicle program. 

woodstove replacement programs, and 

alternative fuel vehicle program. 

TABLE 3—STATUS OF FEDERAL MEASURES

Existing Federal Measures 

Heavy Duty Highway Rule (PM, NOX, SOX) ...................................................................................................................... Phased in 2006–2010. 

Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Program (NOX, VOC) ........................................................................................................... Effective in 2005. 

Non-Road Mobile Diesel Emissions Program (NOX, CO) .................................................................................................. Phased in 2004–2012. 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology Program .......................................................................................................... Ongoing Applicability. 

New Federal Measures 

Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (Toxic Gases, SO2) .............................................................................................................. Final Rule in 2011. 

Revised NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide .................................................................................................................................... Final Rule in 2010. 

Revised NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide ................................................................................................................................ Final Rule in 2010. 

Revised NAAQS for Fine Particulate Matter ...................................................................................................................... Final Rule in 2012. 

North American Emission Control Areas (NOX, PM2.5, SO2) ............................................................................................. Effective in 2012; 2015. 

Tier 3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Program (SOX) ........................................................................................... Effective in 2017. 

PM = Particulate Matter. 

VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) to describe the 

status of all measures included in the 

Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP 

provides a detailed and comprehensive 

update of state and federal measures, 

including new measures that are 

expected to contribute further to 

visibility improvement. The Progress 

Report’s description of BART 

implementation, legislation, programs, 

and rules provides a thorough summary 

of the regulatory requirements that 

underpin Nevada’s regional haze 

program. 

B. Summary of Emission Reductions 

Achieved 

1. NDEP’s Analysis 

The Progress Report focuses on SO2

and NOX emissions, which are the 

primary pollutants of concern from 

anthropogenic sources. NDEP reports 

that SO2 and NOX emissions have 

decreased substantially in Nevada due 

to the implementation of control 

measures as well as other changes in 

State energy policy and source activity 

as described above in the status of 

measures. According to EPA’s acid rain 

data,29 annual SO2 emissions from 

Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) in 

Nevada decreased by 44,107 tpy (82 

percent) from 53,346 tpy in 2005 to 

9,239 tpy in 2006. Similarly, NOX

emissions from power plants decreased 

by 23,257 tpy (54 percent) from 43,242 

tpy in 2005 to 19,985 tpy in 2006. NDEP 

points out that while these large 

decreases from 2005 to 2006 are mostly 

due to the closure of Mohave Generating 

Station, emissions continued to 

decrease steadily thereafter. From 2006 

to 2013, power plant emissions of SO2

decreased by about 20 percent (9,239 to 

7,427 tpy) and NOX emissions decreased 

by about 61 percent (19,985 to 7,796 

tpy).30 The closure of units at Reid 

Gardner and Tracy, and the 

implementation of control measures on 

other units at Tracy and Fort Churchill, 

should contribute further emission 

reductions not reflected in the acid rain 

data for 2013. 

The Progress Report also quantifies 

emission reductions resulting from the 

cancellation of plans to construct three 

power plants and lower actual 

emissions from the two plants that were 

built. NDEP includes this analysis 

because projected emissions from these 

five sources are included in the 

emission inventory for 2018 that 

provides the basis for the RPG at 

Jarbidge. The reductions due to permit 

cancellations are 5,814 tpy of SO2, 6,136 

tpy of NOX, and 5,814 tpy of particulate 

matter (PM10). Moreover, the two new 

plants that were built (Newmont and 

Chuck Lenzie) have combined actual 

emissions in 2012 that are less than 

projected for the emission inventory in 

2018.31 NDEP states that these 

unrealized emissions, in effect, would 

result in lower modeled visibility 

impairment in 2018, particularly at 

Class I areas near southern and eastern 

Nevada where the two built sources are 

located and the three cancelled sources 

had planned to locate. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) to provide a 

summary of the emission reductions 

from implementing the measures in the 

Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP 

documents that SO2 and NOX emissions 

from Nevada’s power plants have 

decreased substantially, especially due 

to the closure of Mohave. NDEP makes 

the case that emissions from the power 

sector should continue to decline as 

BART controls and SB 123 are 

implemented, further reducing 

emissions from Reid Gardner, Tracy, 

and Fort Churchill. While it is difficult 

to quantify emission reductions from 

other state and federal programs, we 

agree that other state and federal 

measures should contribute to declining 

emissions, particularly from mobile and 

stationary sources. While the 

cancellation of proposed facilities does 

not constitute emission reductions per 

se, we recognize that the inclusion of 

these projected emissions in the 2018 

inventory likely inflated the projected 

emissions used as the basis of the RPGs 

for Jarbidge and Class I areas affected by 

Nevada’s emissions. We also note that 

NDEP’s summary of emission 

reductions is complemented by its 

analysis of recent changes in emissions 

from all sources in Section D of this 

proposal. 

C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions 

and Changes at Jarbidge 

1. NDEP’s Analysis 

Current Visibility Conditions: NDEP 

reports on current visibility conditions 

for the 20 percent worst days and 20 

percent best days at Jarbidge for the fiveVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:33 Sep 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM 17SEP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55811 

32Progress Report, Chapter 4, Table 4–1, page 

4–3. 33The data on visibility conditions is from the 

IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge (JARB1) that 

measures light extinction in terms of inverse 

megameters (Mm¥1) that are directly related to 

gaseous and aerosol concentrations. The haze index 

is measured in deciviews, which is a metric of haze 

proportional to the logarithm of the light extinction. 

34See Progress Report, Chapter 4, Table 4–2, page 

4–4. 

35Progress Report, Table 4–4, Percent 

Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species, page 

4–10. These results excluded Rayleigh and are 

expressed as a percentage of Mm¥1. 

years from 2008 to 2012 as displayed in 

Table 4.32 The five-year annual average 

haze index at Jarbidge for this current 

time period is 12.0 dv on worst days 

and 1.9 dv on best days. On worst days, 

the annual averages for visibility 

impairment are strongly influenced by 

light extinction due to particulate 

organic matter (POM), followed by 

coarse mass and sulfate. On the best 

days, visibility impairment is 

dominated by light extinction due to 

sulfate, followed by POM and coarse 

mass. The Progress Report notes that 

sources of POM are predominantly 

natural, while sources of fine soil and 

coarse mass are about equally split 

between natural and anthropogenic. The 

dominant source of sulfate is SO2 from 

anthropogenic sources. 

