Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Nevada; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2011-06-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36450-36468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15238]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130, FRL-9320-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Nevada; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Nevada State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to implement the regional haze program for 
the first planning period through July 31, 2018. The Clean Air Act 
(CAA) requires states to prevent any future and remedy any existing 
man-made impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness 
areas designated as Class I areas. Regional haze is caused by emissions 
of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a broad geographic 
area. States must submit SIPs that assure reasonable progress toward 
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before July 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2011-0130 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: Webb.Thomas@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb).
    4. Mail: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such deliveries are only accepted 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-

[[Page 36451]]

0130. Our policy is that EPA will include all comments received in the 
public docket without change. EPA may make comments available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, EPA will include your e-mail 
address as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and 
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information 
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket 
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Planning Office of the Air Division, Air-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests you contact the 
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the 
docket Monday through Friday, 9-5:30 PST, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number 
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at webb.thomas@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our,'' is used, we mean the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. State Submittals
II. Background
    A. Description of Regional Haze
    B. History of Regional Haze Regulations
    C. Roles of Agencies in addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
    A. Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably 
Attributable Visibility Impairment
    G. Monitoring Strategy
    H. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports
    I. Coordination with Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. EPA's Analysis of Nevada's RH SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
    1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate
    C. Nevada Emissions Inventories
    1. Emissions Inventories for 2002 and 2018
    2. Analysis of Statewide Emissions by Pollutant
    3. Analysis of Natural versus Anthropogenic Emissions
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment
    1. Sources of Visibility Impairment at Jarbidge
    2. Nevada's Contributions to Visibility Impairment in Class I 
Areas Outside of the State
    E. Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology
    1. Sources eligible for BART
    2. Sources subject to BART
    3. BART Determinations
    a. Tracy Generating Station
    b. Fort Churchill Generating Station
    c. Reid Gardner Generating Station
    d. Mohave Generating Station
    4. EPA's Assessment
    F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goal
    1. Visibility Projections for 2018
    2. Establishing the Reasonable Progress Goal
    3. Interstate Consultation
    G. Long-Term Strategy
    1. BART Controls
    2. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
    3. Construction Activities
    4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    5. Smoke Management Programs
    6. Other Measures supporting the LTS
    7. Interstate Transport Requirements for Visibility
    H. Monitoring Strategy
    1. Coordination of RAVI with RHR
    2. Additional Monitoring Sites
    3. Using and Reporting Monitoring Data
    4. Statewide Emissions Inventory
    I. State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
    J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-year Progress Reports
V. EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. State Submittals

    The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) adopted and 
transmitted its ``Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan'' 
(Nevada RH SIP) to EPA Region 9 in a letter dated November 18, 2009. 
EPA determined the plan complete by operation of law on May 18, 2010. 
The SIP was properly noticed by the State and available for public 
comment for 30 days prior to a public hearing held in Carson City, 
Nevada, on May 20, 2009. There was a separate public notice and hearing 
on the proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 
four stationary sources, which the State adopted on April 23, 2009. The 
State submitted to EPA additional documentation of public process and 
adoption of a more stringent emission limit for one of the BART sources 
on February 18, 2010. Nevada included in its SIP responses to written 
comments from EPA Region 9, the National Park Service, and a consortium 
of conservation organizations. As a result of the State's participation 
with 13 other states, Tribal nations and Federal agencies in the 
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), Nevada's RH SIP reflects a 
consistent approach toward addressing regional visibility impairment at 
116 Class I areas in the West.

II. Background

A. Description of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is the impairment of visibility across a broad 
geographic area produced by numerous sources and activities that emit 
fine particles and their precursors, primarily sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX), and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). 
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5), primarily sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust, which impair 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. 
PM2.5 can also cause

[[Page 36452]]

serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to 
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from existing visibility monitors, the ``Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) network, 
indicate that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs 
virtually all the time at most Federally protected national parks and 
wilderness areas, known as Class I areas. The average visual range in 
many Class I areas in the western United States is 100 to 150 
kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that 
would exist without man-made air pollution.\1\ In most of the eastern 
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less 
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would 
exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which one can view a dark object against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History of Regional Haze Regulations

    In section 169(A)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress 
established as a national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the 
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class 
I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.'' 
Visibility was determined to be an important value in 156 mandatory 
Class I Federal areas \2\ as listed in 40 CFR 81.400-437. In the first 
phase of visibility protection, EPA promulgated regulations on December 
2, 1980, to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is 
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of 
sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' or 
RAVI. 45 FR 80084. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates 
from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific 
knowledge about the relationship between pollutants and visibility 
impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). Although states and Tribes may designate as 
Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as 
an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to conduct 
scientific research on regional haze. This legislation established the 
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC), which issued its 
report, ``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,'' on June 10, 
1996. These recommendations informed the regulatory development of a 
regional haze program, and provided an option for certain western 
states to address visibility at 16 Class I areas on the Colorado 
Plateau under 40 CFR 51.309.
    EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 
known as the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised 
the existing visibility regulations to include provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
major elements of the RHR requirements are summarized in section III of 
this notice. The requirement to submit a regional haze plan revision 
applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands. States were required to submit the first implementation plan 
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 
17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b). Since most states, including Nevada, did 
not submit SIPs prior to the deadline, EPA made a Finding of Failure to 
Submit that extended the deadline to January 15, 2011, for EPA to 
approve a SIP or publish a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). 74 FR 
2392 (January 15, 2009). EPA is publishing this proposal to meet this 
obligation.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term coordination among states, Tribal governments and various 
Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality 
in Class I areas can result from the transport of pollutants over long 
distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, states and Tribal 
nations need to develop coordinated strategies to take into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another. To support a regional approach to the planning process, EPA 
founded five regional planning organizations (RPOs) to assist states 
and Tribes in addressing regional haze and related issues. The RPOs 
first evaluated technical information to better understand how 
emissions impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the 
development of regional strategies to reduce pollutants contributing to 
regional haze.
    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), one of five RPOs 
nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal, and 
local air agencies focusing on improving visibility at 116 Class I 
areas in the West. WRAP member states include: Alaska, Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 
South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include 
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai 
Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the 
Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. While Nevada is not a formal member of the 
WRAP, State representatives participated fully in the WRAP and relied 
on its technical services and products as the basis for its plan.
    While EPA regulates visibility at Class I areas, Federal Land 
Managers (FLMs) from the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and Forest Service have a special role in the program because 
they have primary jurisdiction over Class I areas. FLMs may submit 
comments and make recommendations on a state's plan, and states are 
required to coordinate and consult with FLMs on most major planning and 
implementation requirements.

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

 A. Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze SIPs must establish a long-term strategy that ensures 
reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions in 
each Class I area affected by the state's emissions. For each Class I 
area within its boundaries, the state must establish a reasonable 
progress goal (RPG) for the first planning period that ends on July 31, 
2018. The long-term strategy must include enforceable emission limits 
and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPG. State 
implementation plans must also give specific attention to certain 
stationary sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were 
not in operation before August 7, 1962. These sources, where 
appropriate, are required to install Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) controls to eliminate or reduce visibility

[[Page 36453]]

impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are summarized 
below.

 B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for 
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes 
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of 
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 
Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality 
measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the 
value of light extinction to deciviews using a logarithmic function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction because each deciview change 
is an equal incremental change in visibility as perceived by the human 
eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used to express reasonable progress goals; define 
visibility conditions; and track changes in visibility. To track 
changes in visibility at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the 
visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the process for 
determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of 
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area and periodically 
review progress midway through each ten-year implementation period. To 
do this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment 
(in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired 
(``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility days 
over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 
addition, states must develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national 
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural 
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then 
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has 
provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, 
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's 
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''), and 
Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-
03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 
Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPS that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the 
``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I area for 
each (approximately) ten-year implementation period. The RHR does not 
mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for 
states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' 
toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions. 
In setting reasonable progress goals (RPGs), states must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the 
(approximately) ten-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation 
in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, July 
1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, 
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1) (``EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance''). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' (URP) or the ``glide 
path'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate 
of progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress 
towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a 
rate of progress that states are to use for analytical comparison to 
the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each 
state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also 
consult with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby 
states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility 
impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \4\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as

[[Page 36454]]

long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards 
improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published on July 6, 2005, the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in 
the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow 
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of 
sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX and 
PM. EPA has indicated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. An 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described in the RHR as ``BART-eligible sources,'' and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source; and, (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze 
SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to 
what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the 
SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source. States have the flexibility to choose the type of control 
measures they will use to meet the requirements of BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a ten- to fifteen-year 
strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the 
RHR requires that states include a long-term strategy (LTS) in their 
regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures 
a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP 
submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable 
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures needed 
to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within 
and affected by emissions from the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
contributing states to develop coordinated emissions management 
strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing 
state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP, all measures 
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet 
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for 
significant interstate consultation, but additional consultation 
between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate 
visibility issues (e.g., where two states belong to different RPOs).
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and, (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the 
long-term strategy for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide 
for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every 
three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan 
addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 
17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before 
this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and 
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, 
and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first 
regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress 
reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent 
with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set 
forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 
review of a state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI 
impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR requires a monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on regional haze visibility 
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within 
the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring 
strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 
requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual

[[Page 36455]]

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data 
from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first 
regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The 
monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites 
if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will 
be met. The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and,
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.

H. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports

    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period through 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment 
and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every ten years 
thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of 
section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The requirement to 
evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. 
Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART 
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions 
will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 
continue to be met.
    Each state also is required to submit a report to EPA every five 
years that evaluates progress toward achieving the RPG for each Class I 
area within the state and outside the state if affected by emissions 
from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). The first progress report is 
due five years from submittal of the initial regional haze SIP 
revision. At the same time a 5-year progress report is submitted, a 
state must determine the adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve the 
established goals for visibility improvement. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The RHR 
contains more detailed requirements associated with these parts of the 
Rule.

I. Coordination With Federal Land Managers

    The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers 
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 
States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and 
at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. 
This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 
their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to 
offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the 
development and implementation of strategies to address visibility 
impairment. Furthermore, a state must include in its SIP a description 
of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP 
must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state 
and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

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

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Nevada has one Class I area, the Jarbidge Wilderness Area 
(hereinafter referred to as Jarbidge), located within the Humboldt 
National Forest in the northeastern corner of the State. NDEP 
identified 24 other Class I areas \5\ located outside the State that 
may be affected by its emissions. These other Class I areas are in 
Arizona (5), California (11), Idaho (2), Oregon (3) and Utah (3). In 
Arizona, the Class I areas are Grand Canyon National Park (NP), 
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area (WA), Pine Mountain WA, Mazatal WA, and 
Sierra Ancha WA. In California, they are Desolation WA, Dome Land WA, 
Hoover WA, Joshua Tree NP, Kaiser WA, Lassen Volcanic NP, Lava Beds WA, 
San Gabriel WA, San Gorgonio WA, Sequoia NP, and Yosemite NP. In Idaho, 
the areas are Craters of the Moon WA and Sawtooth WA. In Oregon, the 
areas are Crater Lake NP, Hells Canyon WA and Eagle Cap WA. In Utah, 
the areas are Bryce Canyon NP, Capitol Reef NP and Zion NP. EPA is 
proposing to find that NDEP has identified all affected Class I areas 
within and outside the State that are potentially affected by its 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These Class I areas were identified using Particle Source 
Apportionment Tracking (PSAT) modeling results for sulfate and 
nitrate extinction. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 in the Nevada Regional Haze 
SIP identify the rank and percentage of the total modeled 
concentration due to SO2 emissions and NOX 
emissions from sources in Nevada to the IMPROVE monitors 
representing Class I areas in the five adjacent states. Where a 
monitoring site is not located within a specific national park or 
wilderness area, the closest Class I area is listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress

    NDEP developed the visibility estimates in its RH SIP using air 
quality models and analytical tools provided by the WRAP. Based on 
EPA's review of the WRAP's technical analyses and products, we found 
that the models were used appropriately, and were consistent with EPA 
guidance in effect at the time of their use. The models used by the 
WRAP were state-of-the-science at the time the modeling was conducted, 
and model performance was adequate for the purposes that they were 
used.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For our detailed review and discussion, please see 
``Technical Support Document for Technical Products Prepared by the 
Western Regional Air Partnership in support of Western Regional Haze 
Plans'', Final, February 2011 (WRAP TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
    Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility 
impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most 
impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using 
monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to calculate 
the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I area, 
based on the average of annual values over the five-year period.
    NDEP calculated that on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge, the 
baseline visibility condition is 12.07 dv and the natural visibility 
condition is 7.87 dv. The natural visibility condition represents the 
long-term national goal of no man-made impairment. Since a state must 
ensure visibility improvement on the worst days, a baseline of 12.07 dv 
and an endpoint of 7.87 dv are used to measure progress. On the 20 
percent best days, the baseline visibility condition is 2.56 dv and the 
natural visibility condition is 1.14 dv. The baseline visibility 
condition on best

[[Page 36456]]

days is a value that must be maintained in future years.
2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate
    NDEP calculated the uniform rate of progress (URP) estimate for 
Jarbidge using the deciviews for the 2000-2004 baseline and natural 
background conditions on the 20 percent worst days. The URP is 
represented as a straight line between a Class I area's baseline value 
and natural conditions in 2064. 40 CFR Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). This 
line is linear and assumes the same increment of progress every year 
for 60 years.
    NDEP calculated the URP for Jarbidge in 2018 as 11.09 dv. (See 
Table 1). Given baseline conditions of 12.07 dv and an estimate of 
natural conditions of 7.87 dv, the overall visibility improvement 
necessary to reach the national goal is 4.20 dv. As the regional haze 
rule requires the URP to be calculated over a 60-year period from 
baseline to natural conditions (2004 to 2064), the URP is an average 
annual improvement of 0.07 dv (4.20 dv divided by 60 years). A uniform 
rate of progress in the first planning period (2004 to 2018) would 
result in an improvement of 0.98 dv (14 years times .07 dv). Therefore, 
the URP in 2018 for Jarbidge is 11.09 dv (12.07 dv minus 0.98 dv).
    NDEP produced the following visibility estimates in deciviews for 
its one Class I area: baseline visibility conditions, uniform rate of 
progress estimate for 2018, and natural conditions estimate for 2064. 
We propose to find that these estimates are consistent with the 
requirements of the RHR, particularly the requirements at 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(2)(i) and (iii).

                                  TABLE 1--Visibility Calculations for Jarbidge
                                                 [In deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2018
                                             2000-20004      Uniform        2018          2064        2000-2004
                                              Baseline       rate of      Reduction      Natural      Baseline
               Class I area                   Condition     progress    needed  (20%    condition     condition
                                             (20% worst    (20% worst    worst days)   (20% worst     (20% best
                                                days)         days)                       days)         days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarbidge Wilderness Area..................        12.07         11.09          0.98          7.87         2.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 2-1, page 2-7, Nevada RH SIP.

C. Nevada's Emissions Inventories

1. Emissions Inventories for 2002 and 2018
    The RHR requires a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that 
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). NDEP 
provides a statewide emissions inventory for 2002, representing the 
mid-point of the 2000-2004 baseline period, and a projected emissions 
inventory for 2018, the end of the first 10-year planning period. The 
2018 inventory is based on visibility modeling conducted by the WRAP's 
Regional Modeling Center using the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality 
(CMAQ) model. The emissions inventories for 2002 and 2018 provide 
estimates of annual emissions for haze producing pollutants by source 
category as summarized by EPA in Tables 2 and 3 based on information in 
Chapter 3 of Nevada's RH SIP. The inventoried pollutants include sulfur 
oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs), fine particulate matter under 2.5 microns 
(PM2.5), coarse particulate matter under 10 microns 
(PM10), ammonia (NH3), primary organic aerosol 
(POA),\7\ and elemental carbon (EC). The emissions are divided into six 
source categories: point, area, mobile on-road, mobile off-road, 
natural and other. Natural sources include natural fire, biogenic and 
windblown dust. Other includes oil and gas, road dust, fugitive dust 
and anthropogenic fire. EPA is proposing to find that the emission 
inventories in Nevada's RH SIP were calculated using approved EPA 
methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Instead of using the category of Organic Carbon, Nevada used 
the POA primary organic aerosol that includes organic molecules or 
compounds that are directly emitted from the combustion of organic 
material. These organic compounds include organic carbon, hydrogen, 
oxygen as well as other organic atoms.

                                           TABLE 2--Summary of 2000-2004 Average Baseline Emissions for Nevada
                                                                     [tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              SOX         NOX         VOC        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         POA         EC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................      50,947      59,873       2,215       2,158       4,093         339         256          13
Area....................................................      13,037       5,728      28,592         830         897       8,009         687          96
Mobile On-Road..........................................         510      41,089      36,257           0         245       2,030         314         235
Mobile Off-Road.........................................       1,672      32,565      18,094           0           0          22         572       1,354
Natural.................................................       2,784      23,103     811,745      11,844      99,122       1,684      22,501       4,674
Other...................................................          28         117         199       6,138      56,786           8         405          37
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................      68,978     162,475     897,102      20,970     161,143      12,092      24,734       6,409
Percent.................................................         (5)        (12)        (66)       (1.5)        (12)         (1)         (2)       (0.5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36457]]

