[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17810-17818]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812; FRL-10006-85-Region 9]

Air Quality State Implementation Plan Approval; Nevada;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the remaining portion of a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Nevada. This revision addresses the
interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with
respect to the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In this action, the EPA
is proposing to determine that Nevada will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2014-0812 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3856<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA.
    Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
    A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
    B. Nevada's SIP Submittal
    C. The EPA's Evaluation of Prong 1--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
    D. The EPA's Evaluation of Prong 2--Interference With
Maintenance
III. Proposed Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for
SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or a shorter period as the EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which
the EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to
provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of
such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibility under the CAA. Section
110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of
individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. The content of the revisions proposed in SIP submissions
may also vary depending upon what provisions are already contained in
the state's approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2013, the State of Nevada submitted a revision to its
SIP addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with
respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (``2013 Nevada SIP
revision''). On November 3, 2015, the EPA partially approved and
partially disapproved portions of the 2013 Nevada SIP revision for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.\2\ However, at that time, the EPA did not
take action on the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate transport
portion of the 2013 Nevada SIP revision.\3\ The EPA is now proposing to
act on that portion of the 2013 Nevada SIP revision for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA's final rule (80 FR 67652) addressed all elements of
the three separate SIP submittals for 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen
oxides, and 2010 SO2, with the exception of interstate
transport requirements (prongs 1 and 2) for 2008 ozone, addressed in
a subsequent rulemaking (82 FR 9164, February 3, 2017), and prongs 1
and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for 2010
SO2 addressed in this proposal.
    \3\ In addition to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions for
SO2, the EPA did not act on the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions of Nevada's SIP submittal for the 2008
ozone NAAQS that was part of the same rulemaking. The EPA approved
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Nevada's submittal for the
2008 ozone NAAQS in a subsequent rulemaking, 82 FR 9164 (February 3,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport

A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states to include in their SIPs
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS). The EPA commonly refers to SIP revisions addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ``good neighbor SIPs'' or
``interstate transport SIPs.''
    The EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September
13, 2013 ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\4\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter, the EPA has addressed interstate
transport in eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking
actions that quantify state emissions reduction obligations.\5\ In
other actions, such as the EPA actions on western interstate transport
SIPs addressing ozone and particulate matter, the EPA has considered a
variety of factors on a case-by-case basis to make a weight of evidence
determination as to whether emissions from one state interfere with the
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In such
actions, the EPA has considered available information such as current
air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, and topography.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance was issued, the
EPA was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State
Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011), designed
to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7. The EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As
the EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP
guidance was issued, the EPA did not issue guidance specific to that
provision. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's
decision and remanded the case to that court for further review. 134
S.Ct. 1584 (2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a
decision upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for
reconsideration. 795 F.3d 118.
    \5\ See, e.g., NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27,
1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005);
CSAPR, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016).
    \6\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution;
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 14616, 14616-14626
(March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May
12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The EPA's Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport
Requirements of the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Nevada
    As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an
evaluation of any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state and how emissions from these source categories may impact air
quality in other states. The EPA believes that a reasonable starting
point for determining which sources and emissions activities in Nevada
are likely to impact downwind air quality with respect to the 2010
SO2 NAAQS is to use information in the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI).\7\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of
air emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors,
and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, that is
updated every three years using information provided by the states. At
the time of this proposed rulemaking, the most recently available
complete dataset is the 2014 NEI. The analysis in this proposed
rulemaking also relies on facility-reported emissions data, the most
recent of which is for 2017.\8\ In addition, our analysis uses trends
data, which the EPA prepares annually.\9\ Trends data include facility
reported emissions data and data extrapolated by the EPA from the most
recent NEI year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For additional information, see: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
    \8\ Data downloaded on October 9, 2019, from: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data, dataset: 2017NEI_Aug2019_PT, and contained in
the docket for this notice.
    \9\ State Annual Emission Trend data can be downloaded from
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Trends data does not include event emissions,
such as forest fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although SO2 is emitted from similar point and nonpoint
sources, as is

directly emitted fine particulate matter (PM2.5) \10\ and
the precursors to both ozone and PM2.5, interstate transport
of SO2 is unlike the transport of PM2.5 or ozone
because SO2 emissions sources usually do not have long range
SO2 impacts. The transport of SO2 relative to the
1-hour NAAQS is more analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative
to the Pb NAAQS in that emissions of SO2 typically result in
1-hour pollutant impacts of possible concern only near the emissions
source. However, ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not
decrease as quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average
concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2
typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Emitted
SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does
not have such wide-ranging impacts that its treatment in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. Accordingly,
while the approaches that the EPA has adopted for ozone or
PM2.5 transport would be too regionally focused for
SO2, the approach for Pb transport would be too tightly
circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is therefore a
unique case and requires a different approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Includes particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less
than or equal to 2.5 micrometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport
analyses, we focus on a 50 kilometer (km) wide zone because the
physical properties of SO2 result in relatively localized
pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance.
Given the properties of SO2, the EPA selected a spatial
scale with dimensions from four to 50 km from point sources--the
``urban scale''--to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might
impact downwind states.\11\ As discussed further in section III.B, the
EPA selected the urban scale as appropriate for assessing trends in
both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale
pollution control strategies at SO2 point sources. The EPA's
selection of this transport distance for SO2 is based upon
40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4), ``Urban scale'', which states
that measurements in this scale would be used to estimate
SO2 concentrations over large portions of an urban area with
dimensions from four to 50 km. The American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model is the EPA's preferred
modeling platform for regulatory purposes for near-field dispersion of
emissions for distances up to 50 km. (Appendix W of 40 CFR part
51).\12\ Thus, the EPA has applied the 50-km zone as a reasonable
distance to evaluate emissions source impacts into neighboring states
and to assess air quality monitors within 50 km of the State's border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA applies these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see the EPA's notice of proposed
rulemaking on Connecticut's SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR
21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 2017).
    \12\ The EPA provided non-binding technical assistance document
(i.e., ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical
Assistance Document'') to assist states and other parties in their
efforts to characterize air quality through air dispersion modeling
for sources that emit SO2. This draft document was first
released in spring 2013. Revised drafts were released in February
and August of 2016 (see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current implementation strategies for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS include the flexibility to characterize air
quality for stationary sources via either data collected at ambient air
quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum concentration,
or air dispersion modeling.\13\ The EPA's assessment of SO2
emissions from fuel combustion categories in Nevada and their potential
on neighboring states is informed by all available data at the time of
this rulemaking and include: SO2 ambient air quality;
SO2 emissions and emissions trends; SIP-approved regulations
that directly address SO2; and other SIP-approved
regulations, which may yield reductions of SO2. This notice
describes the EPA's weight of evidence evaluation of the 2013 Nevada
SIP revision to satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (80
FR 51052, August 21, 2015).
    \14\ The EPA notes that the evaluation of other states'
satisfaction of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS can be informed by similar factors found in
this proposed rulemaking but may not be identical to the approach
taken in this or any future rulemaking for Nevada, depending on
available information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Nevada's SIP Submittal