TABLE 4—CURRENT ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR WORST AND BEST DAYS AT

JARBIDGE 33

Year Haze index 

(dv) 

Sulfate 

(Mm¥1) 

Nitrate 

(Mm¥1) 

POM 

(Mm¥1) 

EC 

(Mm¥1) 

Soil 

(Mm¥1) 

Coarse 

mass 

(Mm¥1) 

Sea salt 

(Mm¥1) 

Worst Days 

2008 ................................. 12.5 3.72 1.12 12.06 1.48 2.61 4.84 0.04 

2009 ................................. 11.1 4.43 0.53 7.32 1.12 2.31 5.66 0.30 

2010 ................................. 10.0 3.30 1.04 4.33 0.77 2.49 5.66 0.06 

2011 ................................. 11.7 4.16 0.67 7.71 1.21 2.49 6.85 0.40 

2012 ................................. 14.9 3.87 1.18 23.97 3.11 2.63 5.17 0.21 

Average ............................ 12.0 3.9 0.9 11.1 1.5 2.5 5.6 0.2 

Best Days 

2008 ................................. 1.9 1.14 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.12 0.27 0.05 

2009 ................................. 1.8 0.95 0.16 0.31 0.11 0.12 0.28 0.03 

2010 ................................. 1.8 1.09 0.15 0.30 0.12 0.06 0.24 0.03 

2011 ................................. 2.1 1.21 0.19 0.39 0.13 0.10 0.26 0.07 

2012 ................................. 2.0 0.95 0.18 0.37 0.18 0.10 0.37 0.04 

Average ............................ 1.9 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 

EC = Elemental Carbon. 

Difference between Current and 

Baseline Visibility Conditions: NDEP 

presents the difference between the 

current five-year annual average (2008– 

2012) and the baseline five-year annual 

average (2000–2004) for Jarbidge, as 

displayed in Table 5, which also 

includes successive five-year annual 

averages for the intervening time 

periods (2005–2009, 2006–2010, and 

2007–2011).34 The differences 

calculated in the table are between the 

baseline and the current visibility 

condition represented by the time 

period 2008–2012. A negative difference 

indicates a reduction in haze (i.e., 

improved visibility). Comparing 

baseline to current visibility conditions 

on worst days, the haze index declined 

slightly (12.1 to 12.0 dv) with 

corresponding decreases in light 

extinction for sulfate, nitrate, and 

elemental carbon, but a noticeable 

increase in POM. On the best days, the 

haze index decreases from the baseline 

to current visibility conditions (2.6 to 

1.9 dv) with corresponding decreases in 

light extinction for sulfate, nitrate, POM, 

and elemental carbon, with the three 

other pollutants remaining the same. 

NDEP also analyzes the relative 

percentage contribution and rank of 

each pollutant to visibility impairment 

on the worst and best days for the fiveyear annual average baseline and 

successive five-year time periods, as 

displayed in Table 5.35 This analysis 

reveals that POM (ranging from 35.5 to 

43.0 percent), coarse mass (21.9 to 26.1 

percent), and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0 

percent) rank first, second, and third, 

respectively, as the largest contributors 

to light extinction on worst days in each 

of the five-year periods from the 

baseline to current time period. On the 

worst days, POM dominates the 

contributions to visibility impairment 

for the baseline as well as all subsequent 

time periods. The data for sulfate and 

nitrate show small but continued 

improvement on worst days based on 

these five-year annual averages. 

On the best days for each five-year 

period of annual averages, sulfate 

(ranging from 4.10 to 50.5 percent), 

POM (15.1 to 26.1 percent), and coarse 

mass (12.4 to13.2 percent) rank first, 

second, and third except for the baseline 

period in which nitrate is third, 

contributing 9.8 percent. On average 

across all five-year periods, nitrate and 

elemental carbon each contribute about 

10 percent to visibility impairment on 

best days. NDEP explains that the 

sulfate contribution is most likely high 

because best days represent times when 

there are fewer emissions from natural 

sources, resulting in relatively higher 

contribution to impairment from 

anthropogenic emissions. Although the 

ranking changes from worst days to best 

days, POM, coarse mass, and sulfate are 

the three largest contributors to 

visibility impairment at Jarbidge. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55812 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

dv. 

TABLE 5—BASELINE AND FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR THE WORST AND BEST DAYS AT

JARBIDGE

Time period Haze index 

(dv) 

Sulfate 

(Mm¥1) 

Nitrate 

(Mm¥1) 

POM 

(Mm¥1) 

EC 

(Mm¥1) 

Soil 

(Mm¥1) 

Coarse 

mass 

(Mm¥1) 

Sea salt 

(Mm¥1) 

Worst Days 

Baseline ........................... 12.1 4.0 1.1 10.0 1.6 2.4 5.5 0.1 

2005–2009 ....................... 12.4 4.4 1.4 10.0 1.7 2.6 5.9 0.2 

2006–2010 ....................... 12.2 4.0 1.1 9.6 1.6 2.7 6.1 0.1 

2007–2011 ....................... 11.7 3.9 1.0 8.4 1.2 2.7 6.2 0.2 

2008–2012 ....................... 12.0 3.9 0.9 11.1 1.5 2.5 5.6 0.2 

Difference ......................... ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.2 1.1 ¥0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Best Days 

Baseline ........................... 2.6 1.2 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 

2005–2009 ....................... 2.2 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0. 0.3 0.0 

2006–2010 ....................... 2.0 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 

2007–2011 ....................... 2.0 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 

2008–2012 ....................... 1.9 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 

Difference ......................... ¥0.7 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.5 ¥0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

To support its analysis of current 

conditions, NDEP presents a set of 

rolling five-year averages of the annual 

averages, and includes the current 

estimate of natural conditions, as shown 

in Table 6.36 The rolling five-year 

average of the annual averages reveals 

more clearly the trend in visibility 

conditions over time. 