                                                      TABLE 3--Summary of 2018 Emissions for Nevada
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              SOX         NOX         VOC        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         POA         EC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................      28,320      67,632       3,866       2,211       4,717         864         168          13
Area....................................................      14,280       7,418      53,014       1,150       1,012       8,535         776         115
Mobile On-Road..........................................         336      15,049      17,085           0         360       3,385         422         121
Mobile Off-Road.........................................         473      22,182      11,784           0           0          30         393         668
Natural.................................................       2,784      23,103     811,745      11,844      99,122       1,684      22,501       4,674
Other...................................................          30         114         213       8,928      83,076           5         561          47
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................      46,223     135,498     897,707      24,133     188,287      14,503      24,822       5,638
Percent.................................................       (3.5)        (10)        (67)         (2)        (14)         (1)         (2)       (0.5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Analysis of Statewide Emissions by Pollutant
    NDEP's analysis of each pollutant in its emissions inventory, as 
summarized below, informs the relationship between the State's 
emissions and visibility impairment at Jarbidge as well as Class I 
areas outside the State.
     Sulfur Dioxide: SO2 emissions are mostly from 
coal combustion at electrical generation facilities, but smaller 
amounts are from natural gas combustion, mobile sources and wood 
combustion. In Nevada, SOX emissions are predominantly from 
point sources (61 percent) and area sources (31 percent). Statewide 
emissions of SO2 are projected to decrease 33 percent by 
2018 as compared to the baseline due to planned BART controls on power 
plants and to reductions in mobile source emissions due to Federal 
diesel fuel standards. Comparing 2018 projections to the baseline, 
SOX emissions from point sources decrease 44 percent; area 
sources increase 10 percent; off-road mobile decrease 72 percent; and 
on-road mobile decrease 34 percent.
     Nitrogen Oxide: NOX is generated during any 
combustion process where nitrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere 
combine to form nitric oxide and to a lesser extent nitrogen dioxide. 
NOX emissions are predominantly from point sources (50 
percent) and mobile sources (27 percent). Statewide emissions of 
NOX are expected to decrease by 17 percent by 2018, 
primarily due to an estimated 36,423 ton reduction in emissions from 
mobile sources due to new Federal vehicle emission standards. While 
NOX from point sources is projected to increase by 13 
percent, the 2018 emissions inventory data does not include 
NOX reductions from the installation of BART controls in 
Nevada. The projected increase of 29 percent in area sources by 2018 is 
largely due to forecasted increases in activity from population growth.
     Volatile Organic Compounds: VOCs are gases emitted by a 
wide array of man-made products and sources, but in Nevada are mostly 
from living organisms (90 percent), a natural source categorized as a 
biogenic. VOCs impact visibility as emissions condense in the 
atmosphere to form an organic aerosol. Projected emissions of VOCs are 
not expected to change by 2018.
     PM2.5: PM fine emissions are composed of fine 
particulates that can remain suspended in the atmosphere for long 
periods of time and travel long distances. In Nevada, these emissions 
are generated mostly by natural fires (49 percent) and area sources (37 
percent) such as woodstoves. Statewide emissions of PM2.5 
are expected to increase by 15 percent by 2018. Most of the increase is 
associated with fugitive dust related to increases in population. 
Overall, PM2.5 is a relatively small part of the visibility 
problem compared to other pollutants.
     PM10: PM coarse emissions are larger particles 
that travel shorter distances, but still contribute to regional 
visibility impairment. In Nevada, PM coarse emissions are predominately 
due to windblown dust (50 percent) and fugitive dust (36 percent). 
PM10 emissions are expected to increase about 17 percent by 
2018 due mostly to projected increases in road dust and fugitive dust 
linked to increases in population. Windblown dust is not projected to 
change by 2018, and remains the primary source category for these 
emissions.
     Ammonia: NH3 emissions are from a variety of 
sources including wastewater treatment facilities, livestock 
operations, fertilizer applications and mobile sources. NH3 
emissions are predominantly from area sources (59 percent) and on-road 
mobile sources (23 percent). The 2018 projections indicate a net 
increase of 20 percent, mostly from on-road mobile sources due to 
projected increases in population, and by extension, vehicular traffic. 
While emission estimates for NH3 are hard to quantify, these 
pollutants are important because they react with SO2 and 
NOX to form ammonium sulfate (SO4) and ammonium 
nitrate (NO3) particles that are very effective in impairing 
visibility.
     Primary Organic Aerosol: POA includes organic molecules or 
compounds directly emitted from the combustion of organic material. 
Natural fire emissions (91 percent) dominate this category of statewide 
emissions.
     Elemental Carbon: EC particulates are emitted as a primary 
aerosol from fossil fuel combustion (vehicles, boilers, and other 
industrial processes), wild fires and other types of burning. In 
Nevada, the primary source of EC emissions is natural fire (83 percent) 
followed by off-road mobile (12 percent). Total EC emissions are 
projected to decrease 12 percent by 2018, mostly from mobile source 
emissions reductions resulting from Federal regulations.
3. Analysis of Natural Versus Anthropogenic Emissions
    NDEP distinguishes between natural and anthropogenic sources of 
statewide emissions to indicate the type and level of emissions within 
the State that are amenable to controls. Table 4 provides a summary of 
anthropogenic and natural emissions based on the 2018 emissions 
inventory. The last column provides the percentage change in total 
emissions from the average emissions baseline.

[[Page 36458]]

                       Table 4--Natural v. Anthropogenic Sources Emissions Summary in 2018
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Anthropogenic              Natural                         Change
                                       ------------------------------------------------   Total in       from
                                                                                            2018       baseline
                                        Tons/ year  % of total  Tons/ year  % of total                    (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOX...................................      43,440          94       2,784           6        46,224       -33.0
NOX...................................     112,394          83      23,102          17       135,496       -16.6
EC....................................         964          17       4,674          83         5,638       -12.0
PM2.5.................................      12,289          51      11,845          49        24,134        15.1
PM10..................................      89,165          47      99,122          53       188,287        16.8
NH3...................................      12,819          88       1,684          12        14,503        19.9
POA...................................       2,321           9      22,501          91        24,822         0.4
VOC...................................      85,962          10     811,745          90       897,707         0.1
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................     359,354          27     977,458          73     1,336,811        -1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 3-6, page 3-14, Nevada RH SIP.

    NDEP estimates that about 73 percent of its statewide emissions in 
2018 are projected to come from natural sources (i.e., natural fires, 
windblown dust and biogenics). Natural sources contribute most of the 
emissions of EC, POA and VOC, and about half the emissions of 
PM2.5 and PM10. While anthropogenic sources 
comprise only 27 percent of the projected inventory in 2018, these 
sources are important contributors of SOX, NOX 
and NH3 as well as half of PM2.5 and 
PM10.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment

    NDEP used baseline monitoring data presented in Table 5 to analyze 
the contribution of pollutants to light extinction (i.e., visibility 
impairment) on the worst days at Jarbidge. The pollutants causing the 
highest levels of light extinction are associated with the sources 
causing the most visibility impairment. The primary contributors to 
light extinction at Jarbidge are organic matter carbon (40 percent), 
coarse matter (22.3 percent), and sulfates (16.7 percent). Elevated 
levels of organic carbon and its seasonal pattern suggest these 
particles are from wildfires and biogenic sources. Two components of 
organic carbon, POA and VOCs, are each 90 percent from natural sources 
as listed above in the 2018 emissions inventory. While anthropogenic 
emissions contributing to organic carbon may include fossil fuels 
combustion and wood burning, these are not likely sources at Jarbidge, 
which is an isolated national park. Similarly, coarse matter, also 
known as PM10, is due mostly to naturally occurring events 
of windblown dust and fugitive dust based on the 2018 emissions 
inventory. Ammonia sulfate (SO4) is the third highest 
contributor to light extinction on the worst days (16.7 percent), and 
the one most closely associated with anthropogenic sources. Soil 
(PM2.5) and elemental carbon (EC) are mostly from natural 
fire, and ammonia nitrates (NO3) have only a minimal 
contribution to light extinction at Jarbidge. This analysis indicates 
that most of the light extinction at Jarbidge is due to natural 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ While the baseline period is from 2000 to 2004, the 
monitoring data for 2000 at Jarbidge was invalid because it failed 
to meet EPA's data completeness criteria.

                               Table 5--Percentage of Light Extinction at Jarbidge
                                              [Baseline Period \8\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Year                  SO4         NO3         OMC         EC         Soil         CM       Sea salt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              20 Percent Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................        14.6         3.5        38.6         8.4        10.4        24.2         0.3
2002........................        11.5         5.6        48.4         6.5        10.9        17.1         0.0
2003........................        17.3         3.1        40.8         6.3         7.7        24.8         0.0
2004........................        23.6         5.7        32.4         5.0         9.7        23.0         0.7
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average.................        16.7         4.5        40.0         6.5         9.7        22.3         0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 2-2, page 2-19, Nevada RH SIP.

 1. Sources of Visibility Impairment at Jarbidge
    NDEP relied on source apportionment modeling \9\ conducted by the 
WRAP to determine the sources of sulfate and nitrate particles at 
Jarbidge since these pollutants are commonly associated with 
anthropogenic sources. The source apportionment modeling results for 
the WRAP region on the worst days at Jarbidge in 2018 indicate that the 
relative contribution of particulate sulfate concentrations is 
primarily from point sources and natural fires in Idaho, Oregon, 
Washington, Nevada and California (in descending order). If one expands 
the modeling domain to include all areas outside the WRAP region, the 
areas of greatest sulfate contribution are Outside Domain \10\

[[Page 36459]]

