[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36450-36468]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15238]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our,'' is used, we mean the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

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

I. State Submittals

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

II. Background

A. Description of Regional Haze

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

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

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

B. History of Regional Haze Regulations

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

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

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

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

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

 A. Regional Haze Rule

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

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

 B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions

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

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

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

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

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

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

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

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

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

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

E. Long-Term Strategy

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

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

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

G. Monitoring Strategy

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

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

H. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports

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

I. Coordination With Federal Land Managers

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

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

A. Affected Class I Areas

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

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

B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress

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

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

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

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

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

C. Nevada's Emissions Inventories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goal

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

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

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

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

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

G. Long-Term Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. Monitoring Strategy

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

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

I. State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

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

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports

    Nevada affirmed its commitment to submit a report to EPA every five
years evaluating progress toward the RPG for its Class I area as well
as Class I areas outside the State that may be affected by emissions
from within the State as required in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The first report
is due five years after the State's submittal, which is November 18,
2014. The required elements for these reports are listed in section III
of this notice.
    Nevada commits to making an adequacy determination of the current
SIP at the same time it submits the five-year progress report as
required in 40 CFR 51.308(h). If Nevada determines that the current
implementation plan is or may be inadequate due to emissions from
within the State, Nevada will develop additional strategies to address