
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55805-55819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23272]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316; FRL-9933-82-Region 9]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada; 
Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposes to approve a revision to the Nevada Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Nevada Division of 
Environmental Protection (NDEP) to document that the existing plan is 
adequate to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and 
emissions reductions by 2018. The Nevada Regional Haze SIP revision 
addresses the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) to submit a report describing progress in achieving 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to improve visibility in federally 
designated Class I areas in Nevada and in nearby states that may be 
affected by emissions from sources in Nevada. EPA is proposing to 
approve Nevada's determination that the existing Nevada Regional Haze 
Implementation Plan is adequate to meet the visibility goals, and 
requires no substantive revision at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received by the designated contact at the 
address listed below on or before October 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0316, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA 
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please 
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 
http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    The index to the docket (docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316) for 
this proposed rule is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, such as CBI or other information that is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is publicly

[[Page 55806]]

available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials 
are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy during normal business hours at the Planning Office of the Air 
Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105. To view hard copies of documents listed in the docket index, EPA 
requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vijay Limaye, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 
Planning Office, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Vijay Limaye may be reached at telephone number 
(415) 972-3086 and via electronic mail at Limaye.Vijay@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background
    A. Description of Regional Haze
    B. History of Regional Haze Rule
    C. Nevada's Regional Haze Plan
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Reports
IV. Context for Understanding Nevada's Progress Report
    A. Framework for Measuring Progress
    B. Relevant Class I Areas
    C. Data Sources
V. EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's Progress Report
    A. Status of Implementation of All Measures
    B. Summary of Emission Reductions Achieved
    C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes at Jarbidge
    D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions
    E. Assessment of Anthropogenic Emissions Impeding Progress
    F. Assessment of Plan Elements and Strategy
    G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    H. Determination of Adequacy
    I. Consultation with Federal Land Managers
    J. Public Participation
    VI. EPA's Proposed Action
    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview of Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve NDEP's determination that the existing 
Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan \1\ is adequate to achieve the 
established RPGs (i.e., visibility goals) for Class I areas by 2018, 
and therefore requires no substantive revision at this time. The 
State's determination and EPA's proposed approval are based on the 
Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or 
``Report'') submitted by NDEP to EPA on November 18, 2014, that 
addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) of the RHR.\2\ Specifically, 
we propose to find that the Progress Report demonstrates that the 
emission control measures in the existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP are 
sufficient to enable Nevada, as well as other states with Class I areas 
affected by emissions from sources in Nevada, to meet all established 
RPGs for 2018 in accordance with Sec.  51.308(g). As a result, we 
propose to approve NDEP's determination that the existing 
Implementation Plan is adequate, and requires no further substantive 
revision at this time to achieve the established goals for visibility 
improvement in accordance with Sec.  51.308(h). In addition, we are 
proposing to find that NDEP fulfilled the requirements in Sec.  
51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) regarding State coordination with Federal 
Land Managers (FLMs). This coordination includes providing FLMs with an 
opportunity for consultation on the Progress Report, describing how 
NDEP addressed any comments from the FLMs, and providing procedures for 
continuing consultation with the FLMs. Finally, we propose to find that 
NDEP has fulfilled the requirements of CAA 110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR 
51.102 regarding reasonable notice and public hearings with regard to 
the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan consists of the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP, submitted to EPA in November 2009 and 
partially approved and partially disapproved by EPA in several 
related actions in 2012, and the partial Regional Haze Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) promulgated in 2012 and revised in 2013, 
as described further below.
    \2\ The Progress Report was deemed complete by operation of law 
on May 18, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Description of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by many sources and 
activities located across a broad geographic area that emit fine 
particles that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light, 
thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can 
see. These fine particles also can cause serious health effects and 
mortality in humans and contribute to environmental impacts, such as 
acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.
    The RHR uses the deciview as the principle metric for measuring 
visibility and for the RPGs that serve as interim visibility goals 
toward meeting the national goal of achieving natural visibility 
conditions by 2064. A deciview expresses uniform changes in haziness in 
terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility 
conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews are 
determined by using air quality measurement to estimate light 
extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction using a 
logarithmic function. A deciview is a more useful measure for tracking 
progress in improving visibility than light extinction because each 
deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived 
by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.

B. History of Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress 
created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks 
and wilderness areas, establishing as a national goal the ``prevention 
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results 
from manmade air pollution.'' In accordance with section 169A of the 
CAA and after consulting with the Department of Interior, EPA 
promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas where 
visibility is identified as an important value.\3\ In this notice, we 
refer to mandatory Class I Federal areas on this list as ``Class I 
areas.'' Nevada has one Class I area, Jarbidge Wilderness Area 
(``Jarbidge''), in the northeast corner of the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to 
address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address 
regional haze on July 1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze Rule.\4\ The 
RHR revised the existing visibility regulations in 40 CFR 51.308 to 
integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment and to 
establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. As defined in the RHR, the RPGs must provide for an improvement 
in visibility for the most impaired days (``worst days'') over the 
period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the least impaired days (``best days'') over the same 
period.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 64 FR 35713.
    \5\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Nevada's Regional Haze Plan

    NDEP submitted its Regional Haze SIP to EPA on November 18, 2009, 
as required by 40 CFR 51.308 for the first regional haze planning 
period ending in 2018. EPA approved most of the Nevada

[[Page 55807]]

Regional Haze SIP on March 26, 2012,\6\ with the exception of NDEP's 
determination of best available retrofit technology (BART) to control 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) at the Reid Gardner 
Generating Station (Reid Gardner). EPA published a new proposal on 
April 12, 2012, to approve in part and disapprove in part NDEP's BART 
determination for NOX at Reid Gardner.\7\ EPA published a 
final rule on August 23, 2012, approving NDEP's BART determination for 
NOX on Units 1 and 2, but disapproving NDEP's determination 
for Unit 3 and the averaging time for the emission limits at all three 
units.\8\ This final rule included a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
for the disapproved elements. EPA subsequently agreed to reconsider the 
compliance date for Units 1, 2, and 3 at Reid Gardner in the FIP, which 
we extended by 18 months.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 77 FR 17334.
    \7\ See 77 FR 21896.
    \8\ See 77 FR 50936.
    \9\ See proposed rule to grant extension, 78 FR 18280 (March 26, 
2013), and final rule granting extension, 78 FR 53033 (August 28, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Reports

    The RHR requires states to submit a report every five years in the 
form of a SIP revision to evaluate progress toward achieving the RPGs 
for each Class I area in the state and for those areas outside the 
state that may be affected by emissions from within the state.\10\ The 
first progress reports are due five years from the submittal date of 
each state's initial Regional Haze SIP. Progress reports must be in the 
form of SIP revisions that comply with the procedural requirements of 
40 CFR 51.102 and 51.103. These reports must contain an evaluation of 
seven elements, at a minimum, and include a determination of the 
adequacy of the state's existing Regional Haze SIP. In summary,\11\ the 
seven elements are: (1) A description of the status of implementation 
of all measures included in the current Regional Haze SIP for achieving 
the RPGs in Class I areas within and outside the state; (2) a summary 
of the emission reductions achieved in the state through implementation 
of these measures; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions and 
changes on the most impaired and least impaired days for each Class I 
area in the state in terms of five-year averages of the annual values; 
(4) an analysis of changes in emissions over the past five years 
contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities 
within the state based on the most recently updated emissions 
inventory; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in 
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state over the past five 
years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant 
emissions and improving visibility; (6) an assessment of whether the 
elements and strategies in the current Regional Haze SIP are sufficient 
to enable the state, or other states affected by its emissions, to 
achieve the established RPGs; and (7) a review of the state's 
visibility monitoring strategy and any necessary modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    \11\ Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(g) for the exact 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an evaluation of the factors listed above as well as any 
other relevant information, a state is required to determine the 
adequacy of its existing Regional Haze SIP.\12\ The state must take one 
of four possible actions based on the analysis in its progress report. 
In summary, these actions are to (1) provide a negative declaration to 
EPA that no further substantive revisions to the state's existing 
Regional Haze SIP is needed to achieve the RPGs; (2) provide 
notification to EPA and to other states in its region that its Regional 
Haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to 
emissions from sources in other states, and collaborate with other 
states to develop additional strategies to address the deficiencies; 
(3) provide notification and available information to EPA that the 
state's Regional Haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable 
progress due to emissions from sources in another country; or (4) 
revise its Regional Haze SIP within one year to address the 
deficiencies if the state determines that its existing plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I 
areas due to emissions from sources within the state.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 40 CFR 51.308(h).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state also must document that it provided FLMs with an 
opportunity for consultation prior to holding a public hearing on a 
Regional Haze SIP or plan revision.\14\ A state must include a 
description of how it addressed any comments from the FLMs, and provide 
procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Context for Understanding Nevada's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of the Progress Report as well 
as EPA's evaluation of the Report, this section provides background 
information on how the regional haze program applies to Nevada. This 
information describes the framework for measuring visibility progress, 
a profile of the relevant Class I areas, and the sources of data used 
in the Progress Report.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    Visibility conditions at Class I areas are described by a ``haze 
index'' measured in deciviews and calculated using data collected from 
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
network monitors. Nevada has an IMPROVE monitor at Jarbidge that is 
designated ``JARB1.'' To measure progress in deciviews, current 
visibility conditions (2008-2012) are compared to baseline conditions 
(2000-2004), and to projected conditions at the end of the planning 
period (2018). A state establishes two RPGs for each of its Class I 
areas: One for the 20 percent best days and one for the 20 percent 
worst days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on 
the 20 percent worst days and ensure no degradation in visibility on 
the 20 percent best days, compared to average visibility conditions 
during the baseline period. In establishing the RPG, a state must 
consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility (from the 
baseline to natural conditions in 2064) and the emission reductions 
measures needed to achieve it. Nevada set the RPGs for Jarbidge using 
atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected emission reductions 
from control strategies in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP as well as 
emission reductions expected to result from other Federal, state and 
local air quality programs, among other factors. The purpose of a 
progress report is to assess whether a state's plan is adequate to 
achieve the established RPGs and emissions reductions goals for 2018, 
and if not, whether additional emission reduction strategies are 
needed.