1. Administrative Requirements
    On June 3, 2013, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP) submitted to the EPA the 2013 Nevada SIP revision.\15\ The
submittal includes the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Letter dated June 3, 2013, from Colleen Cripps,
Administrator, NDEP, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Primary NAAQS, and appendices, June 3, 2013;
     State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Sulfur
Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sec.
110(a)(2), and attachments Clark County, Nevada, May 29, 2013;
     The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP
Requirements of Clean Air Act Sec.  110(a)(2), and attachments, March
28, 2013
    The submittal was deemed complete by operation of law on December
3, 2013.
    The Washoe and the NDEP portions of the submittal state that they
are not required to make submittals addressing the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and cite to a November 19, 2012 memo from
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, which outlined the EPA's intention to
abide by a 2012 D.C. Circuit decision.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A. 696 F.3d 7. The
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A. decision addressed CSAPR
promulgated by the EPA to address the interstate transport
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Among other things, the D.C. Circuit held
that states did not have an obligation to submit SIPs addressing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements as to
any NAAQS until the EPA first quantified each state's emissions
reduction obligation. On March 25, 2016, the Supreme Court reversed
the D.C. Circuit opinion, vacating the EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. E.P.A. decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite stating in the NDEP portion of the submittal that it was
not obligated to address the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the NDEP included Appendix C ``Interstate Transport
Analysis for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard'' (``Appendix C'' or ``transport analysis'') to
address the aforementioned CAA requirements.
2. The NDEP's Transport Analysis
    As the NDEP's portion of the submittal explains, the Clark County
Department of Air Quality (Clark County) and Washoe County Board of
Health (Washoe County) regulate air pollution within their respective
counties, with the exception of fossil-fuel-fired steam generators. The
NDEP regulates air pollution in all other counties of the State as well
as fossil-fuel-fired steam generators throughout the State, including
Clark County and Washoe County.
    The following summarizes the NDEP's rationale for concluding that
transport of SO2 from Nevada would not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with

maintenance, of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in other states.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See C-1 to C-9 (Appendix C) of the NDEP portion of the 2013
Nevada SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Summary of Nevada's transport analysis regarding nonattainment
receptors in contiguous states: Arizona and Utah.
    The NDEP's transport analysis cites Clean Air Status and Trends
Network (CASTNET) monitoring data in Nevada, Utah, Montana, Colorado,
and Arizona. CASTNET data measure air quality in areas where urban
influences are minimal, and, thus, are representative of regional
background levels of air pollution.\18\ According to the NDEP, average
weekly and seasonal SO2 concentrations from six national
parks and one national monument in Nevada, Utah, Montana, Colorado, and
Arizona were below 2 ppb from 2007 to 2012, ``indicating that the
regional SO2 background concentrations are relatively low,
which in turn implies that the bulk of the SO2 in the urban
receptor areas is locally generated and not a regional or transport
phenomenon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The NDEP reviewed CASTNET data at six national parks and
one national monument in: Nevada (Great Basin National Park), Utah
(Canyonlands National Park), Montana (Glacier National Park),
Colorado (Mesa Verde National Park), and Arizona (Grand Canyon
National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, and Chiricahua
National Monument).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nevada transport analysis further explains that Arizona's only
nonattainment receptors are the Hayden and Miami SO2
nonattainment planning areas, located in Gila County and Pinal County,
respectively. Total SO2 emissions from Gila and Pinal
counties were 29,470 tons from the 2008 NEI. The NDEP notes that
Nevada's nearest SO2 source, the recently closed Reid
Gardner Generating Station,\19\ is 305 miles (490 km) from the Miami
nonattainment area and 330 miles (530 km) from the Hayden nonattainment
area and emitted only 941 tons of SO2 in 2008, which, for
illustrative purposes, was about three percent of the SO2
emissions originating from the Miami and Hayden copper smelters.\20\
Additionally, the NDEP states that meteorological data show the
prevailing wind direction in the southern part of the State is from the
south-southwest blowing mainly north-northeast (indicating that winds
in Nevada are generally not blowing south-southeast from Nevada toward
Hayden and Miami in Arizona).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As discussed in the EPA's rescission of regional haze
federal implementation plan for the Reid Gardner Generating Station,
three of the Reid Gardner Generating Station's coal-fired boilers
ceased operation in 2014 and the fourth ceased operation in 2017.
See 83 FR 24952, May 31, 2018.
    \20\ This quantity was based on the 2008 NEI.
    \21\ Discussed at C-2 and documented in Figure C.1, Las Vegas,
Nevada, Wind Rose Plot, 2003-2011, of the 2013 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Utah, the NDEP states that Salt Lake and Tooele counties are
classified as nonattainment for the 24-hour and annual 1971
SO2 NAAQS, but that the counties have not violated those
NAAQS since 1981.\22\ The Nevada transport analysis concludes that no
areas in Utah are likely to exceed the 2010 NAAQS based on monitoring
data indicating that elevated SO2 levels in Salt Lake and
Tooele counties ceased decades ago, and CASTNET data demonstrating low
levels of regional background SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The entire state of Utah is attainment/unclassifiable for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, see https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=dab140f1447715b3662a38473ba7df7d&mc=true&node=se40.20.81_1345&rgn=div8 (last visited on May 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Summary of Nevada's transport analysis regarding attainment
areas in one contiguous western state: Arizona.
    Nevada's transport analysis identifies four maintenance areas for
the 1971 SO2 NAAQS in Arizona: The Ajo, Douglas, Morenci,
and San Manuel SO2 planning areas. In its analysis, Nevada
summarizes the approved maintenance plans for the areas and states that
copper smelters were historically the primary source of SO2
emissions. The transport analysis states that only one smelter, located
in the San Manuel SO2 maintenance area, remains operational
and that there have been no recorded monitoring violations of the
SO2 NAAQS in any of these areas since the mid-1980s.
    c. Summary of Nevada's transport analysis regarding nonattainment
and maintenance receptor areas in non-contiguous states: Missouri,
Montana, and New Mexico.
    Nevada's transport analysis also examined transport to
nonattainment receptors in Missouri and Montana and determined that
SO2 emissions from Nevada do not contribute to nonattainment
in those areas based on a comparison of the emissions inventories in
those states and Nevada, wind patterns, and the distance between those
states and Nevada.
    In addition, the Nevada transport analysis evaluated maintenance
receptors in New Mexico and determined that Nevada does not interfere
with maintenance in that state based on comparison of the emissions
inventories in New Mexico and Nevada, overall regional background
levels of SO2, and the distance between New Mexico and
Nevada.