(43.8 percent), Idaho (10.3 percent), Oregon (7.2 percent), and Pacific 
Offshore (6.9 percent). Based on this analysis, Nevada contributes a 
relatively small amount (less than 5 percent) of sulfate at Jarbidge, 
which primarily comes from outside the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The WRAP's Regional Modeling Center used the Particulate 
Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) algorithm in the 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) to attribute 
particle species, particularly sulfate and nitrate, from specific 
source areas and source categories within the WRAP region. The PSAT 
algorithm applies nitrate-sulfate-ammonia chemistry to a system of 
tracers to track chemical transformation, transport and dissipation 
of emissions based on a 36 kilometer grid cell within a specified 
source area.
    \10\ Outside Domain represents the background concentrations of 
pollutants that enter the modeling domain from sources outside the 
United States as well as portions of Canada and Mexico that are 
included in the modeling domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Source apportionment modeling indicates that the areas of greatest 
nitrate contribution in the WRAP region on the worst days at Jarbidge 
in 2018 is primarily from area and mobile sources in Idaho, and mobile 
sources in Utah and Nevada. Point sources in all three states are also 
significant contributors. Including all areas outside the WRAP region, 
Idaho is the largest source of nitrates on the worst days (30.3 
percent), followed by Outside Domain (27.5 percent), Nevada (13.1 
percent), and Utah (10.6 percent). This analysis indicates that Nevada 
contributes a small amount of nitrates at Jarbidge.
    In summary, the analysis of light extinction indicates that organic 
carbon and coarse matter from natural sources account for most of the 
visibility impairment at Jarbidge. While sulfates are an important 
contributor to light extinction, the vast majority of sulfate particles 
are from outside of Nevada.
2. Nevada's Contributions to Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas 
Outside of the State
    NDEP identified the rank and percentage of sulfate extinction and 
nitrate extinction due to Nevada's emissions at IMPROVE monitors in 
each of 24 Class I areas in the five adjacent states.\11\ The results 
for the best and worst days in 2002 and 2018 indicate that Nevada is 
responsible for a very small part of visibility impairment in Class I 
areas in Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon and Utah. The highest 
concentration of sulfate extinction from Nevada's emissions in 2018 on 
the best days is 7.2 percent at Sawtooth Wilderness Area in Idaho, and 
on the worst days is 5.6 percent at Zion National Park in Utah. For 
nitrate extinction in 2018, Nevada's highest contribution on the best 
days is 12.4 percent at Joshua Tree National Park in California, and on 
the worst days is 20 percent at Desolation Wilderness in California. 
The next highest contribution of nitrate extinction is significantly 
lower, 8.8 percent at Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah. The level of 
Nevada's contributions to other Class I areas, mostly well below 10 
percent, indicate that the vast majority of sulfates and nitrates in 
other Class I areas are from sources outside of Nevada. In conclusion, 
NDEP relied on source apportionment modeling to determine the relative 
contributions of haze causing pollutants in Class I areas inside and 
outside Nevada. We found these analyses to be valid and technically 
correct. We propose to find that the State has met the requirements of 
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) and (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Table 4.3 Nevada's Sulfate Extinction Contribution to 
Class I Areas Outside of Nevada (page 4-15) and Table 4.4 Nevada's 
Nitrate Extinction Contribution to Class I Areas Outside of Nevada 
(page 4-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Nevada is required to evaluate the use of BART controls at 26 types 
of major stationary sources \12\ built between 1962 and 1977 that have 
the potential to emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant and may 
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 
visibility in any Class I area. CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 
51.308(e). The state must submit a list of all BART-eligible sources 
within the state, and a determination of BART controls, including 
emissions limitations and schedules of compliance, for those sources 
subject to BART. Each source subject to BART is required to install and 
operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than five 
years after EPA approval of the state's regional haze SIP revision. CAA 
Section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Sources Eligible for BART
    The first phase of the BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within a state's boundaries. NDEP identified fourteen 
units at seven facilities as eligible for BART controls as listed below 
in Table 6. The seven facilities are Nevada Energy's Tracy (Mustang, 
NV), Fort Churchill (Yerington, NV), Reid Gardner (Moapa, NV) and 
Sunrise (Las Vegas, NV) electrical generating stations; Southern 
California Edison's Mohave generating station (Laughlin, NV); Nevada 
Cement Company's Portland cement plant (Fernley, NV); and Chemical Lime 
Company's Portland cement plant (Apex, NV). Mustang, Yerington, Moapa 
and Fernley are in eastern Nevada. Las Vegas, Laughlin and Apex are in 
southern Nevada. A map locating BART sources in relation to Class I 
areas is provided as Figure 1, page 5-5, in Nevada's RH SIP.

                                  Table 6--Sources Eligible for BART in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Facility potential to emit
                                                                       Date in           (tons per year)
       Source (location)               Unit         Source category   operation --------------------------------
                                                                                    NOX        SO2        PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy (Mustang)...............  Boiler 1.........  Electric                1963      1,167         21        125
                                Boiler 2.........   Generating             1965
                                Boiler 3.........   Station.               1974
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Churchill (Yerington)....  Boiler 1.........  Electric                1968      2,221          9         41
                                Boiler 2.........   Generating             1971
                                                    Station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Gardner (Moapa)..........  Boiler 1.........  Electric                1965      7,045      1,020      1,343
                                Boiler 2.........   Generating             1968
                                Boiler 3.........   Station.               1976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise (Las Vegas)...........  Boiler 1.........  Electric                1964        851          1         13
                                                    Generating
                                                    Station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohave (Laughlin).............  Boiler 1.........  Electric                1969     20,267     40,347      1,958
                                Boiler 2.........   Generating             1969
                                                    Station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36460]]

 
Nevada Cement Company           Kiln 1...........  Portland Cement         1963      2,065         96         80
 (Fernley).                     Kiln 2...........   Plant.              1967-68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Lime Company (Apex)..  Kiln 3...........  Portland Cement         1968      1,121        178        241
                                                    Plant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 5-1, page 5-3, Nevada RH SIP.

2. Sources Subject to BART
    The second phase of the BART determination process is to identify 
those BART-eligible sources that one may reasonably anticipate to cause 
or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area. These 
subject-to-BART sources are required to analyze what control measures, 
if any, constitute BART for the applicable SO2, 
NOX and PM10 emissions. A state may exempt a 
BART-eligible source from further BART review if the source is not 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility 
impairment at any Class I area. As described in EPA's BART 
Guidelines,\13\ a state may chose to use dispersion modeling to 
estimate a source's contribution to visibility impairment, an approach 
which requires the State to establish a threshold for contribution. 
Nevada established a 0.5 deciview threshold for exempting BART-eligible 
sources based on the results of dispersion modeling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA's Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional 
Haze Rule are at 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y or 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005). For information on setting the contribution threshold refer 
to 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005).
    \14\ WRAP's RMC used the CALPUFF modeling system to assess 
whether Nevada's eligible sources were subject to or exempt from 
BART by estimating impacts from a single source on each Class I area 
within 300 km of any BART-eligible facility. The highest modeled 
impact in the fourth column is the maximum annual 98th percentile 
delta deciview (8th highest value) of the three years analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP determined that four of the seven eligible facilities are 
subject to BART since these facilities contribute to visibility 
impairment higher than 0.5 deciviews in one or more Class I areas. 
Information on the four subject-to-BART facilities is listed below in 
Table 7.

                                   Table 7--Sources Subject to BART in Nevada
                                         [Based on data from 2001-2003]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Highest      Days
                                                                               Distance    impact on    impact
                  Facility                      Class I areas within 300 km   to class I    class I     exceeds
                                                                               area (km)     area       0.5 dv
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy.......................................  Desolation....................          81        1.20          47
                                              Mokelumne.....................         101        0.88          32
                                              Hoover........................         142        0.52          11
                                              Yosemite......................         153        0.50          11
                                              Caribou.......................         170        1.03          48
                                              Lassen Volcanic...............         175        0.94          44
                                              South Warner..................         189        0.99          62
                                              Lava Beds.....................         286        0.74          25
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Churchill..............................  Mokelumne.....................          78        1.24          69
                                              Desolation....................          85        1.25          72
                                              Hoover........................          99        1.00          32
                                              Emigrant......................         100        0.68          25
                                              Yosemite......................         112        1.00          29
                                              Ansel Adams...................         132        0.70          28
                                              John Muir.....................         169        0.56          24
                                              Caribou.......................         226        0.77          34
                                              Lassen Volcanic...............         231        0.77          33
                                              South Warner..................         245        0.72          62
                                              Thousand Lakes................         265        0.60          21
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Gardner................................  Grand Canyon..................          85        1.72          60
                                              Zion..........................         148        0.83          38
                                              Joshua Tree...................         292        0.88          48
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohave......................................  Grand Canyon..................         110        4.61         498
                                              Joshua Tree...................         137        4.58         248
                                              Sycamore Canyon...............         223        1.51         111
                                              San Gorgonio..................         225        1.44          75
                                              San Jacinto...................         234        1.62          74
                                              Zion..........................         262        2.58         270
                                              Pine Mountain.................         265        1.21          49
                                              Dome Land.....................         268        1.97          72
                                              Mazatal.......................         279        1.19          45

[[Page 36461]]

 
                                              Aqua Tibia....................         286        1.15          54
                                              Cucamonga.....................         287        1.38         51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 5-2, page 5-6 Nevada RH SIP.

    Nevada determined that three BART-eligible facilities are not 
required to evaluate control options because these facilities modeled 
below the visibility impairment threshold of 0.5 deciviews based on the 
98th percentile deciview. These facilities are the Sunrise Generating 
Station, the Nevada Cement Company, and the Chemical Lime Company 
listed below in Table 8. The fourth BART-eligible facility, Mohave 
Generating Station, has ceased operating.\15\ A summary of the WRAP's 
BART exemption modeling for these facilities is available at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planmodeling/rhaze.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Mohave Generating Station has ceased all operations 
related to the generation of electricity from burning coal. NDEP 
approved Southern California Edison's request to terminate their Air 
Quality Operating Permit (No. AP4911-0774, FIN A0013) on April 9, 
2010.

                                   Table 8--Sources Exempt From BART in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Highest      Days
                                                                               Distance    impact on    impact
                  Facility                      Class I areas within 300 km   to class I    class I     exceeds
                                                                               area (km)     area       0.5 dv
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Generating Station..................  Grand Canyon..................          95        0.20           1
                                              Zion..........................         207        0.11           0
                                              Joshua Tree...................         228        0.16           0
                                              Dome Land.....................         237        0.08           0
                                              San Gorgonio..................         271        0.08           0
                                              John Muir.....................         282        0.06           0
                                              Bryce Canyon..................         284        0.04           0
                                              Sequoia.......................         288        0.04           0
                                              San Jacinto...................         290        0.06           0
                                              Sycamore Canyon...............         290        0.03           0
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Cement Company.......................  Desolation....................         101        0.27           3
                                              Mokelumne.....................         115        0.31           3
                                              Emigrant......................         148        0.16           0
                                              Hoover........................         150        0.22           0
                                              Yosemite......................         161        0.22           0
                                              Caribou.......................         185        0.48           6
                                              Ansel Adams...................         186        0.18           0
                                              Lassen Volcanic...............         191        0.46           6
                                              South Warner..................         224        0.49           7
                                              John Muir.....................         224        0.14           0
                                              Thousand Lakes................         254        0.26           4
                                              Kaiser........................         267        0.08           0
                                              Kings Canyon..................         294        0.11           0
                                              Lava Beds.....................         294        0.22           0
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Lime Company.......................  Grand Canyon..................          89        0.05           0
                                              Zion..........................         185        0.03           0
                                              Joshua Tree...................         254        0.04           0
                                              Dome Land.....................         256        0.02           0
                                              Bryce Canyon..................         263        0.01           0
                                              John Muir.....................         290        0.01           0
                                              Sycamore......................         292        0.01           0
                                              Sequoia.......................         296        0.01           0
                                              San Gorgonio..................         297        0.02          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 5-3, page 5-7, Nevada RH SIP.