B. Relevant Class I Areas

    Nevada's one Class I area, the Jarbidge Wilderness Area, is located 
within the Humboldt National Forest in the northeastern corner of the 
State within the populated Snake River Basin and less than 10 miles 
from the Idaho border. The baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004) 
at Jarbidge are 12.07 deciviews (dv) on the worst days and 2.56 dv on 
the best days. The RPG for the worst days in 2018 at Jarbidge is 11.05 
dv, which is slightly under, and therefore better than, the uniform 
rate of progress (URP) in 2018, which is 11.09

[[Page 55808]]

dv.\16\ While a subsequent correction for the worst days in 2018 
resulted in projected visibility impairment of 11.8 dv on the worst 
days,\17\ NDEP has retained the RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge. The RPG 
for the best days in 2018 at Jarbidge is 2.50 dv, which represents a 
slight improvement from baseline conditions. The Progress Report 
addresses whether Nevada's RH SIP is making adequate progress from the 
baseline toward these RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The URP is a straight line from the baseline visibility 
condition (5-year annual average from 2000-2004) to the estimated 
natural background condition in 2064, as measured on the 20 percent 
best and worst days. The URP values for 2018 are the number of 
deciviews where the lines drawn to 2064 for best and worst days 
intersect 2018.
    \17\ See 76 FR 36464, June 22, 2011, footnote 18 (``In April 
2011, the WRAP issued a draft report regarding an error in its 
visibility projections for about 15 Class I areas in the West, 
including Jarbidge. The draft report indicated that, as a result of 
the error, the projected visibility at Jarbidge in 2018 is 11.8 dv 
instead of 11.1 dv (rounded up from 11.05 dv).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nevada Regional Haze SIP identified 24 other Class I areas 
located in five neighboring states that are potentially affected by 
emissions of sulfates and nitrates from sources in Nevada.\18\ Based on 
projections from air quality modeling for 2018, the highest 
contribution to sulfate extinction on the worst days from Nevada's 
emissions is 5.6 percent at Zion National Park in Utah, and on the best 
days is 7.2 percent at Sawtooth Wilderness Area in Idaho. For nitrate 
extinction in 2018, Nevada's highest contribution on the worst days is 
20 percent at Desolation Wilderness in California, and on the best days 
is 12.4 percent at Joshua Tree National Park in California.\19\ The 
remaining 20 Class I areas outside Nevada are projected to have smaller 
fractions of haze attributable to Nevada's emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Chapter 
4.3.3, October 2009. Light extinction is based on a model known as 
Particulate Matter Source Attribution Tracking (PSAT).
    \19\ 76 FR 36459, June 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Data Sources

    Nevada's Progress Report is based on information available prior to 
March 2014. For the most part, NDEP relies on technical data and 
analysis in two reports from the Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP), the regional planning organization that provides technical 
support to western states. The WRAP's reports are based on monitoring 
data from the IMPROVE network and emissions data from EPA's National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI). The first report is the ``Western Regional 
Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary 
Report,'' dated June 28, 2013, which includes Section 6.8 Nevada 
(Appendix A of the Progress Report). This report is based on the time 
period 2005-2009 and relies on the NEI from 2008. The WRAP updated the 
inventory before completing a second report titled ``West-Wide Jump-
Start Air Quality Modeling Study--Final Report'' dated September 30, 
2013. NDEP also uses NEI data from 2011, State emission inventory data 
for 2012, acid rain data from EPA's Air Market Program Database, and 
IMPROVE monitoring data from 2008 to 2012 to provide more current 
information and additional analysis. NDEP further relies on the WRAP's 
Technical Support System and the Visibility Information Exchange Web 
System as analytic tools.

V. EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's Progress Report

    This section describes Nevada's Progress Report and EPA's 
evaluation of the Report in relation to the seven elements listed in 40 
CFR 51.308(g), the determination of adequacy in 40 CFR 51.308(h), the 
requirement for state and FLM coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i) and the 
requirements for public participation in CAA section 110(a) and (l) and 
40 CFR 51.102. While the Progress Report focuses on the elements of the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP, the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) 
apply to ``implementation plans,'' which are defined to include 
approved SIPs and FIPs.\20\ Accordingly, EPA has considered our 
regional haze BART FIP for Reid Gardner as well as the Nevada Regional 
Haze SIP in assessing the Progress Report. However, as described 
further below, all three of the BART-eligible units at Reid Gardner 
have been shut down. Therefore, the partial disapproval and partial FIP 
for Reid Gardner does not substantively influence our evaluation of the 
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 51.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The Progress Report describes the status of state and federal 
measures in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP as well as new programs, 
rules, and legislation that will provide further emission reductions 
before the first phase of the regional haze program ends in 2018. 
Nevada's measures to control or otherwise reduce emissions that 
contribute to haze are organized into three broad categories: Review of 
BART Determinations, State Measures Other than BART, and Federal 
Programs.\21\ The status of measures in each of these categories is 
summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Progress Report, Chapter Two, Status of Implementation of 
Control Measures, pages 2-1 thru 2-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BART Implementation: NDEP describes BART implementation in Nevada 
and in neighboring states that contribute to visibility impairment at 
Jarbidge. The four BART facilities in Nevada are Reid Gardner, Tracy 
Generating Station (Tracy), Fort Churchill Generating Station (Fort 
Churchill), and Mohave Generating Station (Mohave). Mohave closed in 
2005.\22\ The Nevada Regional Haze SIP requires the remaining three 
facilities to meet the emission limits associated with all BART control 
measures by January 1, 2015, with the exception of NOX at 
Reid Gardner, which has a compliance date of June 30, 2016, as shown in 
Table 1. As noted in the table, three units at Reid Gardner and two 
units at Tracy were scheduled to retire by the compliance date. 
Subsequent to NDEP's submittal of the Progress Report, all five of 
these units were shut down and are now in the process of being 
decommissioned and demolished.\23\ The retirement of these five units, 
and the switching of three other units at Tracy and Fort Churchill to 
natural gas, is largely in response to the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 
123 by the Nevada legislature in 2013, which is described in more 
detail in the next section regarding other State measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Even though Mohave's closure in 2005 predates the first 
phase of the RH program (2008-2018), NDEP addresses Mohave's 
emissions in its Progress Report because these emissions are 
included in the inventories and modeling that form the basis for the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP. For example, the projected emission 
inventory for 2018 includes about 19,595 tpy of NOX and 
8,701 tpy of SO2 from Mohave.
    \23\ See Reid Gardner Generating Station Fact Sheet from Nevada 
Energy (May 2015), Frank A. Tracy Generating Station Fact Sheet from 
Nevada Energy (June 2015).