C. The EPA's Evaluation of Prong 1--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. In order to evaluate whether Nevada met
prong 1 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA evaluated the 2013
Nevada SIP revision with respect to the following two factors: (1)
SO2 ambient air quality in Nevada and neighboring states;
and (2) SO2 emissions sources in Nevada and neighboring
states. Based on the detailed discussion of these factors below, the
EPA proposes to find that Nevada's SIP meets the interstate transport
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1, for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
1. SO2 Ambient Air Quality in Nevada and Neighboring States
    First, the EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in Nevada and
neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites with
elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further
investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2
from emissions sources near any given monitor. As shown in Table 1,
there are no violating design values \23\ between 2014 and 2018 in
Nevada or neighboring states apart from monitors located in the Hayden
and Miami nonattainment areas in Arizona.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The 2010 l-hour SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient
air quality monitoring site when the three-year average of the
annual (99th percentile) of the daily maximum l-hour average
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. This metric is
referred to as a ``design value'' (in this document referred to as
the ``SO2 l-hour design value''). The EPA's data handling
conventions and computations necessary for determining compliance
with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS are provided in 40 CFR
part 50, appendix T.
    \24\ Data for Table 1 is contained in the docket for this
notice. See SO2 monitor report 2018.pdf, SO2
monitor report 2017.pdf, and SO2 monitor report 2016.pdf.

                                              Table 1--SO2 Design Values for Nevada and Neighboring States
                                                                          [ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Distance to Nevada
           Monitoring site                       State                     Area                 border  (km)        2014-2016    2015-2017    2016-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32-003-0540..........................  NV......................  Las Vegas..............  32 km to AZ and 62 km              7            6            6
                                                                                to CA.
32-031-0016..........................  NV......................  Reno...................  17 km to CA............            5            5            4
04-007-1001..........................  AZ......................  Hayden NAA\a\..........  419....................          280          295          282
04-007-0009..........................  AZ......................  Miami NAA..............  391....................          146        NA\b\           NA
04-007-0011..........................  AZ......................  Miami NAA..............  391....................          200          221          175
04-007-0012..........................  AZ......................  Miami NAA..............  389....................          194          159          127
04-012-8000..........................  AZ......................  Wenden.................  130....................            3           NA           NA
04-013-3002..........................  AZ......................  Phoenix................  193....................            7            7            7
04-013-9812..........................  AZ......................  Phoenix................  290....................            8            9            8
04-013-9997..........................  AZ......................  Phoenix................  287....................            5            6            6
04-013-1028..........................  AZ......................  Tucson.................  452....................            4            3            2
06-013-0002..........................  CA......................  Concord................  212....................            8            7            8
06-013-1002..........................  CA......................  Bethel Island..........  181....................            4            4            3
06-019-0011..........................  CA......................  Fresno.................  171....................            6            6            6
06-067-0006..........................  CA......................  Arden-Arcade...........  126....................            7            8            2
06-071-0306..........................  CA......................  Victorville............  210....................           18            3            3
06-071-1234..........................  CA......................  Trona..................  110....................            6           13            6
(26-31 Other Monitoring Locations)...  CA......................  All Other Monitors in    216-405................         1-18         1-14         1-16
                                                                  California\c\.
16-001-0010..........................  ID......................  near Boise.............  178....................            4            3            3
16-005-0004..........................  ID......................  Pocatello..............  162....................           39           38           44
16-029-0031..........................  ID......................  Soda Springs...........  216....................           26           30           27
41-051-0080..........................  OR......................  Portland...............  442....................            3            3            3
49-035-3006..........................  UT......................  Salt Lake City.........  183....................           NA           NA           NA
49-035-2005..........................  UT......................  Midvale................  182....................           NA           NA           NA
49-035-3010..........................  UT......................  Salt Lake City.........  178....................           NA           NA           NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAA--nonattainment area.
\b\ NA--Not available for monitors lacking a valid design value in the given year due to missing or incomplete data.
\c\ This table only includes specific results for monitors within 215 km of the Nevada-California border. Other California monitors are summarized in
  one row.

    Table 2 lists the annual 99th percentiles for SO2
monitors that collected either three or four complete quarters of data
in the specified year but lacked three consecutive years of complete
data (i.e., a design value) like the monitors in Table 1. Again, the
only monitor exceeding the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is located in the
Miami nonattainment area.

                             Table 2--Annual SO2 99th Percentiles for Monitors in Neighboring States Lacking a Design Value
                                                                          [ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Distance to
           Monitoring site                       State                     Area           Nevada  border       2016            2017            2018
                                                                                (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04-007-0009..........................  AZ......................  Miami NAA \a\..........             391             120         N/A \b\              NA
49-035-3006..........................  UT......................  Salt Lake City.........             183             N/A               4               3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAA--nonattainment area.
\b\ N/A--Not available, less than three complete quarters of data were collected for this monitor in the given year.

    In concluding that Nevada would not impact receptors in the Hayden
or Miami nonattainment areas in Arizona, Nevada's submittal noted
several factors, including the prevailing wind direction in Las Vegas
to the south and southwest and the significant distance, more than 300
miles (482 km), between the nonattainment areas and the nearest large
generator of SO2 emissions in southern Nevada, the now
closed Reid Gardner Generating Station. At the closest point at
Nevada's southern tip, the Hayden and Miami nonattainment areas are 350
km from the Nevada border, far outside the range within which we might
expect a potential impact from SO2 sources located in
Nevada, given the localized range of potential 1-hour SO2
emissions.
    The data presented in Table 1 show that Nevada's SO2
monitors, with sufficient data to produce valid 1-hour SO2
design values, indicate that monitored 1-hour SO2
concentrations in Nevada are between 5 percent (%) and 9% of the 75 ppb
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The Reno monitor is located within 50 km
of the California border and the Las Vegas monitor is located within 50
km of the Arizona border. The highest SO2 concentration
within 300 km of Nevada is the Pocatello Idaho monitor, which is 59% of
the NAAQS based on the 2018 design value and 162 km from the Nevada
border. The low level of SO2 at these air quality monitors
in and near Nevada do not, by themselves, indicate any particular
location that would warrant further investigation with respect to
SO2 emissions sources that might significantly contribute to

nonattainment in neighboring states. However, because the monitoring
network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of high
SO2 concentrations, this observation is not sufficient
evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the
neighboring states. We have therefore also conducted a source-oriented
analysis.
2. Analysis of SO2 Emissions Sources in Nevada and
Neighboring States
    To understand the potential for Nevada's emissions to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in another state, we begin with a
summary of the State's SO2 emissions in Table 3 from the
2014 NEI.\25\ The EPA believes a reasonable starting point for
determining which sources and emissions activities in Nevada are likely
to impact downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the EPA's 2014
NEI. The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions
for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources; it is updated every three
years using information provided by the states and other information
available to the EPA. The 2014 NEI (version 2) is the most recently
available complete and quality assured dataset of the NEI that includes
all emissions categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.

  Table 3--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Emissions Data for Nevada by Source
                               Category a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SO2 emissions
                       Category                          (tons per year)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion, Electric Generation..................            10,277
Fuel Combustion Industrial............................             2,967
Fires.................................................               840
Mobile................................................               556
Fuel Combustion Commercial............................               642
Waste Disposal........................................               293
Industrial Processes (non-combustion).................               540
Other.................................................                61
                                                       -----------------
    Total Nevada SO2 Emissions........................            16,178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The sum of the categories does not add to the total due to rounding.

    As shown in Table 3, the majority of SO2 emissions in
Nevada originate from fuel combustion at point sources. In 2014,
SO2 emissions from fuel combustion point sources accounted
for approximately 85% of the State's SO2 emissions.\26\ With
the closure of the Reid Gardner Generating Station, which accounted for
over 15% of overall SO2 emissions in the 2014 NEI, the
SO2 state-wide total should be substantially smaller once
the 2017 emissions inventory is released. The next largest category of
emissions is fire. According to the 2014 NEI, approximately 92% of fire
emissions are from wildfires, which vary in location and quantity of
emissions from year to year, while most of the other fire emissions
come from prescribed burning. Of the remaining emissions (mobile, waste
disposal, non-combustion industrial, and other, which make up
approximately 9% of the state total), slightly more than half (about 5%
of the state-wide total or 880 tons) originate in Clark County, which
contains approximately 75% of Nevada's population, and the rest
originate elsewhere throughout the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Nevada's fuel combustion point sources listed in Table 3,
for the purposes of this action, are comprised of all of the ``Fuel
Combustion'' categories, i.e., Fuel Combustion, Electric Generation;
Fuel Combustion, Industrial; and Fuel Combustion, Commercial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions from the other listed source categories are more
dispersed throughout the State, with the exception of McCarran Airport
and Sunrise Landfill analyzed later in this notice. Due to the
dispersed nature of these other source categories, their emissions are
less likely to cause high ambient concentrations when compared to a
point source on a ton-for-ton basis. Based on the EPA's analysis of the
2014 NEI SO2 emissions data, the EPA considers it to be
appropriate to focus the discussion on SO2 emissions from
Nevada's larger point sources (i.e., those emitting over 50 tons per
year (tpy) of SO2), which are located within the ``urban
scale,'' i.e., within 50 km of one or more state borders.
    Specifically, in 2014 60 percent of the statewide SO2
emissions came from two facilities.\27\ The first, the North Valmy
Generating Station, is 124 km from the state border, well beyond the
50-km threshold zone considered to be a reasonable distance to evaluate
emissions source impacts to neighboring states for purposes of this
analysis. In addition, EPA recently considered a modeling analysis
submitted by the NDEP to support its recommendation that the EPA
designate the entire State of Nevada as attainment/unclassifiable for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\28\ The modeling was conducted in
response to the Final Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour
SO2 Primary NAAQS.\29\ As required by the rule, Nevada
identified the North Valmy Generating Station as a facility emitting
more than 2,000 tpy of SO2 in 2014.\30\ Based on modeling
that shows a maximum SO2 concentration of 63 ppb, the EPA
determined that the North Valmy Generating Station ``is not modeled to
cause or contribute to violations of the 2010 SO2 [NAAQS],''
and the EPA designated the area around North Valmy Generating Station,
along with the rest of the State, as attainment/unclassifiable for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In 2014, the North Valmy Generating Station emitted 7,430
tons of SO2 and the Reid Gardner Generating Station
emitted 2,506 tons of SO2, per the 2014 NEI.
    \28\ 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018). The North Valmy Generating
Station is specifically discussed in Chapter 26, Technical Support
Document: Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour
SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA,
August 2017, which is available in the docket for today's notice.
    \29\ This Rule required sources emitting more than 2,000 tpy of
SO2 to characterize their air quality impacts through
ambient air monitoring or dispersion modeling.
    \30\ The North Valmy Generating Station generated 1,588 tons of
SO2 emissions in 2017, per the 2017 NEI, which includes
only facility reported point source emissions data at this time.
    \31\ Technical Support Document: Chapter 26 Intended Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nevada, EPA, page 27,
August 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The North Valmy Generating Station is located 124 km from the
Nevada-Oregon border and 125 km from the Nevada-Idaho border. Based on
2017 facility reported emissions data, Nevada has no other facilities
emitting more than 50 tpy of SO2 within 50 km of the State's
border that could potentially combine with the emissions from the North
Valmy Generating Station to contribute to nonattainment in the nearby
states of Idaho and Oregon. The closest facility to the North Valmy
Generating Station is the TS Power Plant, which is slightly more than
50 km from the North Valmy facility and more than 130 km from the
Nevada-Idaho and Nevada-Oregon borders. This information supports the
EPA's proposed conclusion that the North Valmy facility, in combination
with Nevada's other SO2 emissions sources, will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
    The second facility contributing 60 percent of statewide
SO2 emissions in 2014 is the Reid Gardner Generating Station
that ceased operation in 2017. Consequently, this facility does not
warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emissions
sources that

might significantly contribute to nonattainment in neighboring
states.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ As discussed in the EPA's rescission of regional haze
federal implementation plan for the Reid Gardner Generating Station,
three of the Reid Gardener Generating Station's coal-fired boilers
ceased operation in 2014 and the fourth ceased operation in 2017.
See 83 FR 24952, May 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 below shows all other Nevada sources that generated more
than 50 tpy of SO2 emissions in 2017 located within 50 km of
the state border, including Nevada's second largest active source of
SO2 emissions, the McCarran Airport. Table 4 also lists the
nearest out-of-state neighboring sources emitting above 50 tpy of
SO2 because elevated levels of SO2, to which
SO2 emitted in Nevada may have a downwind impact, are most
likely to be found near such sources.\33\ As shown in Table 4, the
shortest distance between a Nevada source and a neighboring state
source, with both emitting more than 50 tpy of SO2, is 167
km. Furthermore, neighboring states have no sources of SO2
emissions greater than 50 tpy located within 50 km of the Nevada
border. Given the localized range of potential 1-hour SO2
impacts, the data indicate that there are no additional locations in
neighboring states that would warrant further investigation with
respect to individual Nevada SO2 emissions sources that
might contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Table 4 contains more recent data than Table 3 because the
EPA has only released facility reported point source data from the
2017 NEI.

   Table 4--Nevada Sources With SO2 Emissions Greater than 50 tons in 2017 Within 50 km of a Neighboring State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Distance to
                                                                   the closest     Name of the      Neighboring
                                    2017          Distance to      neighboring       closest         state SO2
        Nevada source           Emissions \a\       border         SO2 source    neighboring SO2    source 2017
                                   (tons)                         more than 50     source more       emissions
                                                                    tpy (km)       than 50 tpy        (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCarran International                    467  37 km (AZ)......             178  Lhoist North              1,678
 Airport, Las Vegas.                                                              America (NA),
                                                                                Chemical Lime
                                                                                Nelson Plant.
Republic Services Sunrise                 191  23 km (AZ)......             167  Lhoist NA,                1,678
 (Landfill), Las Vegas.                                                           Chemical Lime
                                                                                Nelson Plant.
Lockwood Sanitary Landfill,               149  33 km (CA)......             193  Sacramento                  112
 Sparks.                                                                          International
                                                                                Airport.
Lhoist NA and Granite                     140  32 km (AZ)......             171  Lhoist NA,                1,678
 Construction (Apex), Las                                                         Chemical Lime
 Vegas.                                                                           Nelson Plant.
EP Minerals, Clark Plant,                  82  45 km (CA)......             206  Sacramento                  112
 Clark.                                                                           International
                                                                                Airport.
Reno-Tahoe International                   53  19 km (CA)......             181  Sacramento                 112
 Airport.                                                                         International
                                                                                Airport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emissions are based on the 2017 facility reported NEI emissions data for point sources downloaded from
  https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data on October 9, 2019,
  and contained in the docket for this notice.

3. Conclusion
    In order to determine whether Nevada satisfied prong 1 for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, the EPA evaluated the State's 2013 SIP revision
with respect to the following two factors: (1) SO2 ambient
air quality in Nevada and neighboring states; and (2) SO2
emissions sources in Nevada and neighboring states. For the first
factor, we identified no violating monitors near the Nevada border, and
the only violating monitors in neighboring states are well outside the
range within which we might expect them to be significantly impacted by
interstate transport of SO2 from Nevada. For the second
factor, we identified no SO2 sources within 50 km of the
Nevada border that are likely contributing to a violation of the
standard in another state, and we conclude that it is unlikely that
sources farther from the border are leading to violations. Therefore,
based on the analysis provided by the State in its SIP submission and
the factors discussed above, the EPA proposes to find that Nevada will
not cause or contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

D. The EPA's Evaluation of Prong 2--Interference With Maintenance

    Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. The EPA considers that reasonable criteria to ensure
that sources or emissions activities originating within Nevada will not
interfere with its neighboring states' ability to maintain the NAAQS
involves a close examination of the following: (1) Air quality trends
in Nevada and neighboring states; (2) SIP-approved state and county
measures that limit existing and new facility emissions; and (3)
ambient concentrations of SO2 in Nevada and neighboring
states.
1. Air Quality Trends for Nevada and Neighboring States
    As shown in Table 5 below, the statewide Tier 1 SO2
emissions trends for Nevada and neighboring states have substantially
decreased over time.\34\ Since 2000, overall SO2 emissions
have decreased by 89% in Nevada, 66% in Arizona, 82% in California, 77%
in Idaho, 82% in Oregon, and 74% in Utah. The size and geographic scope
of these reductions strongly suggest that the reductions are not
transient effects from temporary causes and suggest that a trend of
increasing emissions is unlikely to occur in these states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Tier 1 emissions trends data do not include event
emissions, which include forest fires and prescribed or
intentionally set fires.

                 Table 5--Tier 1 SO2 Emissions Trends for Nevada and Neighboring States (tpy) a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                    2000            2005            2010            2015            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.........................         116,207          89,198          71,706          43,623          39,243
California......................          80,698         155,677          35,769          22,956          22,835
Idaho...........................          23,015          22,962          11,718           5,396           5,386

Nevada..........................          61,689          71,609          14,065          10,352           6,947
Oregon..........................          53,237          24,916          19,625           9,500           8,182
Utah............................          56,039          51,945          28,932          19,865          14,832
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Data downloaded from https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data
  (State Annual Average Emission Trend) and included in the docket for today's notice. See SO2 Trends Tier
  1.xlsx.

    Table 6 shows the emissions trend since 2008 for all Nevada
facilities that emitted more than 100 tpy of SO2. While some
facilities, such as McCarran International Airport, show an increasing
trend, the increases are small relative to the decreases at the North
Valmy Generating Station and Reid Gardner Generating Station, and the
overall downward trend in SO2 emissions in Nevada is
illustrated by the row showing total point source emissions.

       Table 6--SO2 Emission Trends for Nevada Facilities That Have Emitted More Than 50 tpy Since 2008 a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Facility name               EIS ID           2008            2011            2014            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NV Energy, North Valmy                   7302011           8,130           3,550           7,430           1,588
 Generating Station.............
McCarran International (Airport)         9392311             264             272             265             467
EP Minerals LLC, Colado Plant...         6030011              72             140              26             250
Republic Services Sunrise.......         9398611             163             197             209             191
Newmont Nevada Energy LLC, TS           12758911             364             250             234             152
 Power Plant....................
Lockwood Sanitary Landfill......         6030711               0              69              43             149
Lhoist North America and Granite         8210711             180             229             152             140
 Const. (Apex)..................
Newmont Mining Corp. Twin Creek          8178211              38               6               6             102
 Mine...........................
Nevada Cement, Fernley Plant....         8179811             282             118             126              90
Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc.,           8177811              40              28              50              70
 GoldStrike Mine................
Reno Tahoe Airport..............         9376411            NA b              50              25              53
Graymont Western U.S. Pilot Peak         6673911              28              30              23              15
 Plant..........................
(Newmont) Gold Quarry...........         8210011              56              59              15              12
Foreland Refining (Eagle                 8179311              76              85              77               7
 Springs).......................
NV Energy Reid Gardner                   6815611             941           1,423           2,506             c 0
 Generating Station.............
Halliburton Energy Services              7200311             194               3               1               0
 Dunphy Plant & Crusher.........
All Nevada Point Source                       NA          11,598           6,901          11,594           3,710
 Emissions......................
All Nevada Emissions............              NA          20,951          13,578          16,175              NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Data from the NEI (files 2008 NEI V3, 2011 NEI V2, 2014 NEI V2, and 2017Oct) downloaded to 2002-2017 NV
  Facility Data.xlsx.
\b\ NA--Not available.
\c\ No emissions were reported to the EPA's NEI in 2017 for the Reid Gardner Generating Station, but emissions
  of 168 tons in 2017 were reported to the EPA's Clean Air Markets program (data query on 11/18/2019).

    While these trends do not by themselves demonstrate that Nevada and
neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, when considered alongside low ambient
concentrations in Nevada and neighboring states, as illustrated in
Table 1, they provide further evidence that emissions of SO2
from Nevada are unlikely to interfere with maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS in other states.
2. Nevada's Air Quality Rules
    The 2013 Nevada SIP submittal identifies many rules for controlling
current and future SO2 or sulfur oxides (SOX)
emissions.\35\ The rules identified by the NDEP primarily regulate fuel
combustion from large power plants as well as smaller stationary
combustion sources (e.g., portable generators). The NDEP retains
authority over facilities that generate electricity by using steam
produced from fossil fuels, even if located within Clark or Washoe
counties. Emissions limits for SOX are set by Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC) 445B.22095 and NAC 445.22096. NAC 445B.22095
identifies factors considered in determining best available control
technology (BACT) for major sources, and NAC 445B.22096 provides
numeric emissions limits for specific sources where BACT has been
established for the Nevada Energy Tracy Generating Station and the
Nevada Energy Fort Churchill Generating Station.\36\ NAC 445B.22047 and
Article 8.2.1 limit SO2 emissions from the combustion of
fuel based on the heat input of the fuel in British Thermal Units
(BTUs). NAC 445B.2205 limits SO2 emissions from other
processes. Nevada also identified many supporting regulations, such as
rules covering definitions, calculations, and exemptions, including the
following: NAC 445B.22043 (``Sulfur emissions: Calculation of total
feed sulfur''); NAC 445B.22083 (``Construction, major modification or
relocation of plants to generate electricity using steam produced by
burning fossil fuels''); NAC 445B.308 (``Prerequisites and conditions
for issuance of certain operating permits; compliance with applicable
state implementation plan''); NAC 445B.310 (``Environmental evaluation:
Applicable sources and other subjects; exemption''); and NAC 445B.311
(``Environmental evaluation: Contents; and consideration of good
engineering practice stack height'').\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ SOX is a group of gases that includes
SO2 and other less common oxides of sulfur in the
atmosphere, see https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution.
    \36\ This rule also discusses the Mojave Generation Station,
which has been demolished (82 FR 48769, October 20, 2017), and the
closed Reid Garner Generating Station.
    \37\ The NDEP implements its minor source (25 tpy) permitting
through Nevada Revised Statutes 445B.310, 311 and NAC 308. See EPA's
Technical Support Document, Evaluation of the Nevada Infrastructure
SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2, 19.
The NDEP implements its major source permitting through a prevention
of significant deterioration federal implementation plan.

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

    Clark County broadly identified permitting rules limiting current
and future SO2 and hydrogen sulfide emissions. More
specifically, Clark County permits require the following: Reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for minor sources (25 tpy for
SO2) and existing sources with significant emissions
increases, if a RACT determination has been made; \38\ BACT for major
new sources and existing sources proposing significant increases in
attainment areas; \39\ and a limit on maximum increment increases of
SO2 for areas with a regional haze designation of Class I,
Class II, or Class III.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Air Quality Regulation (AQR) <IP_ADDRESS>(c)(1) and (2).
    \39\ See AQR <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>.
    \40\ Microgram per meter cubed SO2 limits for annual
mean, 24-hour maximum, and 3-hour maximum, per AQR 12.2.3. The
discussion of Element A in the EPA's Technical Support Document,
Evaluation of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 contains regulatory
citations for Clark County rules, with the exception of maximum
increment increases that can be found in the Clark County
Regulations at AQR 12.2.3. and the variance procedure at <IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For limiting SO2 emissions, Washoe County identified
rules that control trace quantities of SOX emissions from
the storage of petroleum products, gasoline loading, gasoline
unloading, and the use of organic solvents.\41\ An additional SIP-
approved Washoe County regulation that controls SOX is
Section 040.060 (``Sulfur Content of Fuel''). It limits the sulfur
content to 0.7% by weight for solid fuels and 1.0% for liquid fuels
burned at less than 250 million BTUs of heat input. For fuels burned at
more than 250 million BTUs of heat input per hour, Section 040.060
provides a calculation that sets a maximum quantity of sulfur (in
pounds per hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Washoe Rules 040.070, 040.075, 040.080, and 040.085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed
SO2 emissions trends in Nevada and neighboring states,
Nevada's SIP-approved rules regulating SO2 and
SOX, and the technical information related to SO2
ambient air quality and SO2 emissions for interstate
transport prong 1, as discussed above. Based on (1) the downward trend
in SO2 emissions in Nevada and neighboring states; (2) SIP-
approved State and local measures that limit existing and new facility
emissions; and (3) the low ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Nevada and neighboring states, we propose to determine that the 2013
Nevada SIP revision demonstrates that SO2 emissions in the
State will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of prong 2 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

III. Proposed Action

    In light of the above analysis, the EPA is proposing to approve
Nevada's infrastructure submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
it pertains to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the
next 30 days and plan to follow with a final action. The deadline and
instructions for submission of comments are provided in the DATE and
ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this proposed rule.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: March 20, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-06348 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 132 (Thursday, July 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41189-41193]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0317]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual
Fireworks Events, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending and establishing several permanent
safety zones in the Captain of the Port San Francisco zone. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters
of the San Francisco Bay, Carquinez Strait, Mare Island Strait,
Sacramento River, Lake Tahoe, and Monterey Bay during annual fireworks
displays. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from entering
the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San
Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective August 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0317 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Jennae Cotton, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    Fireworks displays in 33 CFR 165.1191 are held annually on the
navigable waters within the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP)
zone. After conducting a review of the fireworks displays listed in 33
CFR 165.1191, the specifications for eight of the events listed in the
table no longer accurately reflect the actual event parameters, and
three annual fireworks displays are not listed in the table. In
response, on March 17, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zones; Northern California
and Lake Tahoe Area Annual Fireworks Events, San Francisco, CA'' (85 FR
15082). There, we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments
on our proposed regulatory action related to these fireworks displays.
During the comment period that ended May 18, 2020, we received one
comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks used in these annual
displays would be a safety concern for any unauthorized vessels or
persons within the safety zones during the respective fireworks
displays. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety on the navigable
waters within the safety zones for the fireworks displays before,
during, and after the scheduled events.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published March
17, 2020. The comment requested an explanation for the variance between
safety zone sizes for different fireworks displays and inquired about
whether or not current COVID-19 public health orders were taken into
effect when assessing the costs and benefits of this regulation.
    Each fireworks display has different setup and display
characteristics, designated by the fireworks display sponsor. To
determine the size of the safety zone used for each fireworks display,
the Coast Guard follows guidelines established by the National Fire
Protection Association in relation to the largest shell size used for
each fireworks display. In addition, safety zone characteristics also
vary among displays depending on the pyrotechnics launch site.
Fireworks displays that are

launched from a barge require an initial 100-foot safety zone beginning
when the barge is being loaded with pyrotechnics. In the event of a
barge-based fireworks display, the safety zone will increase from 100
feet to full size upon commencement of the fireworks display. The
safety zones in this regulation have been thoroughly reviewed to ensure
that proper distance is maintained from the fireworks launch site for
spectator and boating safety.
    The Coast Guard is amending this regulation to provide for public
safety from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. While this
regulation amendment is occurring during the response to COVID-19,
these changes are necessary based on historical event details. The
Coast Guard is aware that public health officials currently impose
safety requirements intended to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus.
However, a Coast Guard safety zone is not the correct tool to use to
address social distancing, because a safety zone restricts movement
into and within a defined zone, but does not control the movement of
people or vessels outside of that zone. Changing the sizes of these
safety zones would not have any effect on spectators' proximity to one
another outside of the safety zone. Additionally, this regulation
amends and adds safety zone details for annual fireworks displays
continuing indefinitely, so the details must be accurate for these
displays under normal circumstances, otherwise this regulation will not
be useful in years to come. If the event sponsor or local government
decides not to hold the event, the safety zones would not be enforced.
Overall, the Coast Guard has assessed the costs and benefits associated
with this rule, and does not find that the current response to COVID-19
changes that assessment.
    There are three changes to the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM that are unrelated to the concerns raised
by the commenter. The changes to the proposed text are made to item 22
``Monte Foundation Fireworks,'' item 25 ``Sacramento New Years Eve
Fireworks,'' and item 31 ``Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks,'' and they
are discussed later in this section with the other changes to item 22,
item 25, and item 31.
    The COTP is amending Table 1 to Sec.  165.1191. Eight fireworks
displays will be amended, and three fireworks displays will be added.
    The fireworks events being amended are listed numerically in Table
1 of this section as item 7, ``San Francisco Independence Day
Fireworks,'' item 8, ``Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina,''
item 9, ``Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Richmond,'' item 19, ``Red,
White, and Tahoe Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV,'' item 22,
``Monte Foundation Fireworks,'' item 24, ``San Francisco New Years Eve
Fireworks,'' item 25, ``Sacramento New Years Eve Fireworks,'' and item
27, ``Feast of Lanterns Fireworks.''
    The display locations for items 7, 8, 9, 25, and 27 no longer
accurately reflect the display locations for the events, so this rule
inserts updated location descriptions into the table.
    The display names of items 19, 24, and 25 will be updated. Item 19,
``Red, White, and Tahoe Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV,'' will be
renamed ``Incline Village Independence Day Fireworks.'' Item 24, ``San
Francisco New Years Eve Fireworks,'' and item 25, ``Sacramento New
Years Eve Fireworks,'' will be updated to include an apostrophe in
``New Year's Eve.''
    The display dates listed in items 22, 24, 25, and 27 do not
accurately reflect the display dates for the fireworks displays, so
this rule will update them as follows. Item 22, ``Monte Foundation
Fireworks,'' currently states the date as the second Saturday in
October, but the fireworks have occurred on the second Saturday or
Sunday in October. Item 24, ``San Francisco New Years Eve Fireworks,''
currently states it occurs on New Year's Eve, but the event has
typically lasted into the early hours of New Year's Day, so we are
adding January 1st as a display date as well to be more accurate. A
change to item 25, ``Sacramento New Years Eve Fireworks,'' not proposed
in the NPRM will improve the accuracy of the date by deleting ``New
Years Eve'' from the date description and adding January 1st to the
display date because the display has typically lasted into the early
hours of New Year's Day. Item 27, ``Feast of Lanterns Fireworks,''
currently states it occurs on the last Saturday of July, but due to the
variance in the event dates, we are amending the dates to say a
Saturday or Sunday in July. As stated in Sec.  165.1191(a), the Coast
Guard will provide exact dates, times, and other details concerning the
fireworks and associated safety zones listed in table 1 to Sec.
165.1191 in the Local Notice to Mariners at least 20 days prior to the
event.
    The Regulated Area description and Sponsor description for item 22,
``Monte Foundation Fireworks,'' will be revised. A change to item 22
not proposed in the NPRM will improve the accuracy of the regulated
area by noting the regulated area will consist of a 1,000 foot radius
around the launch site, instead of describing it as a 1,000 foot radius
safety zone. Additionally, this rule corrects the sponsor name for this
regulated area from ``Monte Foundation Fireworks'' to the ``Monte
Foundation.''
    This rule adds three safety zones covering three reoccurring
fireworks events to Table 1 in 33 CFR 165.1191. The three new fireworks
events will be listed in Table 1 of this section as item 31, ``Fourth
of July Fireworks, City of Benicia,'' item 32, ``Fourth of July
Fireworks, City of Vallejo,'' and item 33 ``Berkeley Winter on the
Waterfront Fireworks.'' All three of these fireworks displays occurred
in previous years 2017, 2018, and 2019. Both the Benicia, CA fireworks
and the City of Vallejo, CA fireworks will occur annually on the Fourth
of July. The Berkeley, CA fireworks displays will occur annually on the
second Saturday or Sunday in December. The Coast Guard believes it is
beneficial to include these additional fireworks displays in the list
of reoccurring permanent regulations to increase public awareness of
when safety zones will be enforced in these marine areas. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zones without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
    The Regulated Area description for item 31, ``Benicia Fourth of
July Fireworks,'' will be revised to include one change from the
regulatory text of the NPRM. The accuracy of the Regulated Area
description will be improved by noting the regulated area will consist
of a 1,000 foot radius around the launch site, instead of describing it
as a 1,000 foot radius safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt

from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited
duration and narrowly tailored geographic areas of the safety zones.
Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the
safety zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant because
the local waterway users will be notified via public Notice to Mariners
to ensure the safety zones will result in minimum impact. The entities
most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial
vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator for the following reasons: (i) This rule
will encompass only a small portion of each affected waterway for a
limited period of time for each fireworks event, and (ii) the maritime
public will be advised in advance of these safety zones via Notice to
Mariners.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety
zones of limited sizes and durations. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.1191, amend Table 1 by revising entries 7, 8, 9, 19,
22, 24, 25, and 27, and add entries 31, 32, and 33 to read as follows:

Sec.  165. 1191   Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual
Fireworks Events.

                       Table 1 to Sec.   165.1191
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               7. San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  The City of San Francisco.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  July 4th.
Location 1........................  A barge located approximately 1,000
                                     feet off San Francisco Pier 39.
Location 2........................  A barge located approximately 700
                                     feet off of the San Francisco
                                     Municipal Pier at Aquatic Park.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around each
                                     fireworks barge during the loading,
                                     transit, setup, and until the
                                     commencement of the scheduled
                                     display. Increases to a 1,000-foot
                                     radius upon commencement of the
                                     fireworks display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              8. Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Berkeley Marina.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  July 4th.
Location..........................  A barge located near the Berkeley
                                     Marina Pier.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                     barge during the loading, transit,
                                     setup, and until the commencement
                                     of the scheduled display. Increases
                                     to a 1,000-foot radius upon
                                     commencement of the fireworks
                                     display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              9. Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Richmond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Various Sponsors.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  Week of July 4th.
Location..........................  A barge located in the Richmond
                                     Harbor in Richmond, CA.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                     barge during the loading, transit,
                                     setup, and until the commencement
                                     of the scheduled display. Increases
                                     to a 560-foot radius upon
                                     commencement of the fireworks
                                     display.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             19. Incline Village Independence Day Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Various Sponsors.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  Week of July 4th.
Location..........................  500-1,000 feet off Incline Village,
                                     NV in Crystal Bay.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                     launch barge during the loading of
                                     pyrotechnics aboard the fireworks
                                     barge and during the transit of the
                                     fireworks barge from the loading
                                     location to the display location.
                                     Increases to a 1,000-foot radius
                                     upon commencement of the fireworks
                                     display.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     22. Monte Foundation Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Monte Foundation.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  Second Saturday or Sunday in
                                     October.
Location..........................  Capitola Pier in Capitola, CA.
Regulated Area....................  1,000-foot radius around the
                                     fireworks launch site in the
                                     navigable waters around and under
                                     the Capitola Pier.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               24. San Francisco New Year's Eve Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  City of San Francisco.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  December 30th through January 1st.
Location..........................  1,000 feet off the Embarcadero near
                                     the Ferry Plaza in San Francisco,
                                     CA.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                     launch barge during the loading of
                                     pyrotechnics aboard the fireworks
                                     barge and during the transit of the
                                     fireworks barge from the loading
                                     location to the display location.
                                     Increases to a 1,000-foot radius
                                     upon commencement of the fireworks
                                     display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 25. Sacramento New Year's Eve Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Various Sponsors.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  December 31st through January 1st.
Location..........................  Near the Tower Bridge, Sacramento
                                     River, Sacramento, CA.

Regulated Area....................  The navigable waters of the
                                     Sacramento River within 700 feet of
                                     the two shore-based launch
                                     locations near the Tower Bridge in
                                     Sacramento, CA and the bridge-based
                                     launch location on the Tower Bridge
                                     in Sacramento, CA.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     27. Feast of Lanterns Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  Feast of Lanterns, Inc.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  A Saturday or Sunday in July.
Location..........................  Near Lover's Point Park in Pacific
                                     Grove, CA.
Regulated Area....................  The area of navigable waters within
                                     a 1,000-foot radius of the launch
                                     platform located on the beach near
                                     Lover's Point Park.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  31. Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  City of Benicia, CA.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  July 4th.
Location..........................  Carquinez Strait, Benicia, CA.
Regulated Area....................  1,000-foot radius around the
                                     fireworks launch site located on
                                     the Benicia First Street Pier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  32. Vallejo Fourth of July Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  City of Vallejo, CA.
Event Description.................  Fireworks Display.
Date..............................  July 4th.
Location..........................  Mare Island Strait, Vallejo, CA.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                     barge during the loading, transit,
                                     setup, and until the commencement
                                     of the scheduled display. Increases
                                     to a 1,000-foot radius upon
                                     commencement of the fireworks
                                     display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             33. Berkeley Winter on the Waterfront Fireworks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  City of Berkeley, CA.
Event Description.................  Two Fireworks Displays.
Date..............................  Second Saturday or Sunday in
                                     December.
Location..........................  Near the entrance to the Berkeley
                                     Marina in Berkeley, CA.
Regulated Area....................  100-foot radius around the fireworks
                                     barge during the loading, transit,
                                     setup, and until the commencement
                                     of the scheduled display. Increases
                                     to a 500-foot radius upon
                                     commencement of the first fireworks
                                     display and remains in effect until
                                     after the conclusion of the second
                                     fireworks display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: June 23, 2020.
Marie B. Byrd,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2020-13995 Filed 7-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P