TABLE 6—FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE HAZE INDEX FOR BASELINE AND SUCCESSIVE TIME PERIODS MEASURED AT

JARB1 

[In deciviews] 

Days measured 

(20 Percent) 

Baseline 

conditions 

Interim five-year time periods Current 

conditions Natural 

conditions 

2000–2004 2005–2009 2007–2011 2007–2012 2008–2012 

Worst ........................................................ 12.1 12.4 12.2 11.7 12.0 7.9 

Best .......................................................... 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.1 

NDEP also presents the change in 

visibility conditions between the 

baseline and current period for best and 

worst days in comparison to the RPG in 

2018 using the 2008 to 2012 average as 

displayed in Table 7.37 While visibility 

on the best days shows improvement, 

only modest progress is shown for the 

worst days due to significant 

contribution of POM to light extinction 

at Jarbidge, particularly in 2012 as 

shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 7—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL SUMMARY FOR JARBIDGE

[In deciviews] 

Best days Worst days 

Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

Current 

(2008–2012) 

Visibility 

improvement 

Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

Current 

(2008–2012) 

Visibility 

improvement 2018 RPG 

Progress in 

2012 to 2018 

RPG 

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

Changes in Visibility Impairment over 

Past Five Years: The distinguishing 

feature of annual visibility impairment 

on the worst days from 2008 to 2012 is 

the variability of light extinction due to 

POM and its corresponding effect on the 

haze index as shown in Table 4. While 

light extinction for other pollutants is 

relatively flat during this current fiveyear period, POM varies by almost 20 

Mm¥1, from a low of 4.33 Mm¥1 in 

2010 to a high of 23.97 Mm¥1 in 2012. 

Levels of POM spiked in 2012, which 

NDEP attributes to emissions from 

wildfires. As the table shows, on the 

worst days POM has a strong influence 

on the year-to-year variability in 

visibility conditions, and can cause a 

corresponding increase in the 2008– 

2012 five-year annual average. Visibility 

impairment on worst days generally has 

not changed much over the five years 

except for the variations due to light 

extinction from POM. Visibility on best 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55813 

38Nevada RH Progress Report, Chapter 4, Figures 

4–12 through 4–15, pages 4–15 thru 4–19. 

39WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress 

Summary Report, June 28, 2013. West-Wide JumpStart Air Quality Modeling Study—Final Report, 

September 30, 2013. 

40WRAP refers to the baseline as 2002, the 

midyear of the baseline inventory period from 2000 

to 2004. 41 Data from the NEI are slightly different from the 

WestJump2008 inventory, which leverages more 

recent inventory development performed by the 

WRAP. 

42The WRAP compared data between the 

baseline (2002) and emission inventory (2008) for 

nine source categories: Point sources, area sources, 

oil and gas, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, 

fugitive dust and road dust, windblown dust, 

biogenic, and fires. 

days, by contrast, generally is improving 

over the current time period with little 

variability from year to year. For the 

best days, there is a noticeable reduction 

in visibility impairment due to sulfate, 

nitrate, POM, and elemental carbon. 

NDEP presents a trend analysis for the 

period from 2000 to 2012, focusing on 

sulfates and nitrates, as an annual 

average and as a rolling five-year 

average during this 13-year time period 

based on IMPROVE data.38 Analyzing 

this longer time period demonstrates 

that on the worst and best days visibility 

impairment resulting from light 

extinction due to sulfate and nitrate is 

improving over time, both on an annual 

basis as well as five-year annual 

averages. NDEP also includes an 

analysis showing the effect of a large 

spike in nitrates in December 2005 (41 

Mm¥1) that increases the annual 

average as well as all the five-year 

averages that include data from 2005. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) to assess the 

visibility conditions and changes in 

each of the State’s Class I areas for the 

least and most impaired days in terms 

of the current conditions, difference 

between current and baseline 

conditions, and over the past five years. 

The analysis indicates that visibility on 

the best days at Jarbidge is getting better, 

but that visibility on the worst days is 

flat or only minimally improving. 

However, NDEP offers compelling 

evidence that light extinction due to 

POM has dominated visibility 

conditions on the worst days, 

particularly in 2012 as shown in Table 

4. 

D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions 

1. NDEP’s Analysis 

NDEP relies on the WRAP’s 

analysis 39 to describe the changes in 

emissions from the baseline 40 in 2002 to 

the emissions inventory in 2008, the 

beginning of Nevada’s current five-year 

time period. NDEP also uses NEI data 

from 2008 to 2011 to augment its 

analysis.41 As shown in Table 8, 

emissions of all visibility-impairing 

pollutants decreased from the baseline 

inventory to 2008, except for fine soil 

and coarse mass. Notably, actual 

emissions in 2008 are lower than the 

projected 2018 emissions for all 

pollutants, with the exception of fine 

soil and coarse mass. For example, point 

source emissions of SO2 decreased by 78 

percent, while point source emissions of 

NOX decreased by over 50 percent from 

the baseline to 2008. These large 

reductions in the anthropogenic 

emissions of SO2 and NOX represent a 

successful strategy of reducing 

anthropogenic emissions within the 

State. NDEP notes that the increase in 

fine soil and coarse mass are likely due 

to updates in inventory development 

methods rather than actual increases, 

which is plausible given the small 

changes in soil and coarse mass 

observed at the Jarbridge monitor. 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF EMISSION INVENTORIES IN 2002, 2008, AND 2018 FOR NEVADA OF ALL VISIBILITY IMPAIRING

POLLUTANTS 42

Pollutants 2002 Baseline 

(tpy) 

2008 Inventory 

(tpy) 

2018 Projection 

(tpy) 

2008 Actuals as a 

percent of 2018 

projections 

Sulfur Dioxide .......................................................................... 67,743 17,058 46,224 37 

Nitrogen Oxides ....................................................................... 162,397 119,513 135,496 88 

Ammonia .................................................................................. 12,092 9,382 14,503 65 

Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................... 897,102 351,142 897,707 39 

Primary Organic Aerosol ......................................................... 24,734 11,816 24,822 48 

Elemental Carbon .................................................................... 6,409 4,425 5,638 78 

Fine Soil ................................................................................... 21,208 40,301 24,134 167 

Coarse Mass ............................................................................ 161,142 321,257 188,287 171 

NDEP analyzes the differences 

between the baseline and current 

emissions based on WRAP’s 

WestJump2008 inventory for eight 

categories of emissions as summarized 

below. This analysis focuses on the 

percentage change in the emissions of 

each pollutant by source category in 

2002 and 2008, and adds an analysis of 

changes in emissions from 2008 to 2011 

where NEI data is available. 