[[Page 55809]]



                Table 1--Status of Bart Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                   Units        BART Control measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Gardner Generating         1, 2, 3..........  NV Energy retired
 Station.                                           these three units as
                                                    of December 31,
                                                    2014, as approved by
                                                    the Public Utilities
                                                    Commission of Nevada
                                                    (PUCN)
Tracy Generating Station......  1, 2.............  NV Energy retired
                                                    these two units as
                                                    of December 31,
                                                    2014, as approved by
                                                    the PUCN and in
                                                    response to SB 123.
                                3................  NV Energy is relying
                                                    on alternative
                                                    control technology
                                                    and burning only
                                                    natural gas to
                                                    comply with the BART
                                                    emissions limits as
                                                    of the December 31,
                                                    2014, compliance
                                                    date.
Fort Churchill Generating       1, 2.............  NV Energy is relying
 Station.                                           on alternative
                                                    control technology
                                                    and burning only
                                                    natural gas to
                                                    comply with the BART
                                                    emissions limits as
                                                    of the December 31,
                                                    2014, compliance
                                                    date.
Mohave Generating Station.....  All..............  This facility ceased
                                                    operations in
                                                    December 2005 and
                                                    was subsequently
                                                    fully decommissioned
                                                    and demolished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP explains in the Progress Report that BART implementation in 
neighboring states is expected to contribute to visibility improvement 
at Jarbidge, which is located very near the Idaho border and downwind 
from sources in Oregon. Since source apportionment modeling identified 
substantial contributions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from point 
sources in Idaho and Oregon,\24\ NDEP provides updates on two 
facilities in Idaho (Amalgamated Sugar Company in Nampa and Monsanto/P4 
Production in Soda Springs) and one facility in Oregon (Boardman Power 
Plant) that are subject to BART control measures. Each of these three 
facilities is reportedly in compliance with the required BART emission 
limits for SO2 and NOX. However, since some of 
the compliance dates are not yet effective, more emission reductions 
are expected by 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Section 4.3, November 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other State Measures: Other State measures contributing to 
reasonable progress at Jarbidge and other Class I areas include 
cancellations of applications to build power plants, State legislation 
to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants (i.e., SB 123), an 
expanded renewable energy portfolio, and implementation of control 
measures to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
as listed in Table 2. Regarding cancellations, NDEP explains that these 
measures represent additional emission reductions because the emissions 
from these unbuilt sources were included in the baseline and projected 
emission inventories in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. Of the five 
proposed power plants that NDEP assumed would be producing emissions, 
three withdrew applications (White Pine, Toquop, and Copper Mountain), 
and two were built (Newmont TS Power Plant near Dunphy in northern 
Nevada and Chuck Lenzie Generating Station near Las Vegas).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Newmont TS is a 220-megawatt power plant using coal-fired 
boilers with modern control technologies operating since 2008. Chuck 
Lenzie is 1,102-megawatt generating station using gas-fired steam 
engines operating since 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nevada Legislature in 2013 enacted SB 123 requiring the 
reduction of emissions from coal-fired power plants in Clark County, 
Nevada. SB 123 requires the retirement or elimination of not less than 
800 megawatts of coal-fired electric generating capacity: 300 MW by 
December 2014, an additional 250 MW by December 2017, and an additional 
250 MW by December 2019. This legislation also mandates the 
construction or acquisition of 350 MW from new renewable energy 
facilities. NV Energy must construct or acquire and own facilities with 
a total capacity of 550 MW to replace the coal-fired capacity 
eliminated between 2014 and 2019.\26\ NV Energy's decision to retire 
BART units at Reid Gardner and Tracy, and to convert other BART units 
to natural gas at Tracy and Fort Churchill, was in response to this 
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, Docket No. 14-05003, 
May 1, 2014, (Appendix C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP also reports that Nevada is one of the first states to adopt a 
renewable portfolio standard that establishes a schedule requiring 
electric utilities to generate, acquire, or save a percentage of 
electricity from renewable energy systems or efficiency measures. Not 
less than 20 percent must come from renewable energy or efficiency 
measures from 2015 to 2019. The Nevada legislature also has enacted the 
``Solar Energy Systems Incentive Program,'' which requires the Public 
Utilities Commission of Nevada to set incentives and schedules to 
produce at least 250 MW of capacity from solar energy by 2021. At the 
time of the Progress Report, Nevada had installed 38 MW of capacity at 
a cost of $160 million. Another example of renewable energy is the 
``Solar Thermal Demonstrations Program'' that promotes the installation 
of at least 3,000 solar thermal systems in homes, businesses, schools, 
and government buildings throughout the State. The Progress Report 
mentions several other programs to establish solar, wind, and 
waterpower energy systems along with a list of proposed generation 
plants that will rely on renewable energy.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Progress Report, Chapter 2, pages 2-8 thru 2-9.

                 Table 2--Status of Other State Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State measure                       Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Power Plants included in Inventory    Never Built.
 for 2018.
Legislation to Retire Coal-Fired Plants     2014-2019.
 (800 mw).
Legislation for New Renewable Energy (350   2014-2021.
 mw).
Renewable Energy Portfolio................  2015-2025.
NAAQS Attainment/Maintenance Regulations..  Ongoing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal Measures: The Progress Report provides a summary of 
existing federal measures, those that were included in the Nevada 
Regional Haze SIP, as well as new federal measures as listed in Table 
3. NDEP describes in the Report how each of these federal programs, 
rules, and standards contribute further reductions in visibility 
impairing pollutants.\28\ All eight areas in Nevada that were 
designated non-attainment for one more NAAQS either have been 
redesignated to attainment and are operating under a maintenance plan 
or have a determination of attainment indicating that the area is 
attaining the NAAQS. The control measures for attainment that remain in 
place include fugitive dust regulations, oxygenated fuel programs, 
gasoline vapor recovery, transportation control measures,

[[Page 55810]]

residential wood burning regulations, woodstove replacement programs, 
and alternative fuel vehicle program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Progress Report, Chapter 2, pages 2-3 thru 2-6.

                   Table 3--Status of Federal Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Existing Federal Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Duty Highway Rule (PM, NOX,    Phased in 2006-2010.
 SOX).
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Program  Effective in 2005.
 (NOX, VOC).
Non-Road Mobile Diesel Emissions     Phased in 2004-2012.
 Program (NOX, CO).
Maximum Achievable Control           Ongoing Applicability.
 Technology Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          New Federal Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (Toxic   Final Rule in 2011.
 Gases, SO2).
Revised NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide...  Final Rule in 2010.
Revised NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide.  Final Rule in 2010.
Revised NAAQS for Fine Particulate   Final Rule in 2012.
 Matter.
North American Emission Control      Effective in 2012; 2015.
 Areas (NOX, PM2.5, SO2).
Tier 3 Vehicle Emission and Fuel     Effective in 2017.
 Standards Program (SOX).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM = Particulate Matter.
VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds.

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) to describe the status of all measures included 
in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP provides a detailed and 
comprehensive update of state and federal measures, including new 
measures that are expected to contribute further to visibility 
improvement. The Progress Report's description of BART implementation, 
legislation, programs, and rules provides a thorough summary of the 
regulatory requirements that underpin Nevada's regional haze program.

B. Summary of Emission Reductions Achieved

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The Progress Report focuses on SO2 and NOX 
emissions, which are the primary pollutants of concern from 
anthropogenic sources. NDEP reports that SO2 and 
NOX emissions have decreased substantially in Nevada due to 
the implementation of control measures as well as other changes in 
State energy policy and source activity as described above in the 
status of measures. According to EPA's acid rain data,\29\ annual 
SO2 emissions from Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) in 
Nevada decreased by 44,107 tpy (82 percent) from 53,346 tpy in 2005 to 
9,239 tpy in 2006. Similarly, NOX emissions from power 
plants decreased by 23,257 tpy (54 percent) from 43,242 tpy in 2005 to 
19,985 tpy in 2006. NDEP points out that while these large decreases 
from 2005 to 2006 are mostly due to the closure of Mohave Generating 
Station, emissions continued to decrease steadily thereafter. From 2006 
to 2013, power plant emissions of SO2 decreased by about 20 
percent (9,239 to 7,427 tpy) and NOX emissions decreased by 
about 61 percent (19,985 to 7,796 tpy).\30\ The closure of units at 
Reid Gardner and Tracy, and the implementation of control measures on 
other units at Tracy and Fort Churchill, should contribute further 
emission reductions not reflected in the acid rain data for 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ USEPA Clean Air Markets Division, Air Markets Program Data, 
Acid Rain Program.
    \30\ Progress Report, Chapter 3, Table 3-2, page 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Progress Report also quantifies emission reductions resulting 
from the cancellation of plans to construct three power plants and 
lower actual emissions from the two plants that were built. NDEP 
includes this analysis because projected emissions from these five 
sources are included in the emission inventory for 2018 that provides 
the basis for the RPG at Jarbidge. The reductions due to permit 
cancellations are 5,814 tpy of SO2, 6,136 tpy of 
NOX, and 5,814 tpy of particulate matter (PM10). 
Moreover, the two new plants that were built (Newmont and Chuck Lenzie) 
have combined actual emissions in 2012 that are less than projected for 
the emission inventory in 2018.\31\ NDEP states that these unrealized 
emissions, in effect, would result in lower modeled visibility 
impairment in 2018, particularly at Class I areas near southern and 
eastern Nevada where the two built sources are located and the three 
cancelled sources had planned to locate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Progress Report, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, page 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) to provide a summary of the emission reductions 
from implementing the measures in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. NDEP 
documents that SO2 and NOX emissions from 
Nevada's power plants have decreased substantially, especially due to 
the closure of Mohave. NDEP makes the case that emissions from the 
power sector should continue to decline as BART controls and SB 123 are 
implemented, further reducing emissions from Reid Gardner, Tracy, and 
Fort Churchill. While it is difficult to quantify emission reductions 
from other state and federal programs, we agree that other state and 
federal measures should contribute to declining emissions, particularly 
from mobile and stationary sources. While the cancellation of proposed 
facilities does not constitute emission reductions per se, we recognize 
that the inclusion of these projected emissions in the 2018 inventory 
likely inflated the projected emissions used as the basis of the RPGs 
for Jarbidge and Class I areas affected by Nevada's emissions. We also 
note that NDEP's summary of emission reductions is complemented by its 
analysis of recent changes in emissions from all sources in Section D 
of this proposal.

