Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze Progress Report, 37020-37025 [2017-16491]
Download as PDF
37020
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI REGULATIONS—Continued
State
citation
Rule 5.2
EPA approval date
5/28/2016
8/8/2017, [Insert citation of publication].
Adoption of Federal Rules
by Reference.
*
*
State effective
date
Title/subject
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–16616 Filed 8–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316; FRL–9964–74Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Nevada;
Regional Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the Nevada Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection. The revision consists of the
‘‘Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress
Report’’ that addresses Regional Haze
Rule requirements under the Clean Air
Act to document progress towards
achieving visibility goals by 2018 in
Class I Federal areas in Nevada and
nearby states. The EPA is taking final
action to approve Nevada’s
determination that the regional haze
requirements in the existing Nevada
Regional Haze SIP do not require any
substantive revision at this time.
DATES: This rule is effective September
7, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established
docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–
0316 for this action. Generally,
documents in the docket are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California. Please note that
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:18 Aug 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
Explanation
The version of Rule 5.2 in the SIP does not incorporate by
reference: (1) The provisions amended in the Ethanol Rule
(published in the Federal Register May 1, 2007) to exclude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the definition of ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ in the major NSR source permitting program found
at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and (b)(1)(iii)(t), or (2) the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(v) and (b)(3)(iii)(c) that were
stayed indefinitely by the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule
(published in the Federal Register March 30, 2011). As
discussed in [Insert citation of publication], EPA approved
renaming and reformatting changes to the State’s SIP-approved PSD regulations via a July 20, 2017 Letter Notice.
*
*
while many of the documents in the
docket are listed at https://
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps, multi-volume
reports, or otherwise voluminous
materials), and some may not be
available at either location (e.g.,
confidential business information). To
inspect the hard copy materials that are
publicly available, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed directly
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Krishna Viswanathan may be reached at
(520) 999–7880 or
viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Summary of Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview of Proposed Action
The Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP or ‘‘the
State’’) submitted the Nevada Regional
Haze 5-Year Progress Report (‘‘Progress
Report’’) to the EPA on November 18,
2014, to satisfy the Regional Haze Rule
requirements codified at 40 CFR
51.308(g), (h), and (i). As described in
our proposal, NDEP has demonstrated
in its Progress Report that the emission
control measures in the existing Nevada
Regional Haze SIP are adequate to make
progress towards the reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) in Class I Federal
areas in Nevada and in nearby states
that may be affected by emissions from
sources in Nevada without requiring
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
any substantive revisions to the Nevada
Regional Haze SIP. Our proposal
discussed each element required under
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) for an
approvable progress report, summarized
how the Progress Report addressed each
element, and provided our evaluation of
the adequacy of the Progress Report for
each element. Please refer to our
proposed rule for background
information on the Regional Haze Rule,
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, and the
specific requirements for progress
reports.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
We received comment letters on our
proposed approval of the Progress
Report from NDEP,1 the Sierra Club
jointly with the National Parks
Conservation Association (‘‘NGOs’’),2
and two additional, anonymous
commenters.3 The following discussion
contains our summary of the comments
and our response to each significant
comment.
Comments From NDEP
Comment: NDEP commented that the
EPA’s characterization of the retirement
of Reid Gardner Generating Station
(RGGS) units 1, 2 and 3 and Tracy
Generating Station units 1 and 2, as well
as switching of several units at Tracy
and Fort Churchill Generating Stations
to natural gas as ‘‘largely in response to
Senate Bill (SB) 123 (2013 Legislative
Session)’’ was not accurate. NDEP
commented that the retirement of units
1, 2 and 3 at RGGS was a response to
1 Letter from Jeffrey Kinger (NDEP) to Vijay
Limaye (EPA) (October 19, 2015).
2 Letter from Gloria D. Smith (Sierra Club) and
Stephanie Kodish (NPCA) to Vijay Limaye (EPA)
(October 19, 2015)(‘‘NGOs’ Comment Letter’’).
3 See Comments EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316–
0070 and EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0316–0073 in the
docket.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Nevada Senate Bill 123, but that the
other facilities undertook retirement or
fuel switching to comply with Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements.
Response: The EPA acknowledges this
clarification. The clarification does not
have any effect on our proposed
approval of the Progress Report.
Comment: NDEP requested that the
EPA rescind the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for RGGS as
part of our final rulemaking on the
Progress Report because units 1, 2 and
3 of RGGS permanently shut down in
2014.
Response: The EPA intends to rescind
the FIP applicable to units 1, 2 and 3 of
RGGS in a separate action.
Comment: NDEP commented on Table
5, which mistakenly referenced Table 4–
2 from the Progress Report rather than
Table 4–4, and the last paragraph on 80
FR at 55811, which incorrectly cited the
range of annual sulfate averages as ‘‘4.10
to 50.5 percent’’ rather than ‘‘41.0 to
50.5 percent.’’
Response: The EPA acknowledges
these corrections. The corrections do
not have any effect on our proposed
approval of the Progress Report.
Comment: NDEP commented that in
the third paragraph of the EPA’s
proposed rulemaking, the EPA states
that NDEP attributed the large
contribution from particulate organic
matter (POM) on the worst days at the
Jarbidge Wilderness Area (‘‘Jarbidge’’)
mostly to wildfires and windblown
dust, while NDEP itself attributes POM
largely to emissions from wildfires.
Response: The EPA acknowledges this
clarification. The clarification does not
have any effect on our proposed
approval.
Comment: NDEP expressed support
for the EPA’s proposal to approve
NDEP’s determination that its Nevada
Regional Haze SIP requires no
substantive revisions at this time, given
the demonstrated improvement to
nitrate and sulfate visibility impairment.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the
comment.
Comments From the NGOs
Comment: The NGOs asserted that
‘‘NDEP’s and EPA’s findings that the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is adequate
to show reasonable progress for Jarbidge
towards the national visibility goal are
not supported.’’ The commenters noted
that the preamble to the 1999 Regional
Haze Rule explains that a state may
submit a declaration under 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1) ‘‘if the state finds that the
emission management measures in the
SIP are being implemented on schedule,
and visibility improvement appears to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Aug 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
be consistent with reasonable progress
goals.’’ 4 The commenter noted that
NDEP proposed such a declaration, and
that the EPA had proposed to concur
with the State’s declaration, despite the
fact that visibility improvement at
Jarbidge was not improving at a rate
consistent with achieving NDEP’s 2018
RPG. The commenter also noted that
NDEP’s RPG for the worst days at
Jarbidge was based on modeling
conducted by the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) that was
subsequently found to be in error and
that revised modeling predicts 2018
visibility impacts for the worst days at
Jarbidge that are not on the ‘‘glide path’’
towards the national visibility goal.