Sulfur Dioxide: Total anthropogenic 

emissions of SO2 decreased by 75 

percent from 65,543 tons in 2002 to 

16,552 tons in 2008, representing a 

significant reduction in particular from 

point and area sources as shown in 

Table 9. Point source emissions alone 

decreased by 78 percent (50,720 to 

11,067 tpy) during this period, and area 

source emissions decreased by 63 

percent (12,953 to 4,863 tpy). As a 

percentage of total statewide emissions, 

anthropogenic and natural, point source 

emissions decreased from 75 percent of 

the total in the 2002 (50,720 of 67,743 

tons) to 65 percent of the total in the 

2008 (11,067 tons of a total 16,552 tons). 

Moreover, the NEI inventories show a 

further decrease in SO2 emissions from 

point sources of 44 percent from 10,409 

tpy in 2008 to 5,863 tpy in 2011, 

primarily due to reductions in coal-fired 

emissions from power plants. On-road 

and off-road mobile emissions 

decreased by 34 percent (454 to 298 tpy) 

and 77 percent (1,403 to 322 tpy), 

respectively, from 2002 to 2008. Data 

from the NEI indicate further reductions 

in emissions from mobile sources from 

2008 to 2011, a 47 percent decrease in 

on-road emissions (511 to 270 tpy) and 

a 87 percent decrease in off-road 

emissions (316 to 41 tpy). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55814 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

2008inventory.html (‘‘Description of NEI Data 

Categories’’). 

TABLE 9—CHANGES IN SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY (TPY) 

Source category 2002 

(Baseline) 

2008 

(WestJump2008) 

Difference 

(percent change) 

Anthropogenic Sources 

Point ........................................................................................................................... 50,720 11,067 ¥39,653 (¥78%) 

Area ........................................................................................................................... 12,953 4,863 ¥8,090 (¥62%) 

On-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................... 454 298 ¥156 (¥34%) 

Off-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................... 1,403 322 ¥1,081 (¥77%) 

Area Oil and Gas ....................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Fugitive and Road Dust ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................... 12 2 ¥10 (¥83%) 

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

Natural Sources 

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

Biogenic ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Windblown Dust ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

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

All Sources 

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

Nitrogen Oxides: The total statewide 

inventory of NOX emissions from all 

sources decreased by 26 percent from 

162,397 tpy in 2002 to 118,766 tpy in 

2008 as shown in Table 10. Over this 

time period, NOX emissions from 

anthropogenic sources decreased by 23 

percent (139,353 tpy to 107,827 tpy), 

and natural emissions decreased by 53 

percent (23,044 tpy to 10,939 tpy). 

Anthropogenic emissions of NOX in 

Nevada are primarily from point and onroad mobile sources, followed by offroad and area sources. From the 2002 to 

2008 inventories, NOX emissions from 

point sources decreased by about 50 

percent (59,864 to 29,344 tpy), on-road 

mobile increased by about 22 percent 

(41,089 to 50,068 tpy), off-road mobile 

decreased by about 48 percent (32,565 

to 17,081 tpy), and area sources 

increased by 98 percent (5,725 to 11,321 

tpy). Increases in on-road mobile and 

area source emission inventories were 

offset by larger decreases in emissions 

from point and off-road mobile sources. 

The NEI point source inventory shows 

a decrease of 57 percent in NOX

emissions from 2008 to 2011. NDEP 

attributes the 22 percent increase in onroad mobile emissions to the use of 

different air quality models to estimate 

emissions in 2002 (MOBILE6) and in 

2008 (MOVES2010), a growth in the 

number of vehicles, and the fact that 

federal vehicle emissions standards 

were not fully implemented. NEI data 

from 2008 and 2011 show a 36 percent 

increase in on-road mobile NOX

emissions, possibly related to 

population growth. The NEI shows a 

continuing decrease in off-road mobile 

emissions of 12 percent from 2008 to 

2012. NDEP states that the increase in 

emissions from area sources may be a 

result of a reclassification of some offroad mobile sources into area source 

category, which may have contributed 

to the decrease in emissions from offroad mobile sources. This is consistent 

with the reclassification of in-flight 

aircraft emissions and locomotive 

emissions outside of rail yards from the 

off-road mobile category to the area 

source category in the 2008 NEI.43

TABLE 10—CHANGES IN NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY (TPY) 

Source category 2002 

(Baseline) 

2008 

(WestJump2008) 

Difference 

(percent change) 

Anthropogenic Sources 

Point ........................................................................................................................... 59,864 29,344 ¥30,520 

Area ........................................................................................................................... 5,725 11,321 5,597 

On-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................... 41,089 50,068 8,979 

Off-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................... 32,565 17,081 ¥15,484 

Area Oil and Gas ....................................................................................................... 63 0 ¥63 

Fugitive and Road Dust ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................... 48 13 ¥35 

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

Natural Sources 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55815 

44The WRAP has created an operational policy 

level definition of fire activity as discretely natural 

or anthropogenic. See the WRAP Regional Haze 

Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report, section 

3.2.1 and the WRAP’s Policy for Categorizing Fire 

Emissions (November 15, 2001), available at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/

nbtt/FirePolicy.pdf. 

TABLE 10—CHANGES IN NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY (TPY)—Continued 

Source category 2002 

(Baseline) 

2008 

(WestJump2008) 

Difference 

(percent change) 

Biogenic ..................................................................................................................... 15,018 7,364 ¥7,654 

Windblown Dust ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

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

All Sources 

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

Ammonia: Total statewide emissions 

of ammonia decreased by 22 percent 

(12,092 to 9,382 tpy) from 2002 to 2008. 