 C. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes at Jarbidge

 1. NDEP's Analysis
    Current Visibility Conditions: NDEP reports on current visibility 
conditions for the 20 percent worst days and 20 percent best days at 
Jarbidge for the five-

[[Page 55811]]

years from 2008 to 2012 as displayed in Table 4.\32\ The five-year 
annual average haze index at Jarbidge for this current time period is 
12.0 dv on worst days and 1.9 dv on best days. On worst days, the 
annual averages for visibility impairment are strongly influenced by 
light extinction due to particulate organic matter (POM), followed by 
coarse mass and sulfate. On the best days, visibility impairment is 
dominated by light extinction due to sulfate, followed by POM and 
coarse mass. The Progress Report notes that sources of POM are 
predominantly natural, while sources of fine soil and coarse mass are 
about equally split between natural and anthropogenic. The dominant 
source of sulfate is SO2 from anthropogenic sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Progress Report, Chapter 4, Table 4-1, page 4-3.

                   Table 4--Current Annual and Five-Year Annual Average Visibility Conditions for Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge \33\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Haze index  Sulfate (Mm- Nitrate (Mm-   POM (Mm-                 Soil (Mm-   Coarse mass    Sea salt
                      Year                            (dv)         \1\)         \1\)         \1\)     EC (Mm-\1\)      \1\)       (Mm-\1\)     (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................         12.5         3.72         1.12        12.06         1.48         2.61         4.84         0.04
2009............................................         11.1         4.43         0.53         7.32         1.12         2.31         5.66         0.30
2010............................................         10.0         3.30         1.04         4.33         0.77         2.49         5.66         0.06
2011............................................         11.7         4.16         0.67         7.71         1.21         2.49         6.85         0.40
2012............................................         14.9         3.87         1.18        23.97         3.11         2.63         5.17         0.21
Average.........................................         12.0          3.9          0.9         11.1          1.5          2.5          5.6          0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................          1.9         1.14         0.22         0.23         0.09         0.12         0.27         0.05
2009............................................          1.8         0.95         0.16         0.31         0.11         0.12         0.28         0.03
2010............................................          1.8         1.09         0.15         0.30         0.12         0.06         0.24         0.03
2011............................................          2.1         1.21         0.19         0.39         0.13         0.10         0.26         0.07
2012............................................          2.0         0.95         0.18         0.37         0.18         0.10         0.37         0.04
Average.........................................          1.9          1.1          0.2          0.3          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EC = Elemental Carbon.

    Difference between Current and Baseline Visibility Conditions: NDEP 
presents the difference between the current five-year annual average 
(2008-2012) and the baseline five-year annual average (2000-2004) for 
Jarbidge, as displayed in Table 5, which also includes successive five-
year annual averages for the intervening time periods (2005-2009, 2006-
2010, and 2007-2011).\34\ The differences calculated in the table are 
between the baseline and the current visibility condition represented 
by the time period 2008-2012. A negative difference indicates a 
reduction in haze (i.e., improved visibility). Comparing baseline to 
current visibility conditions on worst days, the haze index declined 
slightly (12.1 to 12.0 dv) with corresponding decreases in light 
extinction for sulfate, nitrate, and elemental carbon, but a noticeable 
increase in POM. On the best days, the haze index decreases from the 
baseline to current visibility conditions (2.6 to 1.9 dv) with 
corresponding decreases in light extinction for sulfate, nitrate, POM, 
and elemental carbon, with the three other pollutants remaining the 
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The data on visibility conditions is from the IMPROVE 
monitor at Jarbidge (JARB1) that measures light extinction in terms 
of inverse megameters (Mm-\1\) that are directly related 
to gaseous and aerosol concentrations. The haze index is measured in 
deciviews, which is a metric of haze proportional to the logarithm 
of the light extinction.
    \34\ See Progress Report, Chapter 4, Table 4-2, page 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP also analyzes the relative percentage contribution and rank of 
each pollutant to visibility impairment on the worst and best days for 
the five-year annual average baseline and successive five-year time 
periods, as displayed in Table 5.\35\ This analysis reveals that POM 
(ranging from 35.5 to 43.0 percent), coarse mass (21.9 to 26.1 
percent), and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0 percent) rank first, second, and 
third, respectively, as the largest contributors to light extinction on 
worst days in each of the five-year periods from the baseline to 
current time period. On the worst days, POM dominates the contributions 
to visibility impairment for the baseline as well as all subsequent 
time periods. The data for sulfate and nitrate show small but continued 
improvement on worst days based on these five-year annual averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Progress Report, Table 4-4, Percent Contribution to Aerosol 
Extinction by Species, page 4-10. These results excluded Rayleigh 
and are expressed as a percentage of Mm-\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the best days for each five-year period of annual averages, 
sulfate (ranging from 4.10 to 50.5 percent), POM (15.1 to 26.1 
percent), and coarse mass (12.4 to13.2 percent) rank first, second, and 
third except for the baseline period in which nitrate is third, 
contributing 9.8 percent. On average across all five-year periods, 
nitrate and elemental carbon each contribute about 10 percent to 
visibility impairment on best days. NDEP explains that the sulfate 
contribution is most likely high because best days represent times when 
there are fewer emissions from natural sources, resulting in relatively 
higher contribution to impairment from anthropogenic emissions. 
Although the ranking changes from worst days to best days, POM, coarse 
mass, and sulfate are the three largest contributors to visibility 
impairment at Jarbidge.

[[Page 55812]]



                      Table 5--Baseline and Five-Year Annual Average Visibility Conditions for the Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Haze index  Sulfate (Mm- Nitrate (Mm-   POM (Mm-                 Soil (Mm-   Coarse mass    Sea salt
                   Time period                        (dv)         \1\)         \1\)         \1\)     EC (Mm-\1\)      \1\)       (Mm-\1\)     (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................         12.1          4.0          1.1         10.0          1.6          2.4          5.5          0.1
2005-2009.......................................         12.4          4.4          1.4         10.0          1.7          2.6          5.9          0.2
2006-2010.......................................         12.2          4.0          1.1          9.6          1.6          2.7          6.1          0.1
2007-2011.......................................         11.7          3.9          1.0          8.4          1.2          2.7          6.2          0.2
2008-2012.......................................         12.0          3.9          0.9         11.1          1.5          2.5          5.6          0.2
Difference......................................         -0.1         -0.1         -0.2          1.1         -0.1          0.1          0.1          0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................          2.6          1.2          0.3          0.8          0.3          0.1          0.3          0.0
2005-2009.......................................          2.2          1.1          0.2          0.5          0.2           0.          0.3          0.0
2006-2010.......................................          2.0          1.1          0.2          0.4          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
2007-2011.......................................          2.0          1.1          0.2          0.3          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
2008-2012.......................................          1.9          1.1          0.2          0.3          0.1          0.1          0.3          0.0
Difference......................................         -0.7         -0.1         -0.1         -0.5         -0.2          0.0          0.0          0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support its analysis of current conditions, NDEP presents a set 
of rolling five-year averages of the annual averages, and includes the 
current estimate of natural conditions, as shown in Table 6.\36\ The 
rolling five-year average of the annual averages reveals more clearly 
the trend in visibility conditions over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Progress Report Table 4-3, page 4-6.

                         Table 6--Five-Year Annual Average Haze Index for Baseline and Successive Time Periods Measured at JARB1
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Baseline             Interim five-year time periods              Current
                                                        conditions   ------------------------------------------------   conditions        Natural
             Days measured (20 Percent)              ----------------                                                ----------------   conditions    2064
                                                         2000-2004       2005-2009       2007-2011       2007-2012       2008-2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Worst...............................................            12.1            12.4            12.2            11.7            12.0             7.9
Best................................................             2.6             2.2             2.0             2.0             1.9             1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP also presents the change in visibility conditions between the 
baseline and current period for best and worst days in comparison to 
the RPG in 2018 using the 2008 to 2012 average as displayed in Table 
7.\37\ While visibility on the best days shows improvement, only modest 
progress is shown for the worst days due to significant contribution of 
POM to light extinction at Jarbidge, particularly in 2012 as shown in 
Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Progress Report Table 4-6, page 4-14. This table omits the 
RPG for the best days, which is 2.56 dv.

                                                 Table 7--Reasonable Progress Goal Summary for Jarbidge
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Best days                                                                    Worst days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Progress in
       Baseline (2000-2004)         Current (2008-     Visibility    Baseline (2000-   Current (2008-     Visibility        2018 RPG       2012 to 2018
                                        2012)         improvement         2004)            2012)         improvement                           RPG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6..............................             1.9              0.7             12.1             12.0              0.1            11.05             9.5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes in Visibility Impairment over Past Five Years: The 
distinguishing feature of annual visibility impairment on the worst 
days from 2008 to 2012 is the variability of light extinction due to 
POM and its corresponding effect on the haze index as shown in Table 4. 
While light extinction for other pollutants is relatively flat during 
this current five-year period, POM varies by almost 20 
Mm-\1\, from a low of 4.33 Mm-\1\ in 2010 to a 
high of 23.97 Mm-\1\ in 2012. Levels of POM spiked in 2012, 
which NDEP attributes to emissions from wildfires. As the table shows, 
on the worst days POM has a strong influence on the year-to-year 
variability in visibility conditions, and can cause a corresponding 
increase in the 2008-2012 five-year annual average. Visibility 
impairment on worst days generally has not changed much over the five 
years except for the variations due to light extinction from POM. 
Visibility on best

[[Page 55813]]

days, by contrast, generally is improving over the current time period 
with little variability from year to year. For the best days, there is 
a noticeable reduction in visibility impairment due to sulfate, 
nitrate, POM, and elemental carbon.
    NDEP presents a trend analysis for the period from 2000 to 2012, 
focusing on sulfates and nitrates, as an annual average and as a 
rolling five-year average during this 13-year time period based on 
IMPROVE data.\38\ Analyzing this longer time period demonstrates that 
on the worst and best days visibility impairment resulting from light 
extinction due to sulfate and nitrate is improving over time, both on 
an annual basis as well as five-year annual averages. NDEP also 
includes an analysis showing the effect of a large spike in nitrates in 
December 2005 (41 Mm-\1\) that increases the annual average 
as well as all the five-year averages that include data from 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Nevada RH Progress Report, Chapter 4, Figures 4-12 through 
4-15, pages 4-15 thru 4-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) to assess the visibility conditions and changes 
in each of the State's Class I areas for the least and most impaired 
days in terms of the current conditions, difference between current and 
baseline conditions, and over the past five years. The analysis 
indicates that visibility on the best days at Jarbidge is getting 
better, but that visibility on the worst days is flat or only minimally 
improving. However, NDEP offers compelling evidence that light 
extinction due to POM has dominated visibility conditions on the worst 
days, particularly in 2012 as shown in Table 4.

D. Analysis of Changes in Emissions

1. NDEP's Analysis
    NDEP relies on the WRAP's analysis \39\ to describe the changes in 
emissions from the baseline \40\ in 2002 to the emissions inventory in 
2008, the beginning of Nevada's current five-year time period. NDEP 
also uses NEI data from 2008 to 2011 to augment its analysis.\41\ As 
shown in Table 8, emissions of all visibility-impairing pollutants 
decreased from the baseline inventory to 2008, except for fine soil and 
coarse mass. Notably, actual emissions in 2008 are lower than the 
projected 2018 emissions for all pollutants, with the exception of fine 
soil and coarse mass. For example, point source emissions of 
SO2 decreased by 78 percent, while point source emissions of 
NOX decreased by over 50 percent from the baseline to 2008. 
These large reductions in the anthropogenic emissions of SO2 
and NOX represent a successful strategy of reducing 
anthropogenic emissions within the State. NDEP notes that the increase 
in fine soil and coarse mass are likely due to updates in inventory 
development methods rather than actual increases, which is plausible 
given the small changes in soil and coarse mass observed at the 
Jarbridge monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report, 
June 28, 2013. West-Wide Jump-Start Air Quality Modeling Study--
Final Report, September 30, 2013.
    \40\ WRAP refers to the baseline as 2002, the midyear of the 
baseline inventory period from 2000 to 2004.
    \41\ Data from the NEI are slightly different from the 
WestJump2008 inventory, which leverages more recent inventory 
development performed by the WRAP.
    \42\ The WRAP compared data between the baseline (2002) and 
emission inventory (2008) for nine source categories: Point sources, 
area sources, oil and gas, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, fugitive 
dust and road dust, windblown dust, biogenic, and fires.

   Table 8--Comparison of Emission Inventories in 2002, 2008, and 2018 for Nevada of All Visibility Impairing
                                                 Pollutants \42\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               2008 Actuals as a
             Pollutants                 2002 Baseline      2008 Inventory    2018 Projection    percent of 2018
                                            (tpy)              (tpy)              (tpy)           projections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide......................             67,743             17,058             46,224                 37
Nitrogen Oxides.....................            162,397            119,513            135,496                 88
Ammonia.............................             12,092              9,382             14,503                 65
Volatile Organic Compounds..........            897,102            351,142            897,707                 39
Primary Organic Aerosol.............             24,734             11,816             24,822                 48
Elemental Carbon....................              6,409              4,425              5,638                 78
Fine Soil...........................             21,208             40,301             24,134                167
Coarse Mass.........................            161,142            321,257            188,287                171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP analyzes the differences between the baseline and current 
emissions based on WRAP's WestJump2008 inventory for eight categories 
of emissions as summarized below. This analysis focuses on the 
percentage change in the emissions of each pollutant by source category 
in 2002 and 2008, and adds an analysis of changes in emissions from 
2008 to 2011 where NEI data is available.
    Sulfur Dioxide: Total anthropogenic emissions of SO2 
decreased by 75 percent from 65,543 tons in 2002 to 16,552 tons in 
2008, representing a significant reduction in particular from point and 
area sources as shown in Table 9. Point source emissions alone 
decreased by 78 percent (50,720 to 11,067 tpy) during this period, and 
area source emissions decreased by 63 percent (12,953 to 4,863 tpy). As 
a percentage of total statewide emissions, anthropogenic and natural, 
point source emissions decreased from 75 percent of the total in the 
2002 (50,720 of 67,743 tons) to 65 percent of the total in the 2008 
(11,067 tons of a total 16,552 tons). Moreover, the NEI inventories 
show a further decrease in SO2 emissions from point sources 
of 44 percent from 10,409 tpy in 2008 to 5,863 tpy in 2011, primarily 
due to reductions in coal-fired emissions from power plants. On-road 
and off-road mobile emissions decreased by 34 percent (454 to 298 tpy) 
and 77 percent (1,403 to 322 tpy), respectively, from 2002 to 2008. 
Data from the NEI indicate further reductions in emissions from mobile 
sources from 2008 to 2011, a 47 percent decrease in on-road emissions 
(511 to 270 tpy) and a 87 percent decrease in off-road emissions (316 
to 41 tpy).

[[Page 55814]]



                         Table 9--Changes in Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2008            Difference
                    Source category                       2002 (Baseline)     (WestJump2008)    (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................................             50,720             11,067     -39,653 (-78%)
Area...................................................             12,953              4,863      -8,090 (-62%)
On-Road Mobile.........................................                454                298        -156 (-34%)
Off-Road Mobile........................................              1,403                322      -1,081 (-77%)
Area Oil and Gas.......................................                  0                  0                  0
Fugitive and Road Dust.................................                  0                  0                  0
Anthropogenic Fire.....................................                 12                  2         -10 (-83%)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic................................             65,543             16,552     -48,991 (-75%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire...........................................              2,200                506      -1,694 (-77%)
Biogenic...............................................                  0                  0                  0
Windblown Dust.........................................                  0                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural......................................              2,200                506      -1,694 (-77%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions....................................             67,743             17,058     -50,685 (-75%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nitrogen Oxides: The total statewide inventory of NOX 
emissions from all sources decreased by 26 percent from 162,397 tpy in 
2002 to 118,766 tpy in 2008 as shown in Table 10. Over this time 
period, NOX emissions from anthropogenic sources decreased 
by 23 percent (139,353 tpy to 107,827 tpy), and natural emissions 
decreased by 53 percent (23,044 tpy to 10,939 tpy). Anthropogenic 
emissions of NOX in Nevada are primarily from point and on-
road mobile sources, followed by off-road and area sources. From the 
2002 to 2008 inventories, NOX emissions from point sources 
decreased by about 50 percent (59,864 to 29,344 tpy), on-road mobile 
increased by about 22 percent (41,089 to 50,068 tpy), off-road mobile 
decreased by about 48 percent (32,565 to 17,081 tpy), and area sources 
increased by 98 percent (5,725 to 11,321 tpy). Increases in on-road 
mobile and area source emission inventories were offset by larger 
decreases in emissions from point and off-road mobile sources. The NEI 
point source inventory shows a decrease of 57 percent in NOX 
emissions from 2008 to 2011. NDEP attributes the 22 percent increase in 
on-road mobile emissions to the use of different air quality models to 
estimate emissions in 2002 (MOBILE6) and in 2008 (MOVES2010), a growth 
in the number of vehicles, and the fact that federal vehicle emissions 
standards were not fully implemented. NEI data from 2008 and 2011 show 
a 36 percent increase in on-road mobile NOX emissions, 
possibly related to population growth. The NEI shows a continuing 
decrease in off-road mobile emissions of 12 percent from 2008 to 2012. 
NDEP states that the increase in emissions from area sources may be a 
result of a reclassification of some off-road mobile sources into area 
source category, which may have contributed to the decrease in 
emissions from off-road mobile sources. This is consistent with the 
reclassification of in-flight aircraft emissions and locomotive 
emissions outside of rail yards from the off-road mobile category to 
the area source category in the 2008 NEI.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2008inventory.html 
(``Description of NEI Data Categories'').

                         Table 10--Changes in Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Category (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2008            Difference
                    Source category                       2002 (Baseline)     (WestJump2008)    (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................................             59,864             29,344            -30,520
Area...................................................              5,725             11,321              5,597
On-Road Mobile.........................................             41,089             50,068              8,979
Off-Road Mobile........................................             32,565             17,081            -15,484
Area Oil and Gas.......................................                 63                  0                -63
Fugitive and Road Dust.................................                  0                  0                  0
Anthropogenic Fire.....................................                 48                 13                -35
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic................................            139,353            107,827     -31,526 (-23%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire...........................................              8,026              3,575             -4,451

[[Page 55815]]

 
Biogenic...............................................             15,018              7,364             -7,654
Windblown Dust.........................................                  0                  0                  0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural......................................             23,044             10,939     -12,105 (-53%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions....................................            162,397            118,766     -43,631 (-26%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ammonia: Total statewide emissions of ammonia decreased by 22 
percent (12,092 to 9,382 tpy) from 2002 to 2008. Of this total, 
anthropogenic emissions decreased by 34 percent (10,408 to 6,893 tpy) 
while natural emissions increased by 48 percent (1,684 to 2,490 tpy). 
The primary source of anthropogenic emissions of ammonia is area 
sources, and to a lesser extent on-road mobile sources, while fire is 
the dominant natural source.\44\ Area sources of ammonia emissions 
decreased by about 29 percent (8,009 to 5,717 tpy) from 2002 to 2008. 
On-road mobile sources, the next largest category of anthropogenic 
emissions, decreased by about 58 percent (2,030 to 849 tpy). Despite an 
increase of 48 percent in natural fire (1,684 to 2,490 tpy), there was 
a net decrease in statewide emissions. Ammonia is not a criteria 
pollutant and is not included in the NEI, so no data for 2011 were 
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The WRAP has created an operational policy level definition 
of fire activity as discretely natural or anthropogenic. See the 
WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report, section 
3.2.1 and the WRAP's Policy for Categorizing Fire Emissions 
(November 15, 2001), available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/nbtt/FirePolicy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volatile Organic Compounds: Data from the 2002 and 2008 inventories 
as well as from the NEI for the 2008 to 2011 time period show large 
reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from natural 
sources with lesser reductions from anthropogenic sources. Biogenic 
emissions from natural sources dominate the Nevada VOC emissions 
inventory. Total statewide VOC emissions decreased by 61 percent from 
897,102 tpy in 2002 to 351,142 tpy in 2008. This large reduction is 
mostly due to a decrease in biogenic emissions over this time period by 
67 percent from 794,139 tpy to 262,912 tpy. NDEP notes that these 
changes may reflect enhancements to the inventory method, use of 
different meteorological years, and improved emission factors and data 
sources. There were also decreases in on-road mobile (36,257 to 21,302 
tpy) and natural fire (17,606 to 4,204 tpy), and an increase in area 
sources (28,592 to 40,973 tpy), all of which are a very small part of 
the total inventory. VOC emissions in the NEI show a decrease in point 
source (17 percent), on-road mobile (20 percent), and off road mobile 
(18 percent) from 2008 to 2011.
    Primary Organic Aerosol: Wildfires are the dominant source of 
primary organic aerosol (POA) emissions, 90 percent of the total in 
2002 (22,501 of a total 24,734 tpy) and 58 percent in 2008 (6,831 of a 
total 11,816 tpy). Anthropogenic sources, namely area and mobile, also 
are important contributors. Overall, total emissions of POA decreased 
by 52 percent from 2002 to 2008. Natural fire emissions of POA 
decreased 70 percent (22,501 to 6,831 tpy), reflecting the high 
variability of wildfires from year to year. Except for anthropogenic 
fire, all other categories of anthropogenic sources of POA (primarily 
area, mobile, and fugitive) increased during this time period with the 
total anthropogenic emissions increasing by 123 percent from 2,233 to 
4,985 tpy.
    Elemental Carbon: Natural fire (i.e., wildfires) also dominate EC 
emissions at 73 percent of the 2002 inventory (4,674 of 6,409 tpy), but 
only 23 percent of the 2008 inventory (1,130 to 4,425 tpy), a reduction 
of 76 percent (4,674 to 1,130 tpy). Consequently, total emissions 
decreased by 31 percent (6,409 to 4,425 tpy) mostly due to the decrease 
in natural fire. Total anthropogenic emissions increased by 90 percent 
(1,735 to 3,295 tpy) due mostly to an increase in on-road mobile 
sources from 235 to 1,891 tpy over this time period. On-road mobile is 
the largest source of elemental carbon in the 2008 inventory at 43 
percent, while the next largest category is natural fire emissions 
contributing 26 percent. Area and point sources, by contrast, 
contribute less than one percent each to the 2008 inventory.
    Fine Soil: Total emissions of fine soils increased by 90 percent 
(21,208 to 40,301 tpy) from the 2002 to the 2008 inventory. The largest 
increases were in fugitive dust (6,128 to 19,216 tpy) and windblown 
dust (10,438 to 17,051 tpy). NDEP reports that increases in these 
source categories were likely due to updates to inventory development 
methods rather than actual increases.
    Coarse Mass: Total emissions of coarse mass increased by about 99 
percent (161,142 to 321,257 tpy), mostly due to large increases in 
anthropogenic fugitive and road dust (56,799 to 161,532 tpy) and in 
natural windblown dust (93,946 to 153,459 tpy). Fugitive dust includes 
sources such as agricultural operations, construction, and mining 
operations. Windblown dust is largely from vacant lands. NDEP 
attributes these increases in part to updates in the inventory 
development methods rather than actual increases. Nonetheless, 
increases in fugitive dust may be due to increases in population, while 
increases in road dust may be due to increases in vehicle miles 
traveled. Point source and natural fire emissions decreased.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    We propose to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to analyze the change in emissions over the past 
five years of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all 
sources and activities within the state, using the most recently 
updated emission inventories. NDEP's analysis of emission data makes a 
strong case that the State is reducing emissions of SO2 and 
NOX from anthropogenic sources, especially point sources.