Response: Initially, we note that,
while the commenters refer to ‘‘the
national visibility goal’’ (i.e., 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’’ 5), their
primary concern appears to be progress
toward the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent
worst days at Jarbidge. The EPA agrees
that the Progress Report does not
demonstrate that visibility conditions at
Jarbidge will necessarily meet the RPG
of 11.05 deciviews (dv) on the 20
percent worst days by 2018. The EPA
acknowledged this fact in our proposal
to approve the Progress Report. We
stated that the visibility conditions
based on the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) monitoring data for the 20
percent worst days for Jarbidge were
relatively flat or only slightly
improving. However, this fact does not
preclude NDEP from making a
declaration under § 51.301(h)(1). The
statement in the preamble to the 1999
Regional Haze Rule described one
possible basis for such a declaration that
may be the most concise in certain
situations, but was not a statement of
the only possible basis. Rather, the
Regional Haze Rule itself allows a state
to submit a declaration if, ‘‘based upon
the information presented in the
progress report . . . the State
determines that the existing
implementation plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time in order
to achieve established goals for visibility
improvement and emissions reductions
. . .’’ 6 In this instance, NDEP presented
information in the Progress Report that
establishes that the overall lack of
progress in monitored visibility
conditions on the 20 percent worst days
FR 35747 (July 1, 1999).
U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
6 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) (emphasis added).
at Jarbidge is not due to a flaw in the
SIP itself, but due in large part to
extrinsic factors, as described below,
that could not be addressed through a
substantive revision to the SIP.
In particular, as explained in our
proposal, the Progress Report
demonstrates that current (i.e., 2008–
2012) visibility conditions on the 20
percent worst days at Jarbidge are
strongly influenced by light extinction
due to POM, which derives primarily
from natural sources, as well as coarse
particulate mass, which partially
derives from natural sources.7 POM was
the largest contributor to light extinction
on the 20 percent worst days in each of
the 5-year periods from the baseline to
current time period, accounting for 35.5
to 43.0 percent of extinction, followed
by coarse particulate mass (21.9 to 26.1
percent), and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0
percent). Furthermore, over the course
of the progress period there was a
significant increase in extinction from
POM (1.1 dv) and a small increase in
extinction from coarse particulate mass.
By contrast, there were small decreases
in extinction from sulfate and nitrate
(which derive primarily from
anthropogenic emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX)).8 Thus, the overall lack of
improvement in monitored visibility
conditions on the 20 percent worst days
at Jarbidge is largely attributable to an
increase in extinction from nonanthropogenic pollutants, which could
not be remedied by a revision to the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP.
In addition to demonstrating the large
influence of non-anthropogenic
pollutants, the Progress Report also
establishes the significant impact of outof-state sources on Jarbidge. In
particular, the Progress Report refers to
source apportionment modeling
performed by the WRAP to evaluate
source areas that contribute to sulfate
and nitrate extinction on the 20 percent
worst days at Jarbidge. As noted in our
proposal, this modeling indicated that
the Outside Domain source category
(i.e., the background concentrations of
pollutants from international sources)
was expected to contribute 43.8 percent
of the modeled sulfate and 27.5 percent
of the modeled nitrate at Jarbidge in
2018.9 The WRAP source
apportionment modeling also indicated
that emissions from upwind states,
particularly Idaho and Oregon, also
contribute substantially to visibility
impairment at Jarbidge. As with nonanthropogenic emissions, these out-of-
4 64
7 80
5 42
8 80
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37021
FR 55811.
FR 55812, Table 5.
9 80 FR 55816.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
37022
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
state emissions could not be directly
addressed through a revision to the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP. While NDEP
could potentially have provided
notification concerning these out-ofstate emissions under 40 CFR
51.308(h)(2) and/or (h)(3), we find it
was reasonable for the State not to have
done so, given that the overall
contributions of sulfate and nitrate on
the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are
modest and have declined since the
baseline period.
Finally, with regard to the modeling
underlying the 2018 RPG, as explained
in response to a similar comment below,
no revision to the Nevada Regional Haze
SIP is required to address the WRAP
modeling correction noted by the
commenters. For these reasons, and
taking into consideration the large
reductions in anthropogenic emissions
of SO2 and NOX already achieved in
Nevada during this planning period,10
we find that the State has adequately
supported its determination that no
further substantive revision to the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is needed at
this time.
Comment: The NGOs reiterated that
visibility improvement at Jarbidge is not
consistent with NDEP’s 2018 RPG for
the 20 percent worst days.11 The
commenters also criticized NDEP’s
reliance in its declaration on emission
reductions from units that have shut
down or converted to natural gas at the
Mohave, Reid Gardner, Tracy and Fort
Churchill generating stations because
those units affect Class I Federal areas
in other states, rather than Jarbidge. The
NGOs noted that NDEP did not provide
modeling to evaluate the impact of these
emissions reductions on visibility at
Jarbidge and asserted that data from the
IMPROVE monitors at Jarbidge do not
demonstrate a significant improvement
in visibility on the 20 percent worst
days. The comment concluded that,
‘‘visibility on the 20 percent worst days
at the Jarbidge Class I area is not
improving in a manner consistent with
Nevada’s 2018 [RPG] of 11.05 [dv] for
the 20 percent worst days, and . . .
emission reductions from the Reid
Gardner, Tracy, and Fort Churchill
power plants are not likely to ensure the
Jarbidge Wilderness achieves the 11.05
dv [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days
by 2018.’’ 12
Response: As noted previously, the
EPA agrees that the Progress Report
does not demonstrate that visibility
conditions at Jarbidge will necessarily
80 FR 55810 for a summary of these
reductions.
11 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 2.
12 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 3.
meet the RPG of 11.05 at Jarbidge on the
20 percent worst days by 2018.
However, there is no regulatory
requirement for NDEP to demonstrate in
the Progress Report that Nevada will
meet the RPG. Rather, the purpose of a
Progress Report is to ‘‘evaluat[e]
progress towards the [RPG]’’ 13 by
providing specific types of data and
analyses concerning visibility
conditions and emissions and to make
a determination of adequacy under 40
CFR 51.308(h), based on this
information. If a state determines that
the implementation plan is inadequate
to ensure reasonable progress due to
emissions from sources within that
state, it is required to revise its SIP
within one year to address the issue.
Our proposal evaluated the Progress
Report with respect to each of the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
(h), and concluded that it was adequate.
The NGOs’ comment has not provided
any new information or data that would
change our proposed approval of the
Progress Report as meeting these
requirements.
We also do not agree with the
commenters that it was improper for the
State to rely on emission reductions
from power generating stations that are
not located near Jarbidge in making its
declaration. The Regional Haze Rule
requires progress reports to include a
‘‘summary of emission reductions’’ and
specifically refers to such reductions as
a relevant consideration in determining
whether substantive revision to the SIP
is required.14 Such consideration is not
limited to those emissions that have
been demonstrated to affect in-state
Class I areas. Rather, the Regional Haze
Rule expressly requires progress reports
to consider ‘‘each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State,
which may be affected by emissions
from within the State.’’ 15 Therefore, it
was appropriate for the State to consider
all emissions reductions within the
State that could affect any in-state or
out-of-state Class I Federal area. In this
case, we find that NDEP appropriately
took into account emission reductions
throughout the State. Thus, the
comment letter does not provide any
basis for us to change our proposed
finding that the Progress Report
complies with the requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h) and (i) and that
NDEP is not required to make any
substantive revisions to the Nevada
Regional Haze SIP at this time.
Comment: The NGOs’ second
comment contends that the 11.05 dv
10 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Aug 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
13 40
CFR 51.308(g).
CFR 51.308(g)(2) and (h)(1).
15 40 CFR 51.308(g).
14 40
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RPG for the 20 percent worst days at
Jarbidge was based on flawed modeling
and preliminary emissions projections
for 2018, rather than later, updated
projections. The commenters assert that
the EPA is ignoring this issue and
thereby implying that Jarbidge will be
on the glide path ‘‘based on the
emission reductions that have occurred
and that will occur at Nevada sources in
the next few years.’’ The NGOs
commented that there is ‘‘no modeling
or other data demonstrating that that the
reduction of haze-forming pollution
from these sources will provide
sufficient and reasonable visibility
improvement at Jarbidge Wilderness
area.’’ The NGOs also requested that the
EPA ‘‘not allow NDEP to rely on an
unjustified and unsupported 2018
reasonable progress goal for the 20%
worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness.’’
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenter that the WRAP submitted
additional information in April 2011
relevant to the modeling that
established the 2018 RPG of 11.05 dv for
Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst days.
However, the regulations governing the
required contents for a Progress Report
do not include reviewing and revising
RPGs, and the NGOs have not provided
any citation to such a requirement for an
approvable Progress Report. The RPGs
for Jarbidge were established in
Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP. The EPA
approved the Nevada Regional Haze SIP
in 2012, and in doing so approved the
RPG of 11.05 dv on the 20 percent worst
days for Jarbidge.16 In our proposed
approval, we noted that ‘‘the EPA
addressed the uncertainties associated
with modeled projections by making the
RPG an analytic tool for the purpose of
evaluating progress, not an enforceable
standard.’’ 17 We then concluded that
the WRAP modeling correction and
revisions to emissions projections did
not require NDEP to withdraw and
revise its Regional Haze SIP after it had
already been adopted and submitted.
The commenter has not pointed to any
basis for us to reconsider this
determination at this time. Furthermore,
if NDEP had revised the RPG to 11.82
dv to reflect the WRAP modeling
correction, the monitoring data at
Jarbidge would be assessed relative to a
lower amount of progress, so Jarbidge
would now be closer to achieving the
RPG.
We also agree with the commenter
that there is uncertainty regarding what
16 See 76 FR 36450, 36465 (June 22, 2011)
(proposed approval); 77 FR 17334, 17339 (March
26, 2012) (final approval).
17 Id. at 36464 (citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v) and
64 FR 35733).
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the ultimate effect of recent emissions
reductions on visibility conditions at
Jarbidge will be as of 2018. However,
contrary to the commenter’s suggestion,
in the context of the Progress Report,
there is no requirement for NDEP or the
EPA to conduct modeling to evaluate
whether these emissions reductions are
sufficient for Jarbidge to be on the glide
path (i.e., to achieve natural conditions
by 2064) or to meet the 2018 RPG for the
20 percent worst days. Thus, we do not
agree with the commenter that NDEP is
improperly ‘‘rely[ing]’’ on the existing
2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days
at Jarbidge. Rather, in its Progress
Report, NDEP has used this approved
2018 RPG as a benchmark for measuring
progress that has occurred to date, as
required by the Regional Haze Rule.18
Comment: The NGOs’ comment letter
asserts that the visibility impact of
wildfires does not exempt NDEP from
adopting measures to address
contributions from stationary and area
emissions sources that may be affecting
visibility impairment at Jarbidge.19 The
comment letter claims specifically that
the North Valmy Generating Station
(NVGS) should have been evaluated to
determine if reasonable progress
controls were required because it is
located 160 kilometers from Jarbidge
and emits SO2 and NOX without modern
pollution controls. The comment letter
contrasts the emissions from NVGS to
the projected emissions from Ely Energy
Center, a proposed new facility that was
analyzed for visibility impact but was
not constructed. The commenters
suggested that, since the Ely Energy
Center was projected to have an impact
on Jarbidge, NVGS likely also has an
impact on Jarbidge. The comment letter
faults NDEP for failing to require
reasonable progress controls at NVGS.
The NGOs also state that NDEP should
use ‘‘appropriate regulatory tools’’ to
minimize emissions from oil and gas
development in Nevada.
Response: The EPA agrees that
wildfire emissions do not ‘‘exempt’’
NDEP from requirements to address
anthropogenic pollution, but we find
that NDEP has met the applicable
requirements for a Progress Report.
Specifically, NDEP established in its
Progress Report that progress toward
achieving the RPG of 11.05 dv at
Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst days by
2018 has not been impeded by any
significant anthropogenic emission
18 See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(g) (requiring submittal
of ‘‘a report . . . evaluating progress towards the
reasonable progress goal’’).