Of this total, anthropogenic emissions 

decreased by 34 percent (10,408 to 6,893 

tpy) while natural emissions increased 

by 48 percent (1,684 to 2,490 tpy). The 

primary source of anthropogenic 

emissions of ammonia is area sources, 

and to a lesser extent on-road mobile 

sources, while fire is the dominant 

natural source.44 Area sources of 

ammonia emissions decreased by about 

29 percent (8,009 to 5,717 tpy) from 

2002 to 2008. On-road mobile sources, 

the next largest category of 

anthropogenic emissions, decreased by 

about 58 percent (2,030 to 849 tpy). 

Despite an increase of 48 percent in 

natural fire (1,684 to 2,490 tpy), there 

was a net decrease in statewide 

emissions. Ammonia is not a criteria 

pollutant and is not included in the NEI, 

so no data for 2011 were provided. 

Volatile Organic Compounds: Data 

from the 2002 and 2008 inventories as 

well as from the NEI for the 2008 to 

2011 time period show large reductions 

in volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

emissions from natural sources with 

lesser reductions from anthropogenic 

sources. Biogenic emissions from 

natural sources dominate the Nevada 

VOC emissions inventory. Total 

statewide VOC emissions decreased by 

61 percent from 897,102 tpy in 2002 to 

351,142 tpy in 2008. This large 

reduction is mostly due to a decrease in 

biogenic emissions over this time period 

by 67 percent from 794,139 tpy to 

262,912 tpy. NDEP notes that these 

changes may reflect enhancements to 

the inventory method, use of different 

meteorological years, and improved 

emission factors and data sources. There 

were also decreases in on-road mobile 

(36,257 to 21,302 tpy) and natural fire 

(17,606 to 4,204 tpy), and an increase in 

area sources (28,592 to 40,973 tpy), all 

of which are a very small part of the 

total inventory. VOC emissions in the 

NEI show a decrease in point source (17 

percent), on-road mobile (20 percent), 

and off road mobile (18 percent) from 

2008 to 2011. 

Primary Organic Aerosol: Wildfires 

are the dominant source of primary 

organic aerosol (POA) emissions, 90 

percent of the total in 2002 (22,501 of 

a total 24,734 tpy) and 58 percent in 

2008 (6,831 of a total 11,816 tpy). 

Anthropogenic sources, namely area 

and mobile, also are important 

contributors. Overall, total emissions of 

POA decreased by 52 percent from 2002 

to 2008. Natural fire emissions of POA 

decreased 70 percent (22,501 to 6,831 

tpy), reflecting the high variability of 

wildfires from year to year. Except for 

anthropogenic fire, all other categories 

of anthropogenic sources of POA 

(primarily area, mobile, and fugitive) 

increased during this time period with 

the total anthropogenic emissions 

increasing by 123 percent from 2,233 to 

4,985 tpy. 

Elemental Carbon: Natural fire (i.e., 

wildfires) also dominate EC emissions at 

73 percent of the 2002 inventory (4,674 

of 6,409 tpy), but only 23 percent of the 

2008 inventory (1,130 to 4,425 tpy), a 

reduction of 76 percent (4,674 to 1,130 

tpy). Consequently, total emissions 

decreased by 31 percent (6,409 to 4,425 

tpy) mostly due to the decrease in 

natural fire. Total anthropogenic 

emissions increased by 90 percent 

(1,735 to 3,295 tpy) due mostly to an 

increase in on-road mobile sources from 

235 to 1,891 tpy over this time period. 

On-road mobile is the largest source of 

elemental carbon in the 2008 inventory 

at 43 percent, while the next largest 

category is natural fire emissions 

contributing 26 percent. Area and point 

sources, by contrast, contribute less than 

one percent each to the 2008 inventory. 

Fine Soil: Total emissions of fine soils 

increased by 90 percent (21,208 to 

40,301 tpy) from the 2002 to the 2008 

inventory. The largest increases were in 

fugitive dust (6,128 to 19,216 tpy) and 

windblown dust (10,438 to 17,051 tpy). 

NDEP reports that increases in these 

source categories were likely due to 

updates to inventory development 

methods rather than actual increases. 

Coarse Mass: Total emissions of 

coarse mass increased by about 99 

percent (161,142 to 321,257 tpy), mostly 

due to large increases in anthropogenic 

fugitive and road dust (56,799 to 

161,532 tpy) and in natural windblown 

dust (93,946 to 153,459 tpy). Fugitive 

dust includes sources such as 

agricultural operations, construction, 

and mining operations. Windblown dust 

is largely from vacant lands. NDEP 

attributes these increases in part to 

updates in the inventory development 

methods rather than actual increases. 

Nonetheless, increases in fugitive dust 

may be due to increases in population, 

while increases in road dust may be due 

to increases in vehicle miles traveled. 

Point source and natural fire emissions 

decreased. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

We propose to find that NDEP 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to analyze the 

change in emissions over the past five 

years of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the state, using the 

most recently updated emission 

inventories. NDEP’s analysis of 

emission data makes a strong case that 

the State is reducing emissions of SO2

and NOX from anthropogenic sources, 

especially point sources. 

E. Assessment of Anthropogenic 

Emissions Impeding Progress 

1. NDEP’s Analysis 

NDEP reports that progress toward 

achieving its visibility goal of 11.05 dv 

at Jarbidge by 2018 has not been 

impeded by any significant 

anthropogenic emission changes within 

or outside the State. NDEP reaches this 

conclusion by evaluating significant 

emission changes within Nevada, the 

effect of emissions from sources outside 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

45Progress Report, Chapter 6, pages 6–2 thru 

6–3. 

46SO2 emissions from point sources were 68 

percent of the total anthropogenic emissions in 

Nevada in 2008 (WestJump2008). Area source 

emissions of SO2 were 29 percent of total 

anthropogenic emissions in 2008. 

47Progress Report, Table 6–1, page 6–4. 

48Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Table 4– 

5: Summary of 2018 Model Results for Jarbidge 

Wilderness Area, based on Particulate Matter 

Source Attribution Tracking, page 31. 

49Outside Domain as a source category represents 

the background concentrations of pollutants from 

international sources that enter the modeling 

domain, in this case the western United States and 

portions of Canada and Mexico. 

50Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Tables 

4–3: Nevada’s Sulfate Extinction Contribution to 

Class I Areas Outside of Nevada and Table 4–4: 

Nevada’s Nitrate Extinction Contribution to Class I 

Areas Outside of Nevada, pages 14–17. 

of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of 

Nevada’s emissions on nearby Class I 

areas. 

Emission Changes within Nevada and 

Visibility Conditions at Jarbidge: NDEP 

analyzes the baseline and rolling fiveyear annual averages of light extinction 

data from the JARB1 monitor for the 

best and worst days from 2005 through 

2012. For the worst days, the data show 

a reduction in sulfate and nitrate 

extinction for the three most recent fiveyear periods (2006–2010, 2007–2011, 

and 2008–2012), but an increase in POM 

extinction, due to a spike in 2012 that 

NDEP attributes to wildfires.45 On the 

best days, visibility impairment is 

reduced from the baseline to the current 

period due to decreases in extinction 

from sulfate, nitrate, POM, and 

elemental carbon. Light extinction for 

soil, coarse mass, and sea salt remain 

fairly constant on best days. 

Actual emissions of SO2, NOX, PM10, 

and VOC from point sources in 

Nevada 46 have decreased significantly 

over a 10-year period (2002–2012) and 

over the last five years (2008–2012) as 

presented in Table 11.47 The years 2002, 

2005, 2008, and 2011 are the most 

complete inventory years submitted to 

EPA for the NEI. The data for 2012 are 

actual emission values for major and 

minor point sources from Nevada’s 

permitting database. As shown in the 

table, SO2 emissions from point sources 

dropped dramatically after the closure 

of Mohave in 2005, and decreased by 

another 50 percent from 2008 to 2012. 

Likewise, NOX emissions decreased by 

30,000 tpy after 2005, and decreased 

another 62 percent from 2008 to 2012. 

TABLE 11—ACTUAL EMISSIONS OF NEVADA POINT SOURCES (TPY) 

Year SO2 NOX PM10 VOC 

2002 ................................................................................................................. 50,619 55,876 6,868 2,132 

2005 ................................................................................................................. 54,243 52,087 4,643 1,646 

2008 ................................................................................................................. 10,497 21,680 3,465 1,600 

2011 ................................................................................................................. 5,959 10,548 3,331 971 

2012 ................................................................................................................. 5,278 8,324 2,629 986 

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns. 

Emissions from Outside Sources 

Effecting Jarbidge: NDEP’s analysis 

focuses on three BART sources in Idaho 

and Oregon to determine whether these 

previously identified point sources are 

impeding progress on the worst days at 

Jarbidge. Comparing baseline emissions 

to the NEI in 2011, total SO2 emissions 

from these three sources decrease by 

about 40 percent (26,243 to 15,782 tpy) 

from 2002 to 2011. Total NOX emissions 

decrease by about 31 percent (11,010 to 

7,611 tpy) over the same time period. 

Moreover, emissions from these sources 

will continue to decline over time given 

staggered compliance dates through 

2018. With visibility impairment 

resulting from sulfate and nitrate 

trending downward at Jarbidge and the 

implementation of BART controls in 

Idaho and Oregon, NDEP concludes that 

there are no significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions from outside 

the State that are impeding progress at 

Jarbidge. 

In assessing point source emissions 

from Idaho and Oregon, NDEP 

references source apportionment 

modeling of particulate sulfate and 

nitrate extinction for 2018 that was 

performed by the WRAP for the Nevada 

Regional Haze SIP.48 The purpose of the 

modeling is to determine source areas 

that contribute to visibility impairment 

on the worst days at Jarbidge. The area 

of greatest sulfate contribution is 

Outside Domain 49 (43.8 percent), 

followed by Idaho (10.3 percent), 

Oregon (7.2 percent), and Pacific 

Offshore (6.9 percent). The area of 

greatest nitrate contribution is Idaho 

(30.3 percent), followed by Outside 

Domain (27.5 percent), Nevada (13.1 

percent), and Utah (10.6 percent). Based 

on these results, Idaho is the second 

largest contributor of modeled sulfate 

and the largest contributor of modeled 

nitrate concentrations. Oregon is the 

third largest contributor of modeled 

sulfate concentrations. While this 

analysis supports the focus on 

emissions from Idaho and Oregon, the 

fact that Outside Domain contributes 

43.8 percent of the modeled sulfate and 

27.5 percent of the modeled nitrate is 

another indication that Nevada has 

limited control over a large subset of the 

emissions impairing visibility at 

Jarbidge. 

Nevada’s Emissions Effect on Nearby 

Class I Areas: NDEP also addresses the 

potential effect of Nevada’s emissions 

on nearby Class I areas in other states 

using particulate source apportionment 

modeling conducted by the WRAP for 

the first round of regional haze SIPs. 

This modeling estimated Nevada’s 

projected contributions to light 

extinction from sulfates and nitrates at 

Class I areas in adjacent states in 2018.50

In light of the 75 percent reduction in 

Nevada’s SO2 emissions (see Table 9) 

and 26 percent reduction in NOX

emissions (see Table 10) between 2002 

and 2008, NDEP concludes that 

Nevada’s emission reductions are not 

impeding progress in reducing visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in adjacent 

states. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to assess any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the state 

over the past five years that have limited 

or impeded progress in reducing 

emissions and improving visibility. 

NDEP provides a comprehensive 

analysis of emission changes within and 

outside the State, and examines the 

potential effect of these changes at 

Jarbidge and at other Class I areas. All 

indications are that the total statewide 

emissions of SO2 and NOX are 

decreasing (see Tables 9, 10, and 11), 

and most of the pollutants are already 

at levels below those in the projected 

emission inventory for 2018 (see Table 

8). Based on NDEP’s analysis, EPA 

proposes to concur with NDEP that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55817 

51Progress Report, Chapter 4, Section 4.6: 

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

there is no evidence that any recent 

changes in emissions from any specific 

sources or source categories are 

impeding progress. 