E. Assessment of Anthropogenic Emissions Impeding Progress

1. NDEP's Analysis
    NDEP reports that progress toward achieving its visibility goal of 
11.05 dv at Jarbidge by 2018 has not been impeded by any significant 
anthropogenic emission changes within or outside the State. NDEP 
reaches this conclusion by evaluating significant emission changes 
within Nevada, the effect of emissions from sources outside

[[Page 55816]]

of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada's emissions on nearby 
Class I areas.
    Emission Changes within Nevada and Visibility Conditions at 
Jarbidge: NDEP analyzes the baseline and rolling five-year annual 
averages of light extinction data from the JARB1 monitor for the best 
and worst days from 2005 through 2012. For the worst days, the data 
show a reduction in sulfate and nitrate extinction for the three most 
recent five-year periods (2006-2010, 2007-2011, and 2008-2012), but an 
increase in POM extinction, due to a spike in 2012 that NDEP attributes 
to wildfires.\45\ On the best days, visibility impairment is reduced 
from the baseline to the current period due to decreases in extinction 
from sulfate, nitrate, POM, and elemental carbon. Light extinction for 
soil, coarse mass, and sea salt remain fairly constant on best days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Progress Report, Chapter 6, pages 6-2 thru 6-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Actual emissions of SO2, NOX, 
PM10, and VOC from point sources in Nevada \46\ have 
decreased significantly over a 10-year period (2002-2012) and over the 
last five years (2008-2012) as presented in Table 11.\47\ The years 
2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 are the most complete inventory years 
submitted to EPA for the NEI. The data for 2012 are actual emission 
values for major and minor point sources from Nevada's permitting 
database. As shown in the table, SO2 emissions from point 
sources dropped dramatically after the closure of Mohave in 2005, and 
decreased by another 50 percent from 2008 to 2012. Likewise, 
NOX emissions decreased by 30,000 tpy after 2005, and 
decreased another 62 percent from 2008 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ SO2 emissions from point sources were 68 percent 
of the total anthropogenic emissions in Nevada in 2008 
(WestJump2008). Area source emissions of SO2 were 29 
percent of total anthropogenic emissions in 2008.
    \47\ Progress Report, Table 6-1, page 6-4.

                            Table 11--Actual Emissions of Nevada Point Sources (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                              SO2             NOX            PM10             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................          50,619          55,876           6,868           2,132
2005............................................          54,243          52,087           4,643           1,646
2008............................................          10,497          21,680           3,465           1,600
2011............................................           5,959          10,548           3,331             971
2012............................................           5,278           8,324           2,629             986
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns.

    Emissions from Outside Sources Effecting Jarbidge: NDEP's analysis 
focuses on three BART sources in Idaho and Oregon to determine whether 
these previously identified point sources are impeding progress on the 
worst days at Jarbidge. Comparing baseline emissions to the NEI in 
2011, total SO2 emissions from these three sources decrease 
by about 40 percent (26,243 to 15,782 tpy) from 2002 to 2011. Total 
NOX emissions decrease by about 31 percent (11,010 to 7,611 
tpy) over the same time period. Moreover, emissions from these sources 
will continue to decline over time given staggered compliance dates 
through 2018. With visibility impairment resulting from sulfate and 
nitrate trending downward at Jarbidge and the implementation of BART 
controls in Idaho and Oregon, NDEP concludes that there are no 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions from outside the State 
that are impeding progress at Jarbidge.
    In assessing point source emissions from Idaho and Oregon, NDEP 
references source apportionment modeling of particulate sulfate and 
nitrate extinction for 2018 that was performed by the WRAP for the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP.\48\ The purpose of the modeling is to 
determine source areas that contribute to visibility impairment on the 
worst days at Jarbidge. The area of greatest sulfate contribution is 
Outside Domain \49\ (43.8 percent), followed by Idaho (10.3 percent), 
Oregon (7.2 percent), and Pacific Offshore (6.9 percent). The area of 
greatest nitrate contribution is Idaho (30.3 percent), followed by 
Outside Domain (27.5 percent), Nevada (13.1 percent), and Utah (10.6 
percent). Based on these results, Idaho is the second largest 
contributor of modeled sulfate and the largest contributor of modeled 
nitrate concentrations. Oregon is the third largest contributor of 
modeled sulfate concentrations. While this analysis supports the focus 
on emissions from Idaho and Oregon, the fact that Outside Domain 
contributes 43.8 percent of the modeled sulfate and 27.5 percent of the 
modeled nitrate is another indication that Nevada has limited control 
over a large subset of the emissions impairing visibility at Jarbidge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Table 4-5: Summary of 
2018 Model Results for Jarbidge Wilderness Area, based on 
Particulate Matter Source Attribution Tracking, page 31.
    \49\ Outside Domain as a source category represents the 
background concentrations of pollutants from international sources 
that enter the modeling domain, in this case the western United 
States and portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevada's Emissions Effect on Nearby Class I Areas: NDEP also 
addresses the potential effect of Nevada's emissions on nearby Class I 
areas in other states using particulate source apportionment modeling 
conducted by the WRAP for the first round of regional haze SIPs. This 
modeling estimated Nevada's projected contributions to light extinction 
from sulfates and nitrates at Class I areas in adjacent states in 
2018.\50\ In light of the 75 percent reduction in Nevada's 
SO2 emissions (see Table 9) and 26 percent reduction in 
NOX emissions (see Table 10) between 2002 and 2008, NDEP 
concludes that Nevada's emission reductions are not impeding progress 
in reducing visibility impairment at Class I areas in adjacent states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Nevada Regional Haze SIP, Chapter 4, Tables 4-3: Nevada's 
Sulfate Extinction Contribution to Class I Areas Outside of Nevada 
and Table 4-4: Nevada's Nitrate Extinction Contribution to Class I 
Areas Outside of Nevada, pages 14-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to assess any significant changes in 
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state over the past five 
years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and 
improving visibility. NDEP provides a comprehensive analysis of 
emission changes within and outside the State, and examines the 
potential effect of these changes at Jarbidge and at other Class I 
areas. All indications are that the total statewide emissions of 
SO2 and NOX are decreasing (see Tables 9, 10, and 
11), and most of the pollutants are already at levels below those in 
the projected emission inventory for 2018 (see Table 8). Based on 
NDEP's analysis, EPA proposes to concur with NDEP that

[[Page 55817]]

there is no evidence that any recent changes in emissions from any 
specific sources or source categories are impeding progress.

F. Assessment of Plan Elements and Strategy

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The Progress Report concludes that the existing elements and 
strategies in the Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan are 
sufficient to enable Nevada and other neighboring states to meet the 
RPGs by 2018 in terms of reducing emissions from anthropogenic sources. 
Nevada has already achieved significant emission reductions in the 
first phase of the regional haze program, with additional reductions 
expected by 2018. Actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants 
in 2008, with the exception of fine soil and coarse mass, are already 
less than the projected emissions in 2018 (see Table 8). Notably actual 
SO2 emissions in 2008 are about 40 percent and actual 
NOX emissions are about 90 percent of the respective totals 
in the projected emission inventory for 2018. The NEI data for 2008 and 
2011 also demonstrate further reductions in SO2 and 
NOX emissions from point sources in Nevada (see Table 11). 
Moreover, further reductions in anthropogenic emissions are expected 
from the power sector as a result of BART implementation, shutdowns, 
and conversions to natural gas or lower sulfur fuels. In the case of 
Jarbidge, NDEP notes that emissions from natural sources can dominate 
visibility impairment on the worst days, and much of the anthropogenic 
emissions are from out-of-state. NDEP states that given the current and 
expected SO2 and NOX emission reductions from 
power plants, further reductions from any other non-utility or 
industrial point sources are unnecessary at this time.
    Regarding visibility conditions, trend analysis of monitoring data 
at Jarbidge from 2000 to 2012 demonstrates improvement in visibility 
impairment from sulfate and nitrate on the worst and best days, both on 
an annual average basis as well as five-year annual averages.\51\ NDEP 
notes that, although the visibility benefit from anthropogenic emission 
reductions is overshadowed by contributions from natural sources, 
visibility is slowly improving at Jarbidge on the worst days and shows 
considerable improvement on the best days (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). 
Where it appears that visibility improvement on worst days is not 
keeping pace with emission reductions (e.g., the 14.9 dv annual average 
for 2012 in Table 4), NDEP asserts that this is due to large 
contributions from natural sources (e.g., light extinction from POM of 
23.97 Mm-1 in 2012). In terms of anthropogenic sources, NDEP 
notes that sulfate contributes the most to visibility impairment on 
worst days at Jarbidge, but most of the sulfate is from out-of-state 
sources. Nitrate has only a small contribution to visibility impairment 
on the worst days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Progress Report, Chapter 4, Section 4.6: Visibility Trends, 
pages 4-15 thru 4-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that the Progress Report adequately addresses 
the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) to assess whether the current 
elements and strategies in the Regional Haze Implementation Plan are 
sufficient to enable Nevada, and other states affected by Nevada's 
emissions, to meet all established RPGs.
    In particular, the Report analyzes trends in statewide emissions 
and visibility conditions at Jarbidge, as well as the additional 
emission reductions expected through 2018. The Report indicates that 
anthropogenic emissions of SO2, NOX, ammonia and 
VOC are decreasing. In particular, the emission reductions reflect 
substantial decreases in total anthropogenic emissions of 
SO2 and NOX. However, anthropogenic emissions of 
POA, fine soil, elemental carbon and coarse mass are increasing. While 
these increases may be partially attributable to changes in inventory 
development methodologies, they highlight the need for greater 
attention to these pollutants in future planning periods.
    With regard to visibility trends, the Progress Report explains that 
Jarbidge is not on track to meet the 2018 RPG for the worst days due to 
the large contribution from POM, which NDEP attributes mostly to 
wildfires and windblown dust. EPA concurs that POM has a large impact 
on the worst days and that much of the POM is attributable to natural 
sources, particularly wildfires. Furthermore, we note that the trend of 
high POM extinction (with significant interannual variability) 
dominating the worst days at Jarbidge has continued during 2013 and 
2014, for which the IMPROVE data are now available, as shown in Tables 
12 and 13.