19 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Aug 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
changes within or outside the State.20
NDEP reached this conclusion by
evaluating significant emission
decreases from stationary sources
within Nevada, the effect of emissions
from sources outside of Nevada on
Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada’s
emissions on nearby Class I Federal
areas that are outside of Nevada. In the
Progress Report, NDEP documented a
substantial reduction in anthropogenic
emissions from stationary sources 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.
NDEP also demonstrated that relative to
contributions from Idaho, Oregon, and
sources outside the U.S. (Outside
Domain), Nevada’s overall stationary
source contribution to visibility
impairment at Jarbidge is small on the
20 percent worst days.21
With regard to NVGS, we note that in
the EPA’s approval of the Nevada
Regional Haze SIP, we determined that
NDEP had reasonably weighed the cost
of additional emissions controls against
the potential benefits and concluded
that additional controls were not
warranted for non-BART sources such
as NVGS during the first planning
period. NDEP would only be required to
revisit this conclusion during this first
planning period if it had determined
that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP ‘‘is
or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress due to emissions
from sources within the State’’ under 40
CFR 51.308(h)(4). However, as
discussed elsewhere in this document,
NDEP instead made a well-supported
declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1),
and the EPA is approving this
declaration. One of the elements of the
State’s analysis supporting its negative
declaration was its showing that the
overall lack of improvement on the 20
percent worst days at Jarbidge has been
largely due to non-anthropogenic
pollutants and out-of-state emissions,
rather than to emissions of SO2 and NOX
from anthropogenic sources such as
NVGS. For example, in the 2008–2012
time period (the most recent data
provided in the Progress Report),
nitrates and sulfates accounted for 3.5
percent and 15.1 percent of total
extinction on the 20 percent worst days
respectively.22 Furthermore, source
apportionment modeling indicates that
the majority of this extinction is from
20 Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report,
Chapter Six—Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress (40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)).
21 Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan, October 2009, Chapter 4, Table 4–5.
22 Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report
Table 4–4.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37023
out-of-state sources, rather than in-state
sources such as NVGS.23 Thus,
additional emission reductions from
sources such as NVGS would have
relatively little effect on progress toward
the RPG for the 20 percent worst days
for this first planning period.24
Accordingly, NDEP is not required to reevaluate controls on non-BART sources
such as NVGS for the first planning
period. NDEP will be required to
evaluate such controls in developing its
Regional Haze SIP for the next planning
period.
Comment: The NGOs’ comment letter
concludes that the EPA ‘‘must require
NDEP to evaluate and adopt measures to
ensure the Jarbidge Wilderness achieves
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4) and no later
than the revised regional haze plan due
in 2018.’’ Specifically, the NGOs are
requesting that the EPA:
(1) Find that NDEP’s [RPG] for the 20
percent worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness
is not based on a proper modeling analysis;
(2) Establish a more realistic RPG goal, a
goal based on proper modeling and planned
emission reduction requirements required
under the Nevada regional haze plan and
state law. A proper goal would show that
visibility is not expected to improve at the
Jarbidge Wilderness in a manner consistent
with achieving natural background visibility
by 2064; and
(3) Ensure that NDEP evaluates and adopts
additional measures to achieve reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal
at the Jarbidge Wilderness.25
Response: The EPA’s role is to review
progress reports as they are submitted
by the states and to either approve or
disapprove the reports based on their
compliance with the requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule. There is no
requirement or basis for the EPA to
reassess or revise the RPGs for Jarbidge
as part of our review of NDEP’s Progress
Report. Furthermore, as explained in
our prior responses, nothing in the
Regional Haze Rule requires NDEP to
adopt additional reasonable progress
measures based solely on the fact that
Jarbidge will not necessarily meet its
2018 RPG for the worst 20 percent days
23 Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan, October 2009, Chapter 4, Tables 4–5 and 4–
6.
24 We note that in the recent revisions to the
Regional Haze Rule, the EPA finalized a
requirement that states select the 20 percent most
impaired days, i.e., the days with the most
impairment from anthropogenic sources, as the
‘‘worst’’ days in SIPs and in progress reports. See
82 FR 3103 (January 10, 2017) (codified at 40 CFR
51.301). Thus, we expect that in the next planning
period, anthropogenic sources such as NVGS will
have a larger influence on the worst days at
Jarbidge.
25 NGOs’ Comment Letter at p. 6–7.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
37024
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
or based solely on the fact that Jarbidge
is not on the glide path. The Progress
Report complies with all applicable
requirements and contains a reasoned
justification for determining that the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is adequate
without additional measures. NDEP will
undertake a new round of planning in
the next few years, at which time it will
be required to evaluate additional
control measures and set new RPGs for
Jarbidge for the next planning period
based on updated, current information,
including new emissions inventories
and modeling.
Anonymous Comments
Comment: Two anonymous
commenters requested that the EPA
‘‘require the best possible reductions in
air pollution from Rocky Mountain
Power’s coal plants’’ via its action on
Utah’s Regional Haze plan.
Response: These comments appear to
be misdirected and are not relevant to
the current rulemaking action. The EPA
took final action on the Utah Regional
Haze plan on July 5, 2016.26
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
III. Summary of Final Action
The EPA is taking final action to
approve the Nevada Regional Haze Plan
5-Year Progress Report submitted to the
EPA on November 18, 2014, as meeting
the applicable Regional Haze Rule
requirements as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g), (h), and (i). In addition, we
are re-codifying our prior approval of
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP in order
to correct its location within 40 CFR
52.1470(e). This recodification has no
effect on the substantive content of the
Nevada SIP.
IV. 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.27
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
26 81
FR 43894.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Aug 07, 2017
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
27 42
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 10, 2017.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
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.
Dated: July 24, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD—Nevada
2. Section 52.1470, paragraph (e), the
table is amended by:
■ a. Removing the last entry ‘‘Nevada
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (October 2009), excluding the
BART determination for NOX at Reid
Gardner Generating Station in sections
5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2, which EPA has
disapproved’’; and
■ b. Adding, under the heading ‘‘Air
Quality Implementation Plan for the
State of Nevada’’ two entries before the
entry ‘‘Small Business Stationary Source
Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program’’.
The addition reads as follows:
■
§ 52.1470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
*
*
37025
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
Name of SIP provision
State submittal
date
EPA
approval
date
Explanation
Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 1
*
*
Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (October 2009), excluding
the BART determination for NOX at
Reid Gardner Generating Station in
sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2, which
the EPA has disapproved.
Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-Year
Progress Report.
*
*
State-wide ..............
*
11/18/09
State-wide ..............
11/18/2014
*
*
*
*
77 FR 50936 (8/23/
12).
*
*
Excluding Appendix A (‘‘Nevada BART
Regulation’’). The Nevada BART regulation, including NAC 445B.029,
445B.22095, and 445B.22096, is listed above in 40 CFR 52.1470(c).
[Insert Federal
Register citation], 8/8/2017.
*
*
*
1 The
organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada’s original 1972 SIP, which was divided into 12
sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans, are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small
Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or
quasi-regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR 52.1470(c).
3. Section 52.1488 is amended by
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1488
Visibility protection.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Approval. On November 18, 2014,
the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection submitted the ‘‘Nevada
Regional Haze Plan 5-Year Progress
Report’’ (‘‘Progress Report’’). The
Progress Report meets the requirements
of the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR
51.308.
[FR Doc. 2017–16491 Filed 8–7–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0067; FRL–9965–67–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approvals, Idaho: Logan Utah/
Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to
Idaho’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted in 2012 and 2014 to address
Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for
the Idaho portion of the Logan, UtahIdaho fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
nonattainment area (Logan UT–ID area).
Based on newly available air quality
monitoring data, the EPA is approving
Idaho’s attainment demonstration and
approving Idaho’s 2014 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) as early
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Aug 07, 2017
Jkt 241001
progress budgets. Additionally, the EPA
is conditionally approving Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP), Quantitative
Milestones (QMs), and revised MVEBs
for the Idaho portion of the
nonattainment area, based on Idaho’s
commitment to adopt and submit
updates to these attainment plan
elements within one year of the effective
date of this final action.
DATES: This final rule is effective
September 7, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0067. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and is publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at EPA
Region 10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air
and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
98101; telephone number: (206) 553–
0256; email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background Information
On June 1, 2017, the EPA proposed to
approve Idaho’s attainment
demonstration and 2014 MVEBs as early
progress budgets (82 FR 25208). As part
of the same action, the EPA also
proposed to conditionally approve RFP,
QMs, and revised MVEBs for the Idaho
portion of the nonattainment area. An
explanation of the CAA requirements, a
detailed analysis of the submittals, and
the EPA’s reasons for proposing
approval were provided in the notice of
proposed rulemaking, and will not be
restated here. The public comment
period for the proposal ended July 3,
2017. We received no comments.
II. Final Action
For the reasons set forth in the
proposed rulemaking for this action, the
EPA is approving the attainment
demonstration in Idaho’s 2012 and 2014
revisions to the SIP (Idaho attainment
plan) for the Idaho portion of the Logan
UT–ID area. The EPA is also approving
the 2014 MVEBs as early progress
budgets, in that they are consistent with
making progress toward attainment of
the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards by
December 31, 2015. Lastly, the EPA is
conditionally approving RFP, QMs, and
revised MVEBs in the Idaho attainment
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37020-37025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316; FRL-9964-74-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada;
Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The
revision consists of the ``Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress
Report'' that addresses Regional Haze Rule requirements under the Clean
Air Act to document progress towards achieving visibility goals by 2018
in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and nearby states. The EPA is taking
final action to approve Nevada's determination that the regional haze
requirements in the existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP do not require
any substantive revision at this time.
DATES: This rule is effective September 7, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be
available at either location (e.g., confidential business information).
To inspect the hard copy materials that are publicly available, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed directly below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Krishna Viswanathan may be reached at (520) 999-7880 or
viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Summary of Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview of Proposed Action
The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP or ``the
State'') submitted the Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
(``Progress Report'') to the EPA on November 18, 2014, to satisfy the
Regional Haze Rule requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and
(i). As described in our proposal, NDEP has demonstrated in its
Progress Report that the emission control measures in the existing
Nevada Regional Haze SIP are adequate to make progress towards the
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and
in nearby states that may be affected by emissions from sources in
Nevada without requiring any substantive revisions to the Nevada
Regional Haze SIP. Our proposal discussed each element required under
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) for an approvable progress report,
summarized how the Progress Report addressed each element, and provided
our evaluation of the adequacy of the Progress Report for each element.
Please refer to our proposed rule for background information on the
Regional Haze Rule, the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, and the specific
requirements for progress reports.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
We received comment letters on our proposed approval of the
Progress Report from NDEP,\1\ the Sierra Club jointly with the National
Parks Conservation Association (``NGOs''),\2\ and two additional,
anonymous commenters.\3\ The following discussion contains our summary
of the comments and our response to each significant comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Jeffrey Kinger (NDEP) to Vijay Limaye (EPA)
(October 19, 2015).
\2\ Letter from Gloria D. Smith (Sierra Club) and Stephanie
Kodish (NPCA) to Vijay Limaye (EPA) (October 19, 2015)(``NGOs'
Comment Letter'').
\3\ See Comments EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316-0070 and EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0316-0073 in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments From NDEP
Comment: NDEP commented that the EPA's characterization of the
retirement of Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) units 1, 2 and 3
and Tracy Generating Station units 1 and 2, as well as switching of
several units at Tracy and Fort Churchill Generating Stations to
natural gas as ``largely in response to Senate Bill (SB) 123 (2013
Legislative Session)'' was not accurate. NDEP commented that the
retirement of units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS was a response to
[[Page 37021]]
Nevada Senate Bill 123, but that the other facilities undertook
retirement or fuel switching to comply with Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) requirements.
Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The
clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval of the
Progress Report.
Comment: NDEP requested that the EPA rescind the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for RGGS as part of our final rulemaking on
the Progress Report because units 1, 2 and 3 of RGGS permanently shut
down in 2014.
Response: The EPA intends to rescind the FIP applicable to units 1,
2 and 3 of RGGS in a separate action.
Comment: NDEP commented on Table 5, which mistakenly referenced
Table 4-2 from the Progress Report rather than Table 4-4, and the last
paragraph on 80 FR at 55811, which incorrectly cited the range of
annual sulfate averages as ``4.10 to 50.5 percent'' rather than ``41.0
to 50.5 percent.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges these corrections. The corrections
do not have any effect on our proposed approval of the Progress Report.