    NDEP based its contribution threshold on four factors. First, 0.5 
deciviews equates to the five percent extinction threshold for new 
sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New 
Source Review rules. Second, this value is consistent with the 
threshold selected by all other states in the West. Third, it 
represents the limit of perceptible change. Fourth, there was no clear 
rationale or justification for selecting a lower level. This 
explanation, however, is inadequate for adopting a 0.5 dv threshold to 
determine whether a BART source may

[[Page 36462]]

be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility 
impairment in a Class I area. Based on EPA's review of the BART-
eligible sources, however, EPA is proposing to find that a 0.5 dv 
threshold is appropriate, given the specific facts in Nevada.
    In the BART Guidelines, EPA recommended that States ``consider the 
number of BART sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the 
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. In general, a larger 
number of BART sources causing impacts in a Class I area may warrant a 
lower contribution threshold.'' 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, 2005. Since 
four of the sources are subject to BART, EPA focused its review on the 
modeled impacts of the three BART-exempt sources as listed in the 
fourth column of Table 8. Of those sources, Nevada Cement Company has 
estimated impacts of close to 0.5 dv at three of the fourteen 
potentially impacted Class I areas. Nevada Cement`s highest modeled 
impacts are at Caribou WA (0.48 dv), Lassen Volcanic NP (0.46 dv) and 
South Warner WA (0.49 dv). Of the BART-eligible sources, only Tracy and 
Fort Churchill also impact visibility in these three Class I areas. 
NDEP found both Tracy and Fort Churchill to be subject to BART based on 
its threshold of 0.5 dv. Thus, only a small number of BART-eligible 
sources, two of which were found to be subject to BART, are impacting 
Caribou WA, Lassen Volcanic NP, and South Warner WA above or close to 
the threshold level of 0.5 dv. In comparison to Nevada Cement, 
Sunrise's highest impact is 0.20 dv and Chemical Lime's highest impact 
is 0.05, both on Grand Canyon NP. Of the other BART-subject sources 
impacting visibility at the Grand Canyon, Mohave has closed and Reid 
Gardner is subject to BART controls. Given the relatively limited 
impact on visibility from the three exempted sources, NDEP could have 
reasonably concluded that a 0.5 dv threshold was appropriate for 
identifying those BART-eligible sources with significant impacts on 
visibility in Class I areas. Based on our analysis, EPA is proposing to 
approve the 0.5 dv threshold adopted by Nevada in its Regional Haze 
SIP.
3. BART Determinations
    NDEP completed BART determinations and set emission limits for the 
eligible units at the Tracy, Churchill, and Reid Gardner electrical 
generating stations in conformance with EPA's BART Guidelines. Control 
technologies or measures identified by NDEP as BART are required to be 
installed and operating on units at these three facilities by January 
1, 2015, or no later than five years after approval of Nevada's RH SIP, 
whichever occurs sooner. The designated BART controls, emission limits, 
and compliance deadlines are enforceable through Nevada State 
regulation R190-08, adopted on April 23, 2009. Nevada Energy's BART 
reports and NDEP's BART determinations are available at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planmodeling/rhaze.html. Nevada Energy is the owner 
and operator of Tracy, Fort Churchill and Reid Gardner. NDEP made its 
BART determinations based on the BART reports from Nevada Energy, 
additional economic analysis, and baseline emission scenarios for 
NOX and SO2 using emissions data from EPA's Acid 
Rain Program. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the Nevada RH SIP for 
further information.
a. Tracy Generating Station
    Background: Tracy is a natural gas-fueled power plant complex with 
12 generating units located about 17 miles east of Reno, Nevada. The 
plant consists of three BART-eligible steam boiler units completed in 
1963, 1965 and 1974. These units have a generating capacity of about 
251 megawatts (MW), of which unit 1 is 55 MW, unit 2 is 83 MW and unit 
3 is 113 MW. The Title V permit allows burning pipeline quality natural 
gas (PNG) or blended residual fuel oil (No. 2 and No. 6 and non-PCB 
mineral oil). Nevada Energy, the owner, completed a BART analysis for 
Tracy that investigated technology alternatives and potential 
reductions in NOX, SO2 and PM10 
emissions rates in a report dated October 2008. NDEP partially 
concurred with Nevada Energy's analysis of BART controls, but disagreed 
that installation of only low NOX burners (LNB) for control 
of NOX emissions at units 2 and 3 was BART. NDEP set lower 
NOX emission limits at all three units than those requested 
by Nevada Energy. NDEP reviewed Nevada Energy's five-factor analysis 
for each unit at Tracy and determined that installation of LNB with 
flue gas recirculation (FGR) for units 1 and 2, as well as LNB with 
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for unit 3, meet the BART 
criteria. Associated first year costs range from $2,383 to $3,050/ton 
of NOX removed. NDEP considered these values to be cost 
effective. Based on a review of Nevada Energy's economic analysis, NDEP 
concluded that the dollars per ton of NOX removed for units 
1 and 2 increased significantly for LNB with SNCR, rotating opposed 
fire air (ROFA) with Rotamix,\16\ and selective catalytic reduction 
(SCR), with only slight improvements in visibility. For unit 2, 
although LNB with SNCR appears cost effective, that technology does not 
reduce the modeled average number of days above 0.5 deciviews at the 
Desolation Wilderness Area or Yosemite National Park. For unit 3, 
although the first year cost effectiveness for ROFA with Rotamix 
appears reasonable, the incremental cost effectiveness of ROFA with 
Rotamix is much higher than LNB with SNCR. It also does not reduce the 
modeled average number of days above 0.5 deciviews at Desolation 
Wilderness or Yosemite. Support documents for Nevada's BART 
determinations are at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planmodeling/rhaze.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Regarding BART for SO2, NDEP agreed with Nevada Energy's 
analysis to require Pipeline Quality Natural Gas (PNG) or low sulfur 
No. 2 fuel oil with an emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu over a 24-hour 
averaging time for all three units. NDEP also agreed with Nevada Energy 
that BART for PM10 for all three units is PNG or low sulfur 
No. 2 fuel oil with an emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour 
average.
    BART Controls: For units 1 and 2 at Tracy, EPA proposes to agree 
with NDEP's analysis that BART for NOX is LNB with FGR and 
emission limits of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and 0.12 lb/MMBtu, respectively, based 
on a 12-month rolling average. For unit 3, EPA proposes to agree with 
NDEP's analysis that BART for NOX is LNB with SNCR and an 
emission limit of 0.19 lb/MMBtu, based on a 12-month rolling average. 
EPA also proposes to approve NDEP's conclusion to eliminate the 
additional control options that Nevada Energy analyzed based on its 
finding those options had significantly higher incremental cost 
effectiveness and/or would not reduce the frequency of impaired 
visibility at Class I areas. EPA proposes to agree that for all units 
at Tracy, BART for SO2 is PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil with an 
emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. 
For PM10, EPA proposes to agree with NDEP's analysis that 
BART is also PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil, but with an emission limit of 
0.03 lb/MMBtu, based on a 3-hour averaging period for all units.
    Visibility Improvement: Based on visibility modeling, emissions 
reductions due to the installation of BART controls at Tracy result in 
82 less days every year with visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv at 
fifteen Class 1 areas within 300 km of the facility. NDEP anticipates 
even greater visibility improvement from BART than modeled

[[Page 36463]]