                                Table 12--2013 and 2014 Average Visibility Conditions for Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Haze                                                             Coarse
                              Year                                  index     Sulfate    Nitrate    POM (Mm-  EC (Mm-1)  Soil (Mm-  mass (Mm-   Sea salt
                                                                     (dv)      (Mm-1)     (Mm-1)       1)                    1)         1)       (Mm-1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013............................................................       11.7        3.5        1.0        8.4        1.3        2.7        5.9        0.1
2014............................................................       12.2        3.1        0.6       14.5        2.3        2.2        4.5        0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013............................................................        1.5        0.9        0.1        0.2        0.0        0.1        0.2        0.0
2014............................................................        1.8        1.0        0.2        0.3        0.1        0.1        0.2        0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55818]]


                              Table 13--Five-Year Annual Average Visibility Conditions for Worst and Best Days at Jarbidge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Haze                                                             Coarse
                              Year                                  index     Sulfate    Nitrate    POM (Mm-  EC (Mm-1)  Soil (Mm-  mass (Mm-   Sea salt
                                                                     (dv)      (Mm-1)     (Mm-1)       1)                    1)         1)       (Mm-1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013.......................................................       12.0        3.8        0.9       10.7        1.5        2.5        5.9        0.2
2010-2014.......................................................       12.2        3.6        0.9       12.1        1.8        2.5        5.6        0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013.......................................................        1.9        1.0        0.2        0.4        0.1        0.1        0.3        0.0
2010-2014.......................................................        1.9        1.0        0.2        0.4        0.1        0.1        0.3        0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we also note that not all POM is from natural sources. POA 
and VOC, the precursors to POM, are also emitted by anthropogenic 
sources, particularly area and mobile sources. Moreover, other 
pollutants, particularly coarse mass and sulfates, both of which have a 
significant anthropogenic component, also contribute to impairment on 
the worst days at Jarbidge. Accordingly, in developing its Regional 
Haze SIP for the next planning period, NDEP should consider 
implementing additional control measures to address anthropogenic 
emissions of POA, VOC, SO2, and coarse mass.
    Nonetheless, given the substantial reductions in anthropogenic 
emissions of SO2 and NOX, improvement in 
visibility conditions on the best days, and evidence that the worst 
days are slowly improving, we propose to find that the current plan is 
sufficient for meeting the RPGs.

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

1. NDEP's Analysis
    The primary monitoring network, nationally and in Nevada, for the 
measurement and characterization of pollutants contributing to regional 
haze is the IMPROVE network. NDEP intends to rely on the continued 
availability of quality assured data collected through the IMPROVE 
network to comply with the regional haze monitoring requirements in the 
RHR. NDEP finds that the IMPROVE site at Jarbidge, Nevada's only Class 
I area, is sufficiently representative to support a determination of 
reasonable progress. NDEP concludes that no modification to the State's 
visibility monitoring strategy is necessary at this time.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the requirement 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) to review its visibility monitoring strategy and 
make any modifications as necessary. We are not aware of any evidence 
of a need to modify Nevada's monitoring strategy for measuring 
visibility at this time.

H. Determination of Adequacy

1. NDEP's Determination
    NDEP has determined that no substantive revision of the Nevada 
Regional Haze Implementation Plan is warranted at this time in order to 
achieve the RPGs in 2018 for visibility improvement at Jarbidge and at 
other Class I areas affected by emissions from Nevada. NDEP concludes 
that no additional controls are necessary based on the evidence 
presented in the Progress Report regarding the first half of the first 
phase of the program. The Report documents a substantial reduction in 
anthropogenic emissions in Nevada as well as an improvement in 
visibility at Jarbidge even though BART controls and other state and 
federal measures are not yet fully implemented. Further changes in 
source activity that were not included in the State's plan further 
support the conclusion that progress is adequate.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP adequately addresses the 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) by determining that the existing 
Nevada Regional Haze Implementation Plan requires no substantive 
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs at Jarbidge and 
at other Class I areas affected by emissions from Nevada. We propose to 
concur with the State's negative declaration based on the analysis and 
documentation presented in the Progress Report.
    NDEP demonstrates that emissions from anthropogenic sources within 
the State are decreasing as are emissions from point sources in Idaho 
and Oregon that contribute to visibility impairment at Jarbidge. While 
the monitoring data indicates that best days at Jarbidge are getting 
better, we are concerned that visibility conditions on the worst days 
are relatively flat or only slightly improving. However, this lack of 
progress on the worst days is largely attributable to the impact of 
POM, which results primarily from natural sources. Therefore, we 
propose to approve NDEP's determination that the Nevada Regional Haze 
Implementation Plan requires no substantive revisions at this time.

I. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

1. NDEP's Consultation
    NDEP provided FLMs with a draft Progress Report on June 14, 2014, 
for a 60-day review prior to the public comment period, received 
comments from the U.S. Department of Interior National Parks Service 
(NPS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), and 
responded to those comments as documented in Appendix C of the Progress 
Report. The letter from NPS dated August 15, 2014, supported the 
Report's findings, and provided four short comments on how to improve 
specific aspects of the analyses. The letter from USFS dated August 29, 
2014, acknowledged the opportunity to work with NDEP, but provided no 
specific comments. In the Progress Report, NDEP reaffirmed its 
commitment to continue participating in the WRAP and consulting with 
other states, FLMs, and tribes regarding SIP revisions and 
implementation of other programs that may contribute to visibility 
impairment.
2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP has addressed the requirements in 40 
CFR 51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide FLMs with an opportunity for 
consultation in person and at least 60 days prior to a public hearing 
on the revised plan; include a description in the revised plan of how 
it addressed any comments from the FLMs; and provide procedures for 
continuing consultation between the State and FLMs. These

[[Page 55819]]

procedural requirements for the Progress Report, a revision to the 
Regional Haze SIP in this case, are documented in Appendices C and D 
attached to the Report.

J. Public Participation

1. NDEP's Public Process
    NDEP provided a 30-day public comment period on the draft Progress 
Report as well as an opportunity for a public hearing. The public 
hearing, scheduled for October 15, 2014, was cancelled because no 
request for a hearing was received. During the public comment period, 
NDEP received one set of comments from the Sierra Club and National 
Parks Conservation Association in a letter dated October 16, 2014.\52\ 
These organizations questioned whether NDEP's analysis supports its 
determination that progress in implementing the Nevada Regional Haze 
Implementation Plan is adequate to achieve the 2018 RPGs for Jarbidge 
and other Class I areas affected by Nevada's emissions. NDEP provided 
detailed responses to these comments in Appendix D of the Progress 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The letter to Adele Malone, NDEP, is signed by David 
VonSeggern, Chair, Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter; Gloria Smith, 
Managing Attorney, Sierra Club; and Lynn Davis, Senior Program 
Manager, Nevada Field Office, National Parks Conservation 
Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that NDEP has fulfilled the requirements of 
CAA 110(a) and (l) and 40 CFR 51.102 regarding reasonable notice and 
public hearings.

VI. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Nevada Regional Haze Progress 
Report submitted to EPA on November 18, 2014, as meeting the applicable 
requirements of the CAA and RHR.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations.\53\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role 
is to approve state decisions, provided that they meet the criteria of 
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action is to approve state law as 
meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Organic 
carbon, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 1, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-23272 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