Comment: NDEP commented that in the third paragraph of the EPA's
proposed rulemaking, the EPA states that NDEP attributed the large
contribution from particulate organic matter (POM) on the worst days at
the Jarbidge Wilderness Area (``Jarbidge'') mostly to wildfires and
windblown dust, while NDEP itself attributes POM largely to emissions
from wildfires.
Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The
clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval.
Comment: NDEP expressed support for the EPA's proposal to approve
NDEP's determination that its Nevada Regional Haze SIP requires no
substantive revisions at this time, given the demonstrated improvement
to nitrate and sulfate visibility impairment.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment.
Comments From the NGOs
Comment: The NGOs asserted that ``NDEP's and EPA's findings that
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP is adequate to show reasonable progress
for Jarbidge towards the national visibility goal are not supported.''
The commenters noted that the preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule
explains that a state may submit a declaration under 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1) ``if the state finds that the emission management measures
in the SIP are being implemented on schedule, and visibility
improvement appears to be consistent with reasonable progress goals.''
\4\ The commenter noted that NDEP proposed such a declaration, and that
the EPA had proposed to concur with the State's declaration, despite
the fact that visibility improvement at Jarbidge was not improving at a
rate consistent with achieving NDEP's 2018 RPG. The commenter also
noted that NDEP's RPG for the worst days at Jarbidge was based on
modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) that
was subsequently found to be in error and that revised modeling
predicts 2018 visibility impacts for the worst days at Jarbidge that
are not on the ``glide path'' towards the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 64 FR 35747 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: Initially, we note that, while the commenters refer to
``the national visibility goal'' (i.e., 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'' \5\), their primary concern appears to be progress
toward the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. The EPA
agrees that the Progress Report does not demonstrate that visibility
conditions at Jarbidge will necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 deciviews
(dv) on the 20 percent worst days by 2018. The EPA acknowledged this
fact in our proposal to approve the Progress Report. We stated that the
visibility conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the 20 percent worst
days for Jarbidge were relatively flat or only slightly improving.
However, this fact does not preclude NDEP from making a declaration
under Sec. 51.301(h)(1). The statement in the preamble to the 1999
Regional Haze Rule described one possible basis for such a declaration
that may be the most concise in certain situations, but was not a
statement of the only possible basis. Rather, the Regional Haze Rule
itself allows a state to submit a declaration if, ``based upon the
information presented in the progress report . . . the State determines
that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive
revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for
visibility improvement and emissions reductions . . .'' \6\ In this
instance, NDEP presented information in the Progress Report that
establishes that the overall lack of progress in monitored visibility
conditions on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge is not due to a
flaw in the SIP itself, but due in large part to extrinsic factors, as
described below, that could not be addressed through a substantive
revision to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
\6\ 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, as explained in our proposal, the Progress Report
demonstrates that current (i.e., 2008-2012) visibility conditions on
the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are strongly influenced by light
extinction due to POM, which derives primarily from natural sources, as
well as coarse particulate mass, which partially derives from natural
sources.\7\ POM was the largest contributor to light extinction on the
20 percent worst days in each of the 5-year periods from the baseline
to current time period, accounting for 35.5 to 43.0 percent of
extinction, followed by coarse particulate mass (21.9 to 26.1 percent),
and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0 percent). Furthermore, over the course of the
progress period there was a significant increase in extinction from POM
(1.1 dv) and a small increase in extinction from coarse particulate
mass. By contrast, there were small decreases in extinction from
sulfate and nitrate (which derive primarily from anthropogenic
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX)).\8\ Thus, the overall lack of improvement in
monitored visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days at
Jarbidge is largely attributable to an increase in extinction from non-
anthropogenic pollutants, which could not be remedied by a revision to
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 80 FR 55811.
\8\ 80 FR 55812, Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to demonstrating the large influence of non-
anthropogenic pollutants, the Progress Report also establishes the
significant impact of out-of-state sources on Jarbidge. In particular,
the Progress Report refers to source apportionment modeling performed
by the WRAP to evaluate source areas that contribute to sulfate and
nitrate extinction on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. As noted
in our proposal, this modeling indicated that the Outside Domain source
category (i.e., the background concentrations of pollutants from
international sources) was expected to contribute 43.8 percent of the
modeled sulfate and 27.5 percent of the modeled nitrate at Jarbidge in
2018.\9\ The WRAP source apportionment modeling also indicated that
emissions from upwind states, particularly Idaho and Oregon, also
contribute substantially to visibility impairment at Jarbidge. As with
non-anthropogenic emissions, these out-of-
[[Page 37022]]
state emissions could not be directly addressed through a revision to
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. While NDEP could potentially have
provided notification concerning these out-of-state emissions under 40
CFR 51.308(h)(2) and/or (h)(3), we find it was reasonable for the State
not to have done so, given that the overall contributions of sulfate
and nitrate on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are modest and
have declined since the baseline period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 80 FR 55816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with regard to the modeling underlying the 2018 RPG, as
explained in response to a similar comment below, no revision to the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is required to address the WRAP modeling
correction noted by the commenters. For these reasons, and taking into
consideration the large reductions in anthropogenic emissions of
SO2 and NOX already achieved in Nevada during
this planning period,\10\ we find that the State has adequately
supported its determination that no further substantive revision to the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is needed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 80 FR 55810 for a summary of these reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The NGOs reiterated that visibility improvement at
Jarbidge is not consistent with NDEP's 2018 RPG for the 20 percent
worst days.\11\ The commenters also criticized NDEP's reliance in its
declaration on emission reductions from units that have shut down or
converted to natural gas at the Mohave, Reid Gardner, Tracy and Fort
Churchill generating stations because those units affect Class I
Federal areas in other states, rather than Jarbidge. The NGOs noted
that NDEP did not provide modeling to evaluate the impact of these
emissions reductions on visibility at Jarbidge and asserted that data
from the IMPROVE monitors at Jarbidge do not demonstrate a significant
improvement in visibility on the 20 percent worst days. The comment
concluded that, ``visibility on the 20 percent worst days at the
Jarbidge Class I area is not improving in a manner consistent with
Nevada's 2018 [RPG] of 11.05 [dv] for the 20 percent worst days, and .
. . emission reductions from the Reid Gardner, Tracy, and Fort
Churchill power plants are not likely to ensure the Jarbidge Wilderness
achieves the 11.05 dv [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days by 2018.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 2.