because the actual NOX emission limits for BART (0.12-0.19 
lb/MMBtu) are much lower than the emission rates (0.40 lb/MMBtu) used 
to model visibility improvement due to BART implementation.
    b. Fort Churchill Generating Station
    Background: Fort Churchill is a natural gas-fired power plant 
located in Yerington, Nevada, that uses steam boilers to drive turbine 
generators. The plant consists of two units, completed in 1968 and 
1971, that are BART-eligible with a generating capacity of 113 
megawatts each. The fuel currently used in units 1 and 2 is PNG or 
blended fuel oil (No. 6 residual oil and No. 2 distillate fuel oil). In 
its BART analysis, Nevada Energy investigated technology alternatives 
and identified potential reductions in NOX, SO2 
and PM10 emissions rates. NDEP partially concurred with 
Nevada Energy's analysis of BART controls, but disagreed that 
installation of only LNB for control of NOX emissions was 
BART, and disagreed with the associated NOX emission limits. 
For unit 1, LNB with SNCR and ROFA with Rotamix appear cost effective 
in the first year costs, but have significantly higher incremental cost 
effectiveness than LNB with FGR. In addition, LNB with SNCR and ROFA 
with Rotamix do not show fewer modeled average number of days above 0.5 
deciviews at Mokelumne Wilderness Area and Yosemite. For unit 2, LNB 
with SNCR and ROFA with Rotamix appear to be cost effective in the 
first year, but have significantly higher incremental cost 
effectiveness than LNB with FGR. Nevada Energy's modeling analysis 
shows that LNB with SNCR does not result in any fewer averaged number 
of days above 0.5 deciviews at Mokulumne and only one fewer averaged 
days above 0.5 delta deciviews at Yosemite.
    Regarding BART for SO2, NDEP agreed with Nevada Energy's 
analysis to require PNG or low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil with an emission 
limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu over a 24-hour averaging time for all three 
units. NDEP also agreed with Nevada Energy that BART for 
PM10 for all three units is PNG or low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil 
with an emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour average.
    BART Controls: For units 1 and 2 at Fort Churchill, EPA is 
proposing to approve NDEP's determination that BART for NOX 
is LNB with FGR and emission limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu and 0.16 lb/MMBtu, 
respectively, based on a 12-month rolling average. EPA proposes to 
approve NDEP's decision to eliminate the additional control options 
that Nevada Energy analyzed based on its finding those options had 
significantly higher incremental cost effectiveness or would not reduce 
the frequency of impaired visibility at Class I areas.
    For SO2, EPA proposes to agree with NDEP's analysis that 
BART is PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil for all units with an emission limit 
of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. For 
PM10, EPA proposes to find that BART is also PNG and/or No. 
2 fuel oil for all units, with an emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu, 
based on a 3-hour averaging period.
    Visibility Improvement: Based on visibility modeling, emission 
reductions due to the installation of BART controls at Fort Churchill 
result in 227 less days every year with visibility impacts greater than 
0.5 dv at fourteen Class 1 areas within 300 km of the facility. NDEP 
anticipates even greater visibility improvement from BART than modeled 
because the actual NOX emission limits for BART (0.12 and 
0.16 lb/MMBtu) are much less than the emission rates (0.40 lb/MMBtu) 
used to model visibility improvement due to BART implementation. For 
Fort Churchill, the total annual NOX emissions post-BART 
controls (963 tpy) are 53 percent of those modeled (2,181 tpy).
    c. Reid Gardner Generating Station
    Background: Reid Gardner is a coal-fueled, steam-electric 
generating plant with four operating units producing a total of 557 MW. 
Three of the units, built in 1965, 1968 and 1976 are BART-eligible. 
Each of these units produces about 100 MW with steam boilers that drive 
turbine-generators. The units are equipped with LNB and over-fire air 
(OFA) system, mechanical collectors for particulate control, wet 
scrubbers that use soda ash for SO2 removal, as well as 
recently installed baghouses. NDEP's review of Nevada Energy's BART 
report for Reid Gardner resulted in NDEP agreeing only with the control 
technologies proposed as BART for SO2 and PM10. 
For the three BART units, NDEP concurs that BART for SO2 is 
the existing wet soda ash FGD and BART for PM10 is the 
recently installed fabric filter baghouse. NDEP disagreed with Nevada 
Energy's conclusion on BART for NOX, and on the proposed 
emission limits for NOX, SO2 and PM10. 
NDEP later responded to comments from EPA, FLMs and other non-
governmental organizations regarding its proposed BART SO2 
emission limit for Reid Gardner. After further evaluation of emission 
data that reflected compliance with existing controls at the facility, 
NDEP lowered the SO2 emissions limit at Reid Gardner from 
0.25 lb/MMBtu to 0.15 lb/MMBtu on all three units. The revised BART 
regulation was adopted by the Nevada Environmental Commission on 
February 11, 2009 and submitted to EPA as a revision to NDEP's RH SIP 
on February 18, 2010.
    BART Controls: NDEP determined that for all units at Reid Gardner, 
BART controls for NOX are rotating opposed fire air (ROFA) 
with Rotamix and emission limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for units 1 and 2, 
and 0.28 lb/MMBtu for unit 3, based on a 12-month rolling average. To 
evaluate the cost of compliance, NDEP analyzed the cost per year of the 
various control technologies compared to the tons of NOX 
removed by each. NDEP determined that the additional cost per year for 
SCR technologies did not appear cost effective compared to the 
additional NOX reduction for each unit. NDEP also evaluated 
the second BART factor, energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts, for requiring SCR or SNCR rather than ROFA with Rotamix. NDEP 
determined that there were negative non-air quality environmental 
impacts with SCR and SNCR, including the salability and ultimate 
disposal of fly ash due to higher ammonia levels. Moreover, NDEP found 
that SCR and SNCR increased the potential for creating a visible stack 
plume. NDEP also was concerned about the transportation of ammonia to 
Reid Gardner increasing the likelihood of an accidental release. EPA is 
proposing to approve these BART determinations for NOX based 
on NDEP's approach.
    EPA proposes to agree that BART controls for SO2 are wet 
soda ash flue gas desulfurization on all units with an emission limit 
of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. We also propose 
to agree that for PM10, BART controls are fabric filter 
baghouses on all units with an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu, based 
on 3-hour averaging period.
    Visibility Improvement: Based on visibility modeling, emission 
reductions due to the installation of BART controls at Reid Gardner 
result in five less days with visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv at 
five Class I areas within 300 kilometers of the facility. NDEP 
anticipates even greater visibility improvement from BART than modeled 
since the total annual emissions for NOX, SO2 and 
PM10 are about half of the emissions modeled due to more 
stringent emission limits.
d. Mohave Generating Station
    Background: Mohave was a 1,580 MW coal-fired power plant with two 
units that ceased operations at the end of December 2005. Located about 
70 miles southwest of Grand Canyon National Park, Mohave was one of the 
single, largest sources of SO2 in the West. The

[[Page 36464]]

facility closed after failing to meet emission limitations for 
SO2 and emission controls for NOX as required by 
a consent decree between the facility's owners and environmental 
organization.\17\ However, the owners did not officially decide to 
decommission the facility until June 10, 2009. Since Mohave was subject 
to BART and its final status was unknown at the time Nevada developed 
its SIP, the WRAP included Mohave in its emission inventory and NDEP 
prepared a BART determination for SO2, NOX and 
PM10 that was required prior to the facility restarting 
operations. NDEP estimates that BART controls, based on fuel switching 
from coal to natural gas, would have resulted in an additional 
reduction of 8,701 tons per year of SO2 (75 percent 
reduction) and 19,595 tons per year of NOX (98 percent 
reduction) compared to the emission limits and control requirements in 
the consent decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In a Consent Decree dated December 21, 1999, the owners of 
Mohave power plant agreed with the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, 
and National Parks and Conservation Association to limit opacity to 
20 percent by implementing SO2 emission limitations and 
NOX control requirements on units 1 and 2 by December 31, 
2005. The consent decree had no emission limitations for either 
NOX or PM. EPA promulgated a final rule on February 8, 
2002, to include the consent decree requirements in Nevada's Federal 
Implementation Plan for Visibility at 40 CFR 52.1488. Nevada 
included the requirements of the Visibility FIP in Mohave's Title V 
operating permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BART Controls: Since Mohave is permanently closed, with emissions 
of zero, EPA is satisfied with the State's approach to determining 
BART.
    Visibility Improvement: NDEP relies on emission reductions required 
by the consent decree as well as their BART determination to 
characterize visibility improvement at eleven Class I areas located 
within 300 km of Mohave. While this method understates the visibility 
benefit resulting from the plant's closure, modeling indicates these 
emission reductions would result in 538 less days every year at the 
eleven Class I areas with visibility impairment of greater than 0.5 dv. 
With Mohave's permanent shutdown, the annual emission reductions are 
equal to the WRAP's baseline emissions for the plant: 55,047 tons of 
SO2; 31,344 tons of NOX; and 3,417 tons of 
PM10. The closure of the Mohave generating station provided 
the largest reduction in haze-causing pollutants from a subject-to-BART 
source in Nevada, and should result in greater visibility improvement 
than modeling has projected.
4. EPA's Assessment
    EPA is proposing to approve NDEP's analyses and conclusions for the 
BART emissions units at Tracy, Fort Churchill and Reid Gardner 
generating stations. Based on our review, EPA is proposing to find that 
the BART determinations were conducted in a manner consistent with the 
RHR BART requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e), the EPA's BART Guidelines, 
and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/costmodels.html). We believe the outcome of Nevada's BART 
determinations reflects a reasonable consideration of the relevant 
factors.

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goal

    The RHR requires states to establish a goal, expressed in 
deciviews, for each Class I area within the state that provides for 
reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions by 
2064. The RPG must provide for an improvement in visibility for the 
most impaired days, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the period of the SIP.
 1. Visibility Projections for 2018
    NDEP relied on the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 
used by the WRAP's RMC to project visibility conditions at all western 
Class I areas in 2018. For Jarbidge, the model predicted 11.05 dv on 
the worst days and 2.50 dv on the best days in 2018. The visibility 
projection compares favorably to the URP estimate in 2018 of 11.09 dv 
as displayed in Table 9. The visibility projection was based on 
estimates of emissions reductions from all existing and known controls 
resulting from Federal and state CAA programs as of March 2007. This 
data formed the basis for the State's RH SIP submitted to EPA in 
November 2009.\18\ EPA addressed the uncertainties associated with 
modeled projections by making the RPG an analytic tool for the purpose 
of evaluating progress, not an enforceable standard. 51.308(d)(1)(v) 
and 64 FR 35733.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In April 2011, the WRAP issued a draft report regarding an 
error in its visibility projections for about 15 Class I areas in 
the West, including Jarbidge. The draft report indicated that, as a 
result of the error, the projected visibility at Jarbidge in 2018 is 
11.8 dv instead of 11.1 dv (rounded up from 11.05 dv). It is EPA's 
view that at this point in the SIP process, the discovery of a 
potential error in the visibility projections for 2018 does not call 
for a revision of the Nevada SIP. Because of the significant 
resources needed to model projected visibility impacts and the time 
needed for Nevada to repeat the SIP review and approval process, 
such action is not appropriate. Moreover, any correction to the 
modeling results at this time should be based on an update to all 
the data used in 2007 to model visibility projections. For example, 
the visibility modeling did not include emission reductions from 
more recent BART control decisions in Nevada and neighboring states, 
and did include emissions from proposed facilities in Nevada that 
now are not expected to be built. EPA is satisfied that the progress 
report and adequacy determination due in November 2014, see 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and (h), will provide an opportunity to determine whether 
Nevada's SIP is sufficient to ensure that the State is making 
reasonable progress.