F. Assessment of Plan Elements and 

Strategy 

1. NDEP’s Analysis 

The Progress Report concludes that 

the existing elements and strategies in 

the Nevada Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan are sufficient to 

enable Nevada and other neighboring 

states to meet the RPGs by 2018 in terms 

of reducing emissions from 

anthropogenic sources. Nevada has 

already achieved significant emission 

reductions in the first phase of the 

regional haze program, with additional 

reductions expected by 2018. Actual 

emissions of visibility impairing 

pollutants in 2008, with the exception 

of fine soil and coarse mass, are already 

less than the projected emissions in 

2018 (see Table 8). Notably actual SO2

emissions in 2008 are about 40 percent 

and actual NOX emissions are about 90 

percent of the respective totals in the 

projected emission inventory for 2018. 

The NEI data for 2008 and 2011 also 

demonstrate further reductions in SO2

and NOX emissions from point sources 

in Nevada (see Table 11). Moreover, 

further reductions in anthropogenic 

emissions are expected from the power 

sector as a result of BART 

implementation, shutdowns, and 

conversions to natural gas or lower 

sulfur fuels. In the case of Jarbidge, 

NDEP notes that emissions from natural 

sources can dominate visibility 

impairment on the worst days, and 

much of the anthropogenic emissions 

are from out-of-state. NDEP states that 

given the current and expected SO2 and 

NOX emission reductions from power 

plants, further reductions from any 

other non-utility or industrial point 

sources are unnecessary at this time. 

Regarding visibility conditions, trend 

analysis of monitoring data at Jarbidge 

from 2000 to 2012 demonstrates 

improvement in visibility impairment 

from sulfate and nitrate on the worst 

and best days, both on an annual 

average basis as well as five-year annual 

averages.51 NDEP notes that, although 

the visibility benefit from anthropogenic 

emission reductions is overshadowed by 

contributions from natural sources, 

visibility is slowly improving at Jarbidge 

on the worst days and shows 

considerable improvement on the best 

days (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). Where it 

appears that visibility improvement on 

worst days is not keeping pace with 

emission reductions (e.g., the 14.9 dv 

annual average for 2012 in Table 4), 

NDEP asserts that this is due to large 

contributions from natural sources (e.g., 

light extinction from POM of 23.97 

Mm¥1 in 2012). In terms of 

anthropogenic sources, NDEP notes that 

sulfate contributes the most to visibility 

impairment on worst days at Jarbidge, 

but most of the sulfate is from out-ofstate sources. Nitrate has only a small 

contribution to visibility impairment on 

the worst days. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that the Progress 

Report adequately addresses the 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) to 

assess whether the current elements and 

strategies in the Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan are sufficient to 

enable Nevada, and other states affected 

by Nevada’s emissions, to meet all 

established RPGs. 

In particular, the Report analyzes 

trends in statewide emissions and 

visibility conditions at Jarbidge, as well 

as the additional emission reductions 

expected through 2018. The Report 

indicates that anthropogenic emissions 

of SO2, NOX, ammonia and VOC are 

decreasing. In particular, the emission 

reductions reflect substantial decreases 

in total anthropogenic emissions of SO2

and NOX. However, anthropogenic 

emissions of POA, fine soil, elemental 

carbon and coarse mass are increasing. 

While these increases may be partially 

attributable to changes in inventory 

development methodologies, they 

highlight the need for greater attention 

to these pollutants in future planning 

periods. 

With regard to visibility trends, the 

Progress Report explains that Jarbidge is 

not on track to meet the 2018 RPG for 

the worst days due to the large 

contribution from POM, which NDEP 

attributes mostly to wildfires and 

windblown dust. EPA concurs that POM 

has a large impact on the worst days and 

that much of the POM is attributable to 

natural sources, particularly wildfires. 

Furthermore, we note that the trend of 

high POM extinction (with significant 

interannual variability) dominating the 

worst days at Jarbidge has continued 

during 2013 and 2014, for which the 

IMPROVE data are now available, as 

shown in Tables 12 and 13. 

TABLE 12—2013 AND 2014 AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR WORST AND BEST DAYS AT JARBIDGE

Year 

Haze 

index 

(dv) 

Sulfate 

(Mm¥1) 

Nitrate 

(Mm¥1) 

POM 

(Mm¥1) 

EC 

(Mm¥1) 

Soil 

(Mm¥1) 

Coarse 

mass 

(Mm¥1) 

Sea salt 

(Mm¥1) 

Worst Days 

2013 ................................................................. 11.7 3.5 1.0 8.4 1.3 2.7 5.9 0.1 

2014 ................................................................. 12.2 3.1 0.6 14.5 2.3 2.2 4.5 0.2 

Best Days 

2013 ................................................................. 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 

2014 ................................................................. 1.8 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55818 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 13—FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR WORST AND BEST DAYS AT JARBIDGE

Year 

Haze 

index 

(dv) 

Sulfate 

(Mm¥1) 

Nitrate 

(Mm¥1) 

POM 

(Mm¥1) 

EC 

(Mm¥1) 

Soil 

(Mm¥1) 

Coarse 

mass 

(Mm¥1) 

Sea salt 

(Mm¥1) 

Worst Days 

2009–2013 ....................................................... 12.0 3.8 0.9 10.7 1.5 2.5 5.9 0.2 

2010–2014 ....................................................... 12.2 3.6 0.9 12.1 1.8 2.5 5.6 0.2 

Best Days 

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

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

However, we also note that not all 

POM is from natural sources. POA and 

VOC, the precursors to POM, are also 

emitted by anthropogenic sources, 

particularly area and mobile sources. 

Moreover, other pollutants, particularly 

coarse mass and sulfates, both of which 

have a significant anthropogenic 

component, also contribute to 

impairment on the worst days at 

Jarbidge. Accordingly, in developing its 

Regional Haze SIP for the next planning 

period, NDEP should consider 

implementing additional control 

measures to address anthropogenic 

emissions of POA, VOC, SO2, and coarse 

mass. 

Nonetheless, given the substantial 

reductions in anthropogenic emissions 

of SO2 and NOX, improvement in 

visibility conditions on the best days, 

and evidence that the worst days are 

slowly improving, we propose to find 

that the current plan is sufficient for 

meeting the RPGs. 

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring 

Strategy 

1. NDEP’s Analysis 

The primary monitoring network, 

nationally and in Nevada, for the 

measurement and characterization of 

pollutants contributing to regional haze 

is the IMPROVE network. NDEP intends 

to rely on the continued availability of 

quality assured data collected through 

the IMPROVE network to comply with 

the regional haze monitoring 

requirements in the RHR. NDEP finds 

that the IMPROVE site at Jarbidge, 

Nevada’s only Class I area, is 

sufficiently representative to support a 

determination of reasonable progress. 