\12\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As noted previously, the EPA agrees that the Progress
Report does not demonstrate that visibility conditions at Jarbidge will
necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 at Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst
days by 2018. However, there is no regulatory requirement for NDEP to
demonstrate in the Progress Report that Nevada will meet the RPG.
Rather, the purpose of a Progress Report is to ``evaluat[e] progress
towards the [RPG]'' \13\ by providing specific types of data and
analyses concerning visibility conditions and emissions and to make a
determination of adequacy under 40 CFR 51.308(h), based on this
information. If a state determines that the implementation plan is
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources
within that state, it is required to revise its SIP within one year to
address the issue. Our proposal evaluated the Progress Report with
respect to each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), and
concluded that it was adequate. The NGOs' comment has not provided any
new information or data that would change our proposed approval of the
Progress Report as meeting these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also do not agree with the commenters that it was improper for
the State to rely on emission reductions from power generating stations
that are not located near Jarbidge in making its declaration. The
Regional Haze Rule requires progress reports to include a ``summary of
emission reductions'' and specifically refers to such reductions as a
relevant consideration in determining whether substantive revision to
the SIP is required.\14\ Such consideration is not limited to those
emissions that have been demonstrated to affect in-state Class I areas.
Rather, the Regional Haze Rule expressly requires progress reports to
consider ``each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the
State, which may be affected by emissions from within the State.'' \15\
Therefore, it was appropriate for the State to consider all emissions
reductions within the State that could affect any in-state or out-of-
state Class I Federal area. In this case, we find that NDEP
appropriately took into account emission reductions throughout the
State. Thus, the comment letter does not provide any basis for us to
change our proposed finding that the Progress Report complies with the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h) and (i) and that NDEP is not
required to make any substantive revisions to the Nevada Regional Haze
SIP at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) and (h)(1).
\15\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The NGOs' second comment contends that the 11.05 dv RPG
for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge was based on flawed modeling
and preliminary emissions projections for 2018, rather than later,
updated projections. The commenters assert that the EPA is ignoring
this issue and thereby implying that Jarbidge will be on the glide path
``based on the emission reductions that have occurred and that will
occur at Nevada sources in the next few years.'' The NGOs commented
that there is ``no modeling or other data demonstrating that that the
reduction of haze-forming pollution from these sources will provide
sufficient and reasonable visibility improvement at Jarbidge Wilderness
area.'' The NGOs also requested that the EPA ``not allow NDEP to rely
on an unjustified and unsupported 2018 reasonable progress goal for the
20% worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness.''
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the WRAP submitted
additional information in April 2011 relevant to the modeling that
established the 2018 RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge on the 20 percent
worst days. However, the regulations governing the required contents
for a Progress Report do not include reviewing and revising RPGs, and
the NGOs have not provided any citation to such a requirement for an
approvable Progress Report. The RPGs for Jarbidge were established in
Nevada's Regional Haze SIP. The EPA approved the Nevada Regional Haze
SIP in 2012, and in doing so approved the RPG of 11.05 dv on the 20
percent worst days for Jarbidge.\16\ In our proposed approval, we noted
that ``the EPA addressed the uncertainties associated with modeled
projections by making the RPG an analytic tool for the purpose of
evaluating progress, not an enforceable standard.'' \17\ We then
concluded that the WRAP modeling correction and revisions to emissions
projections did not require NDEP to withdraw and revise its Regional
Haze SIP after it had already been adopted and submitted. The commenter
has not pointed to any basis for us to reconsider this determination at
this time. Furthermore, if NDEP had revised the RPG to 11.82 dv to
reflect the WRAP modeling correction, the monitoring data at Jarbidge
would be assessed relative to a lower amount of progress, so Jarbidge
would now be closer to achieving the RPG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 76 FR 36450, 36465 (June 22, 2011) (proposed approval);
77 FR 17334, 17339 (March 26, 2012) (final approval).
\17\ Id. at 36464 (citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v) and 64 FR
35733).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also agree with the commenter that there is uncertainty
regarding what
[[Page 37023]]
the ultimate effect of recent emissions reductions on visibility
conditions at Jarbidge will be as of 2018. However, contrary to the
commenter's suggestion, in the context of the Progress Report, there is
no requirement for NDEP or the EPA to conduct modeling to evaluate
whether these emissions reductions are sufficient for Jarbidge to be on
the glide path (i.e., to achieve natural conditions by 2064) or to meet
the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days. Thus, we do not agree with
the commenter that NDEP is improperly ``rely[ing]'' on the existing
2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. Rather, in its
Progress Report, NDEP has used this approved 2018 RPG as a benchmark
for measuring progress that has occurred to date, as required by the
Regional Haze Rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(g) (requiring submittal of ``a
report . . . evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress
goal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The NGOs' comment letter asserts that the visibility
impact of wildfires does not exempt NDEP from adopting measures to
address contributions from stationary and area emissions sources that
may be affecting visibility impairment at Jarbidge.\19\ The comment
letter claims specifically that the North Valmy Generating Station
(NVGS) should have been evaluated to determine if reasonable progress
controls were required because it is located 160 kilometers from
Jarbidge and emits SO2 and NOX without modern
pollution controls. The comment letter contrasts the emissions from
NVGS to the projected emissions from Ely Energy Center, a proposed new
facility that was analyzed for visibility impact but was not
constructed. The commenters suggested that, since the Ely Energy Center
was projected to have an impact on Jarbidge, NVGS likely also has an
impact on Jarbidge. The comment letter faults NDEP for failing to
require reasonable progress controls at NVGS. The NGOs also state that
NDEP should use ``appropriate regulatory tools'' to minimize emissions
from oil and gas development in Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA agrees that wildfire emissions do not ``exempt''
NDEP from requirements to address anthropogenic pollution, but we find
that NDEP has met the applicable requirements for a Progress Report.
Specifically, NDEP established in its Progress Report that progress
toward achieving the RPG of 11.05 dv at Jarbidge on the 20 percent
worst days by 2018 has not been impeded by any significant
anthropogenic emission changes within or outside the State.\20\ NDEP
reached this conclusion by evaluating significant emission decreases
from stationary sources within Nevada, the effect of emissions from
sources outside of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada's
emissions on nearby Class I Federal areas that are outside of Nevada.
In the Progress Report, NDEP documented a substantial reduction in
anthropogenic emissions from stationary sources 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. NDEP
also demonstrated that relative to contributions from Idaho, Oregon,
and sources outside the U.S. (Outside Domain), Nevada's overall
stationary source contribution to visibility impairment at Jarbidge is
small on the 20 percent worst days.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report, Chapter Six--
Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress (40 CFR
51.308(g)(5)).
\21\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October
2009, Chapter 4, Table 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to NVGS, we note that in the EPA's approval of the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP, we determined that NDEP had reasonably
weighed the cost of additional emissions controls against the potential
benefits and concluded that additional controls were not warranted for
non-BART sources such as NVGS during the first planning period. NDEP
would only be required to revisit this conclusion during this first
planning period if it had determined that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP
``is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to
emissions from sources within the State'' under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4).
However, as discussed elsewhere in this document, NDEP instead made a
well-supported declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), and the EPA is
approving this declaration. One of the elements of the State's analysis
supporting its negative declaration was its showing that the overall
lack of improvement on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge has been
largely due to non-anthropogenic pollutants and out-of-state emissions,
rather than to emissions of SO2 and NOX from
anthropogenic sources such as NVGS. For example, in the 2008-2012 time
period (the most recent data provided in the Progress Report), nitrates
and sulfates accounted for 3.5 percent and 15.1 percent of total
extinction on the 20 percent worst days respectively.\22\ Furthermore,
source apportionment modeling indicates that the majority of this
extinction is from out-of-state sources, rather than in-state sources
such as NVGS.\23\ Thus, additional emission reductions from sources
such as NVGS would have relatively little effect on progress toward the
RPG for the 20 percent worst days for this first planning period.\24\
Accordingly, NDEP is not required to re-evaluate controls on non-BART
sources such as NVGS for the first planning period. NDEP will be
required to evaluate such controls in developing its Regional Haze SIP
for the next planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report Table 4-4.
\23\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October
2009, Chapter 4, Tables 4-5 and 4-6.
\24\ We note that in the recent revisions to the Regional Haze
Rule, the EPA finalized a requirement that states select the 20
percent most impaired days, i.e., the days with the most impairment
from anthropogenic sources, as the ``worst'' days in SIPs and in
progress reports. See 82 FR 3103 (January 10, 2017) (codified at 40
CFR 51.301). Thus, we expect that in the next planning period,
anthropogenic sources such as NVGS will have a larger influence on
the worst days at Jarbidge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The NGOs' comment letter concludes that the EPA ``must
require NDEP to evaluate and adopt measures to ensure the Jarbidge
Wilderness achieves reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4) and no later than the
revised regional haze plan due in 2018.'' Specifically, the NGOs are
requesting that the EPA:
(1) Find that NDEP's [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days at the
Jarbidge Wilderness is not based on a proper modeling analysis;
(2) Establish a more realistic RPG goal, a goal based on proper
modeling and planned emission reduction requirements required under
the Nevada regional haze plan and state law. A proper goal would
show that visibility is not expected to improve at the Jarbidge
Wilderness in a manner consistent with achieving natural background
visibility by 2064; and
(3) Ensure that NDEP evaluates and adopts additional measures to
achieve reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal at
the Jarbidge Wilderness.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 6-7.
Response: The EPA's role is to review progress reports as they are
submitted by the states and to either approve or disapprove the reports
based on their compliance with the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule. There is no requirement or basis for the EPA to reassess or
revise the RPGs for Jarbidge as part of our review of NDEP's Progress
Report. Furthermore, as explained in our prior responses, nothing in
the Regional Haze Rule requires NDEP to adopt additional reasonable
progress measures based solely on the fact that Jarbidge will not
necessarily meet its 2018 RPG for the worst 20 percent days
[[Page 37024]]
or based solely on the fact that Jarbidge is not on the glide path. The
Progress Report complies with all applicable requirements and contains
a reasoned justification for determining that the Nevada Regional Haze
SIP is adequate without additional measures. NDEP will undertake a new
round of planning in the next few years, at which time it will be
required to evaluate additional control measures and set new RPGs for
Jarbidge for the next planning period based on updated, current
information, including new emissions inventories and modeling.
Anonymous Comments
Comment: Two anonymous commenters requested that the EPA ``require
the best possible reductions in air pollution from Rocky Mountain
Power's coal plants'' via its action on Utah's Regional Haze plan.
Response: These comments appear to be misdirected and are not
relevant to the current rulemaking action. The EPA took final action on
the Utah Regional Haze plan on July 5, 2016.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 81 FR 43894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Final Action
The EPA is taking final action to approve the Nevada Regional Haze
Plan 5-Year Progress Report submitted to the EPA on November 18, 2014,
as meeting the applicable Regional Haze Rule requirements as set forth
in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). In addition, we are re-codifying our
prior approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP in order to correct its
location within 40 CFR 52.1470(e). This recodification has no effect on
the substantive content of the Nevada SIP.
IV. 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.\27\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 10, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
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.
Dated: July 24, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD--Nevada
0
2. Section 52.1470, paragraph (e), the table is amended by:
0
a. Removing the last entry ``Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (October 2009), excluding the BART determination for
NOX at Reid Gardner Generating Station in sections 5.5.3,
5.6.3 and 7.2, which EPA has disapproved''; and
0
b. Adding, under the heading ``Air Quality Implementation Plan for the
State of Nevada'' two entries before the entry ``Small Business
Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance
Program''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 52.1470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 37025]]
EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Nevada Regional Haze State State-wide........ 11/18/09 77 FR 50936 (8/23/ Excluding Appendix A
Implementation Plan (October 12). (``Nevada BART
2009), excluding the BART Regulation''). The
determination for NOX at Reid Nevada BART
Gardner Generating Station in regulation, including
sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2, NAC 445B.029,
which the EPA has disapproved. 445B.22095, and
445B.22096, is listed
above in 40 CFR
52.1470(c).
Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5- State-wide........ 11/18/2014 [Insert Federal .......................
Year Progress Report. Register
citation], 8/8/
2017.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada's original
1972 SIP, which was divided into 12 sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans,
are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small Business Stationary Source Technical and
Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or quasi-
regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR
52.1470(c).
0
3. Section 52.1488 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1488 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(g) Approval. On November 18, 2014, the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection submitted the ``Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-
Year Progress Report'' (``Progress Report''). The Progress Report meets
the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.
[FR Doc. 2017-16491 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P