          Table 9--Summary of Model Predicted Progress Toward 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress at Jarbidge
                                                 [In deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         20% worst days                      20% best days
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
               Class I area                    2000-04                      2018         2000-04        2018
                                              Baseline      2018 URP      Modeling      Baseline      Modeling
                                             worst days     estimate    result (RPG)    best days      result
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarbidge..................................        12.07         11.09         11.05          2.56          2.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 6-3, page 6-15, Nevada RH SIP.

2. Establishing the Reasonable Progress Goal
    In setting its RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge, NDEP considered a 
number of different factors as described on pages 6-16 and 6-17 of the 
Nevada RH SIP. These factors included: (1) The URP of 11.09 in 2018; 
(2) Reductions in Nevada's anthropogenic emissions by 2018 estimated at 
44 percent for SOX and 33 percent for NOX; (3) 
Reductions in anthropogenic emissions consistent

[[Page 36465]]

with Nevada's share of emissions reductions at Class I areas in other 
states; (4) Major reductions in mobile source emissions; (5) Major 
contributions to visibility impairment from offshore marine shipping 
and international emissions; (6) Significant contributions from natural 
sources of visibility impairment; and (7) Consideration of the five 
BART factors. Based on its analysis of reasonable progress, Nevada 
concluded that additional control measures, beyond those documented for 
BART, are unreasonable at this time.
    EPA is proposing to agree with the State's analysis and conclusion 
that it is reasonable not to seek additional controls on other sources 
within the State at this time. Importantly, the RPG for Jarbidge meets 
the URP in 2018, committing the State to make reasonable progress in 
the first planning period toward attaining natural background 
conditions. Nevada has demonstrated that the RPG provides for 
visibility improvement on the worst days and no degradation of 
visibility on the best days compared to the baseline average (see Table 
9). The RPG also represents more visibility improvement than would 
result from implementation of other CAA requirements since emissions 
reductions from existing and known controls were included in the 
visibility modeling. EPA finds that the State's decision not to seek 
additional control measures is supported by the attributes of regional 
haze at Jarbidge as well as the expected reductions in statewide 
emissions of SOX and NOX and BART controls on 
three facilities. The WRAP's regional analysis indicates that haze at 
Jarbidge is mostly from natural sources like wildfires, and most of the 
anthropogenic sources contributing to that haze are outside the State. 
Based upon everything NDEP considered in its SIP, EPA is proposing to 
approve Nevada's demonstration that its RPG provides for reasonable 
progress in the first planning period as required in CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(i), (ii) and (vi).
3. Interstate Consultation
    Nevada consulted with thirteen other western states through 
numerous WRAP meetings, workshops and conference calls that began in 
1996. Through the WRAP's consultative process, Nevada resolved 
technical tasks and policy decisions related to monitoring, emissions, 
modeling, BART application, control measures, and other issues. There 
were no comments from other states on Nevada's RH SIP, implying that 
the consultative process was successful in resolving any potential 
conflicts that would undermine regional planning. EPA confirms that 
Nevada consulted with other states on its RPG through the WRAP process, 
and that there is no evidence of any disagreement on the RPG for 
Jarbidge.

G. Long-Term Strategy

    EPA is proposing to find that NDEP adequately addressed the RHR 
requirements in developing its LTS. We believe that the LTS provides 
sufficient documentation to ensure that Nevada will meet its emission 
reduction obligations for all Class I areas it affects in the first 
planning period. Nevada relied on monitoring, emission inventories and 
modeling information from the WRAP as the technical basis for its LTS. 
Coordination and consultation occurred with other states through the 
WRAP, in which all western states participated in developing the 
technical analysis upon which their SIPs are based. This included 
identifying all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment 
including major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area 
sources. The anticipated net effect on visibility over the first 
planning period due to changes in point, area and mobile source 
emissions is a reduction in regional haze at Jarbidge. Nevada also 
analyzed its contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas in 
other states to ensure it is meeting its share of emission reductions 
obligations.\19\ In particular, NDEP considered the following factors 
in developing its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Summary of Visibility Impairment at Nearby Class I 
Areas and Nevada's Emissions Reductions, Table 7-6, page 7-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. BART Controls
    The installation and operation of BART controls is an integral part 
of the State's long-term strategy to achieve the RPG at Jarbidge, and 
to reduce Nevada's share of emissions affecting Class I areas in 
neighboring states. As described in this notice and in more detail in 
Nevada's RH SIP, NDEP is requiring three of Nevada Energy's facilities 
(Tracy, Fort Churchill and Reid Gardner) to install and operate BART 
controls as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 
2015 or five years after EPA approval of the SIP, whichever occurs 
first. Each source is required to establish procedures to ensure that 
the control equipment is properly operated and maintained. Nevada's 
BART emissions limitations and schedules for compliance are codified in 
a revision to the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) adopted on February 
11, 2009.\20\ The regulations identify the emission limits and control 
technologies required as BART on the Tracy, Fort Churchill and Reid 
Gardner facilities. NDEP also will incorporate BART control limits into 
Nevada Energy's Title V operating permits for these facilities at the 
time of renewal. Regarding the Mohave generating station, Nevada 
terminated its Air Quality Operating Permit No. AP4911-0774 as 
documented in a letter to Southern California Edison on April 9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Nevada RH SIP Appendix A for Nevada BART regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
    Nevada continues to achieve significant reductions in 
SOX and NOX from mobile sources through the 
implementation of Federal, State and local programs. Federal and State 
mobile source regulations are the primary air quality programs expected 
to reduce visibility impairment in the first planning period. These 
programs include limitations and schedules of compliance identified in 
rules and regulations that are unique to each program. For example, EPA 
has mandated new standards for on-road (highway) diesel fuel, known as 
ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) beginning in 2006. This regulation 
dropped the sulfur content of diesel fuel from 500 parts per million 
(ppm) to 15 ppm. ULSD fuel enables the use of cleaner technology diesel 
engines and vehicles with advanced emissions control devices, resulting 
in significantly lower emissions. Diesel fuel intended for locomotive, 
marine and non-road (farming and construction) engines and equipment is 
required to meet the low sulfur diesel fuel maximum specification of 
500 ppm sulfur in 2007, previously 5000 ppm. The ULSD fuel standard of 
15 ppm sulfur will apply to all non-road diesel fuel by 2011. 
Locomotive and marine diesel fuel will be required to meet the ULSD 
standard beginning in 2012, resulting in further reductions of diesel 
emissions. Based on WRAP RMC models, implementation of the Federal 
programs alone will result in a 49 percent reduction in mobile source 
NOX emissions and a 63 percent reduction in mobile source 
SOX emissions from the baseline to 2018. This trend is 
expected to provide significant visibility benefits for Jarbidge and at 
other Class I areas in neighboring states.
    The State's continued implementation of the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review (NSR) program 
requirements, including FLM involvement in reviewing impacts on Class I 
areas, also supports achieving visibility goals.

[[Page 36466]]

These programs will protect the least impaired days from further 
degradation and will assure that no Class 1 areas experience 
degradation from expansion or growth of a single new source or the 
regional development of stationary sources. Nevada also has emission 
control requirements for motor vehicles in Clark and Washoe Counties; 
for residential burning in Washoe County; for PM10 
nonattainment/maintenance areas; and for dust suppression at 
construction sites and unpaved roads. Together with the State's 
renewable energy requirements, these ongoing programs will contribute 
to improvements in visibility at protected Class I areas.
3. Construction Activities
    Nevada manages the release of fugitive dust related to construction 
activities through the implementation of regulations set forth in the 
Nevada Administrative Code 445B.22037. The State requires fugitive dust 
to be controlled regardless of the size or amount of acreage disturbed, 
and requires the use of best practical methods to prevent airborne 
particulate matter. All activities that have the potential to adversely 
affect local air quality must include all appropriate measures to limit 
controllable emissions. Appropriate measures for dust control may 
consist of a phased approach to acreage disturbance rather than 
disturbing the entire area all at once; using wet suppression through 
such application methods as water trucks or water sprays systems to 
control windblown dust; the application of soil binding agents or 
chemical surfactant to roadways and areas of disturbed soil; as well as 
the use of wind-break or wind-limiting fencing designed to limit wind 
erosion of soils.
4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    While NDEP did not include any repair or replacement schedules for 
large point sources, EPA is satisfied with the explanation that it is 
very difficult for the regulatory community to predict potential permit 
revisions for large sources. In general, repair and replacement of 
current facilities over time will reduce emissions as new technology is 
incorporated in industrial processes. Similarly, the construction of 
new sources may contribute to the early or scheduled retirement of 
older, less well-controlled sources. Five proposed power plants for 
Nevada were included in the projected emissions inventory for 2018. 
Whether these new sources are built will influence the future activity 
of existing sources.
5. Smoke Management Programs
    Preventing and managing emissions from prescribed fires in Nevada 
is achieved through implementation of the Nevada Smoke Management 
Program (SMP) and through Open Burning regulations. The State's SMP was 
developed to coordinate and facilitate the statewide management of 
prescribed outdoor burning, specifically for land management purposes. 
This program is designed to meet the requirements of Nevada's air 
quality statutes listed in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 445B.100 
through 445B.845, inclusive, and the requirements of the USEPA Interim 
Air Quality Policy on Wild Land and Prescribed Fires (EPA OAQPS, April 
23, 1998). The SMP supports the visibility protection goals for Class I 
areas. This program does not, however, supersede the authority of local 
governments to regulate and control smoke and air pollution under NRS 
244.361 and NRS 268.410 or the authority of the State forester to 
regulate controlled fires under NRS 527.122 through 527.128.
    Open burning is controlled through a comprehensive set of 
regulations that are found in NAC 445B.22067. These regulations apply 
to Federal, state and private lands and prohibit open burning of 
combustible refuse, waste, garbage, oil or open burning for any salvage 
operation. Exemptions are granted for open burning conducted for the 
purposes of weed abatement, conservation, disease control, game or 
forest management, and fire training. Burning for agricultural purposes 
is exempt, as is the burning of yard waste and untreated wood at 
single-family residences. Small fires used for cooking, recreation, 
education or ceremonial purposes are also exempt.
6. Other Measures Supporting the LTS
    NDEP intends to evaluate additional controls for sources that 
impact visibility in Class I areas in the required progress report due 
in 2014. This evaluation will take into account new monitoring and 
modeling information, new regulations, and new guidance that may result 
in additional control measures consistent with the reasonable progress 
requirement of the RHR. If additional controls are identified, the 
progress report will update the plan to include an implementation 
schedule for controls, necessary rulemaking, projected visibility 
improvements, and revised RPGs for 2018.
7. Interstate Transport Requirements for Visibility
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires SIP revisions to 
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other types of 
emission activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in 
amounts that will interfere with another state's plan to protect 
visibility. Nevada submitted its SIP for Interstate Transport to EPA on 
February 7, 2007, which EPA approved and promulgated in the Federal 
Register on July 31, 2007 (70 FR 41629). In our Federal Register 
Notice, we deferred action on whether Nevada interferes with other 
states' plans to address regional visibility impairment caused by 
regional haze until we received Nevada's Regional Haze SIP. As 
explained in Section IV.D.2. of this notice, NDEP relied on the WRAP's 
source apportionment modeling to demonstrate that Nevada's emissions 
are projected to have a minimal contribution to sulfate and nitrate 
extinction in each of 24 Class I areas in five adjacent states. 
Moreover, none of the neighboring western states have requested 
emission reductions from Nevada in order to meet their RPGs. Therefore, 
in proposing to approve Nevada's RH SIP, we are proposing to find that 
this plan revision contains adequate provisions to protect visibility 
in other states.

H. Monitoring Strategy

    Nevada's SIP includes the required monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing and reporting on regional haze visibility 
impairment as required in 51.308(d)(4). The primary source of 
monitoring data for the regional haze program in Nevada is the IMPROVE 
network. There is currently one IMPROVE monitoring site at Jarbidge. 
IMPROVE monitoring data serves as the baseline for the regional haze 
program, and is the source of data for states to comply with the 
regional haze monitoring requirements now and in the future. States 
have access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools through the 
Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS), which is maintained 
by the WRAP and other regional planning organizations. The operation of 
the IMPROVE network is dependent on EPA funding.
1. Coordination of RAVI With RHR
    Nevada's monitoring strategy is coordinated with the monitoring 
required for Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) that 
is codified under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the State.

[[Page 36467]]

RAVI, which predates the RHR, is visibility impairment that is caused 
by the emission of air pollutants from one or a small number of 
sources. The provisions of visibility monitoring for RAVI in 40 CFR 
52.26 are incorporated into the visibility FIP for Nevada in 40 CFR 
52.1488. Under the FIP, EPA has responsibility in cooperation with the 
appropriate FLMs to monitor visibility in Nevada's Class I area. NDEP 
coordinates its regional haze monitoring with the FIP for RAVI by 
participating in the IMPROVE network, and utilizing data from the same 
IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge.
2. Additional Monitoring Sites
    EPA agrees with Nevada's assessment that the existing IMPROVE 
monitor at Jarbidge, its only class I area, is sufficient to address 
regional haze and determine reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal. The monitor is located in the Humboldt National Forest 
in northeastern Nevada, about one kilometer north of the city of 
Jarbidge in the Jarbidge River drainage.
3. Using and Reporting Monitoring Data
    Nevada will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network, technical 
support from the WRAP, and regional technical tools (e.g., VIEWS and 
WRAP's Technical Support System) to assess the contribution of 
emissions to visibility impairment at Class I areas within and outside 
the State. The IMPROVE network was established in the 1980s to measure 
visibility impairment in mandatory class I areas throughout the United 
States. The IMPROVE monitors were used by WRAP and NDEP as the source 
of data for the 2000-2004 baseline and for future projections, and is 
the source of record for air quality professionals to track visibility 
improvement or degradation. Visibility monitoring data is available to 
the public, states and EPA in an electronic format at the IMPROVE and 
VIEWS Web sites
4. Statewide Emissions Inventory
    NDEP commits to updating periodically its statewide emissions 
inventory, tracking emissions changes, determining trends, and 
utilizing the WRAP's services to evaluate reasonable progress. Nevada 
has a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment as 
described in section III.B. of this notice. NDEP annually updates its 
inventory of major point sources and its entire inventory every three 
years as required by EPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule. The 
State's capacity to fulfill future requirements to project emissions 
and evaluate progress depend on the continued existence of the IMPROVE 
program as well as the technical support of the WRAP or a similar 
regional planning organization

I. State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

    Nevada participated fully in the WRAP process, the primary forum 
for consultation among western states, Tribal nations, Federal 
agencies, stakeholder groups and the public. FLMs from the National 
Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management 
and the U.S. Forest Service were actively engaged in the WRAP's 
development of technical analyses and reports for the western region 
and individual states. To facilitate consultation, NDEP provided a list 
of its agency contacts to the FLMs in a letter dated September 15, 
2006. The FLMs had numerous opportunities throughout the WRAP process 
to participate fully in the development and review of regional 
technical documents that form the basis of the western states' plans. 
Nevada provided additional opportunities for coordination and 
consultation with FLMs through local meetings and stakeholder 
workshops. NDEP provided its draft RH SIP to the FLMs on January 5, 
2009 for a 60-day review and comment period. Comments were received 
from the FLMs on March 4 and 6, 2009. NDEP's responses to the FLMs' 
comments are in Appendix C of the Nevada RH SIP. EPA believes that NDEP 
adequately addressed the FLMs' concerns either through revisions to the 
SIP, or in responses to their comments. NDEP also has committed to 
provide the FLMs an opportunity to review and comment on future SIP 
revisions, the 5-year progress reports, and the implementation of other 
programs that may contribute to class I visibility impairment. All SIP 
revisions will include a description of how the state consulted with 
and addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. At a minimum, NDEP 
will meet with the FLMs on an annual basis through the WRAP, as long as 
the WRAP continues to provide this forum. EPA is satisfied that Nevada 
has coordinated with the FLMs as required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(1-4).

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports

    Nevada affirmed its commitment to submit a report to EPA every five 
years evaluating progress toward the RPG for its Class I area as well 
as Class I areas outside the State that may be affected by emissions 
from within the State as required in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The first report 
is due five years after the State's submittal, which is November 18, 
2014. The required elements for these reports are listed in section III 
of this notice.
    Nevada commits to making an adequacy determination of the current 
SIP at the same time it submits the five-year progress report as 
required in 40 CFR 51.308(h). If Nevada determines that the current 
implementation plan is or may be inadequate due to emissions from 
within the State, Nevada will develop additional strategies to address 
the plan deficiencies and revise the SIP within one year from the date 
that the progress report is due. If Nevada determines that the plan is 
or may be inadequate due to emissions from other states, Nevada will 
notify EPA and the other states. The affected states are required to 
address the deficiency through the regional planning process by 
developing additional strategies.
    Nevada also commits to complete and submit a comprehensive RH SIP 
revision to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every 10 years thereafter as 
required in 40 CFR 51.308(f). In these comprehensive revisions, the 
State must evaluate and reassess all of the elements required in 40 CFR 
51.308(d), taking into account improvements in monitoring data 
collection and analysis techniques and control technologies. The State 
must also address current visibility conditions, actual progress toward 
natural conditions, effectiveness of the long-term strategy, and the 
reasonable progress goal.

V. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA believes the Nevada RH SIP fulfills all the relevant 
requirements of CAA Section 169A and the Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, 
we are proposing a full approval of the plan as described in Section 
110(k)(3) of the Act. Regarding the major requirements, we find that 
Nevada has: established baseline visibility conditions and a reasonable 
progress goal for its one Class I area; developed a long-term strategy 
with enforceable measures to ensure reasonable progress toward 
achieving the RPG in the first planning period ending in 2018; 
adequately applied Best Available Retrofit Technology to specific 
stationary sources; developed a regional haze monitoring strategy; 
provided for periodic progress reports and revisions; provided for 
consultation and coordination with Federal land managers; and provided 
for the regional haze plan's future review and revisions. We also are 
proposing to find that emissions from Nevada do not interfere with 
other states' measures to protect

[[Page 36468]]

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not interfere with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 
(Feb. 16, 1994)) because EPA lacks the discretionary authority to 
address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur dioxide, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2011-15238 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P