NDEP concludes that no modification to 

the State’s visibility monitoring strategy 

is necessary at this time. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) to review its 

visibility monitoring strategy and make 

any modifications as necessary. We are 

not aware of any evidence of a need to 

modify Nevada’s monitoring strategy for 

measuring visibility at this time. 

H. Determination of Adequacy 

1. NDEP’s Determination 

NDEP has determined that no 

substantive revision of the Nevada 

Regional Haze Implementation Plan is 

warranted at this time in order to 

achieve the RPGs in 2018 for visibility 

improvement at Jarbidge and at other 

Class I areas affected by emissions from 

Nevada. NDEP concludes that no 

additional controls are necessary based 

on the evidence presented in the 

Progress Report regarding the first half 

of the first phase of the program. The 

Report documents a substantial 

reduction in anthropogenic emissions in 

Nevada as well as an improvement in 

visibility at Jarbidge even though BART 

controls and other state and federal 

measures are not yet fully implemented. 

Further changes in source activity that 

were not included in the State’s plan 

further support the conclusion that 

progress is adequate. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP 

adequately addresses the requirements 

in 40 CFR 51.308(h) by determining that 

the existing Nevada Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan requires no 

substantive revisions at this time to 

achieve the established RPGs at Jarbidge 

and at other Class I areas affected by 

emissions from Nevada. We propose to 

concur with the State’s negative 

declaration based on the analysis and 

documentation presented in the 

Progress Report. 

NDEP demonstrates that emissions 

from anthropogenic sources within the 

State are decreasing as are emissions 

from point sources in Idaho and Oregon 

that contribute to visibility impairment 

at Jarbidge. While the monitoring data 

indicates that best days at Jarbidge are 

getting better, we are concerned that 

visibility conditions on the worst days 

are relatively flat or only slightly 

improving. However, this lack of 

progress on the worst days is largely 

attributable to the impact of POM, 

which results primarily from natural 

sources. Therefore, we propose to 

approve NDEP’s determination that the 

Nevada Regional Haze Implementation 

Plan requires no substantive revisions at 

this time. 

I. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

1. NDEP’s Consultation 

NDEP provided FLMs with a draft 

Progress Report on June 14, 2014, for a 

60-day review prior to the public 

comment period, received comments 

from the U.S. Department of Interior 

National Parks Service (NPS) and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service (USFS), and responded to those 

comments as documented in Appendix 

C of the Progress Report. The letter from 

NPS dated August 15, 2014, supported 

the Report’s findings, and provided four 

short comments on how to improve 

specific aspects of the analyses. The 

letter from USFS dated August 29, 2014, 

acknowledged the opportunity to work 

with NDEP, but provided no specific 

comments. In the Progress Report, NDEP 

reaffirmed its commitment to continue 

participating in the WRAP and 

consulting with other states, FLMs, and 

tribes regarding SIP revisions and 

implementation of other programs that 

may contribute to visibility impairment. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP has 

addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide 

FLMs with an opportunity for 

consultation in person and at least 60 

days prior to a public hearing on the 

revised plan; include a description in 

the revised plan of how it addressed any 

comments from the FLMs; and provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the State and FLMs. These 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 55819 

52The letter to Adele Malone, NDEP, is signed by 

David VonSeggern, Chair, Sierra Club Toiyabe 

Chapter; Gloria Smith, Managing Attorney, Sierra 

Club; and Lynn Davis, Senior Program Manager, 

Nevada Field Office, National Parks Conservation 

Association. 

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

procedural requirements for the 

Progress Report, a revision to the 

Regional Haze SIP in this case, are 

documented in Appendices C and D 

attached to the Report. 

J. Public Participation 

1. NDEP’s Public Process 

NDEP provided a 30-day public 

comment period on the draft Progress 

Report as well as an opportunity for a 

public hearing. The public hearing, 

scheduled for October 15, 2014, was 

cancelled because no request for a 

hearing was received. During the public 

comment period, NDEP received one set 

of comments from the Sierra Club and 

National Parks Conservation 

Association in a letter dated October 16, 

2014.52 These organizations questioned 

whether NDEP’s analysis supports its 

determination that progress in 

implementing the Nevada Regional 

Haze Implementation Plan is adequate 

to achieve the 2018 RPGs for Jarbidge 

and other Class I areas affected by 

Nevada’s emissions. NDEP provided 

detailed responses to these comments in 

Appendix D of the Progress Report. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that NDEP has 

fulfilled the requirements of CAA 110(a) 

and (l) and 40 CFR 51.102 regarding 

reasonable notice and public hearings. 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Nevada Regional Haze Progress Report 

submitted to EPA on November 18, 

2014, as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and RHR. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal 

regulations.53 Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state decisions, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this proposed action is to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements, 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not apply on any Indian reservation 

land or in any other area where EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Organic carbon, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 1, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23272 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

RIN 0648–BD76 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Dolphin 

and Wahoo Fishery Off the Atlantic 

States and Snapper-Grouper Fishery of 

the South Atlantic Region; 

Amendments 7/33 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

submitted Amendment 7 to the Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) for the Dolphin 

and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic 

States (Dolphin and Wahoo FMP) and 

Amendment 33 to the FMP for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP) 

(Amendments 7/33) for review, 

approval, and implementation by 

NMFS. Amendments 7/33 propose 

actions to revise the landing fish intact 

provisions for vessels that lawfully 

harvest dolphin, wahoo, or snappergrouper in or from Bahamian waters and 

return to the U.S exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ). The U.S. EEZ as described 

in this document refers to the Atlantic 

EEZ for dolphin and wahoo and the 

South Atlantic EEZ for snapper-grouper. 

The purpose of Amendments 7/33 is to 

improve the consistency and 

enforceability of Federal regulations 

with regards to landing fish intact and 

to increase the social and economic 

benefits related to the recreational 

harvest of these species. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 16, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on Amendments 7/33 identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0047’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit 

electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0047, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS