[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37020-37025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16491]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316; FRL-9964-74-Region 9]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
revision to the Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The 
revision consists of the ``Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress 
Report'' that addresses Regional Haze Rule requirements under the Clean 
Air Act to document progress towards achieving visibility goals by 2018 
in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and nearby states. The EPA is taking 
final action to approve Nevada's determination that the regional haze 
requirements in the existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP do not require 
any substantive revision at this time.

DATES: This rule is effective September 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316 
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available 
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA 
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note 
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at 
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be 
available at either location (e.g., confidential business information). 
To inspect the hard copy materials that are publicly available, please 
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact 
listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, 
Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 
Krishna Viswanathan may be reached at (520) 999-7880 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Summary of Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview of Proposed Action

    The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP or ``the 
State'') submitted the Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report 
(``Progress Report'') to the EPA on November 18, 2014, to satisfy the 
Regional Haze Rule requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and 
(i). As described in our proposal, NDEP has demonstrated in its 
Progress Report that the emission control measures in the existing 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP are adequate to make progress towards the 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and 
in nearby states that may be affected by emissions from sources in 
Nevada without requiring any substantive revisions to the Nevada 
Regional Haze SIP. Our proposal discussed each element required under 
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) for an approvable progress report, 
summarized how the Progress Report addressed each element, and provided 
our evaluation of the adequacy of the Progress Report for each element. 
Please refer to our proposed rule for background information on the 
Regional Haze Rule, the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, and the specific 
requirements for progress reports.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    We received comment letters on our proposed approval of the 
Progress Report from NDEP,\1\ the Sierra Club jointly with the National 
Parks Conservation Association (``NGOs''),\2\ and two additional, 
anonymous commenters.\3\ The following discussion contains our summary 
of the comments and our response to each significant comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter from Jeffrey Kinger (NDEP) to Vijay Limaye (EPA) 
(October 19, 2015).
    \2\ Letter from Gloria D. Smith (Sierra Club) and Stephanie 
Kodish (NPCA) to Vijay Limaye (EPA) (October 19, 2015)(``NGOs' 
Comment Letter'').
    \3\ See Comments EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316-0070 and EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0316-0073 in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments From NDEP

    Comment: NDEP commented that the EPA's characterization of the 
retirement of Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) units 1, 2 and 3 
and Tracy Generating Station units 1 and 2, as well as switching of 
several units at Tracy and Fort Churchill Generating Stations to 
natural gas as ``largely in response to Senate Bill (SB) 123 (2013 
Legislative Session)'' was not accurate. NDEP commented that the 
retirement of units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS was a response to

[[Page 37021]]

Nevada Senate Bill 123, but that the other facilities undertook 
retirement or fuel switching to comply with Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) requirements.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The 
clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval of the 
Progress Report.
    Comment: NDEP requested that the EPA rescind the Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) for RGGS as part of our final rulemaking on 
the Progress Report because units 1, 2 and 3 of RGGS permanently shut 
down in 2014.
    Response: The EPA intends to rescind the FIP applicable to units 1, 
2 and 3 of RGGS in a separate action.
    Comment: NDEP commented on Table 5, which mistakenly referenced 
Table 4-2 from the Progress Report rather than Table 4-4, and the last 
paragraph on 80 FR at 55811, which incorrectly cited the range of 
annual sulfate averages as ``4.10 to 50.5 percent'' rather than ``41.0 
to 50.5 percent.''
    Response: The EPA acknowledges these corrections. The corrections 
do not have any effect on our proposed approval of the Progress Report.
    Comment: NDEP commented that in the third paragraph of the EPA's 
proposed rulemaking, the EPA states that NDEP attributed the large 
contribution from particulate organic matter (POM) on the worst days at 
the Jarbidge Wilderness Area (``Jarbidge'') mostly to wildfires and 
windblown dust, while NDEP itself attributes POM largely to emissions 
from wildfires.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The 
clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval.
    Comment: NDEP expressed support for the EPA's proposal to approve 
NDEP's determination that its Nevada Regional Haze SIP requires no 
substantive revisions at this time, given the demonstrated improvement 
to nitrate and sulfate visibility impairment.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment.

Comments From the NGOs

    Comment: The NGOs asserted that ``NDEP's and EPA's findings that 
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP is adequate to show reasonable progress 
for Jarbidge towards the national visibility goal are not supported.'' 
The commenters noted that the preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule 
explains that a state may submit a declaration under 40 CFR 
51.308(h)(1) ``if the state finds that the emission management measures 
in the SIP are being implemented on schedule, and visibility 
improvement appears to be consistent with reasonable progress goals.'' 
\4\ The commenter noted that NDEP proposed such a declaration, and that 
the EPA had proposed to concur with the State's declaration, despite 
the fact that visibility improvement at Jarbidge was not improving at a 
rate consistent with achieving NDEP's 2018 RPG. The commenter also 
noted that NDEP's RPG for the worst days at Jarbidge was based on 
modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) that 
was subsequently found to be in error and that revised modeling 
predicts 2018 visibility impacts for the worst days at Jarbidge that 
are not on the ``glide path'' towards the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 64 FR 35747 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Initially, we note that, while the commenters refer to 
``the national visibility goal'' (i.e., the ``prevention of any future, 
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution'' \5\), their primary concern appears to be progress 
toward the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. The EPA 
agrees that the Progress Report does not demonstrate that visibility 
conditions at Jarbidge will necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 deciviews 
(dv) on the 20 percent worst days by 2018. The EPA acknowledged this 
fact in our proposal to approve the Progress Report. We stated that the 
visibility conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected 
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the 20 percent worst 
days for Jarbidge were relatively flat or only slightly improving. 
However, this fact does not preclude NDEP from making a declaration 
under Sec.  51.301(h)(1). The statement in the preamble to the 1999 
Regional Haze Rule described one possible basis for such a declaration 
that may be the most concise in certain situations, but was not a 
statement of the only possible basis. Rather, the Regional Haze Rule 
itself allows a state to submit a declaration if, ``based upon the 
information presented in the progress report . . . the State determines 
that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive 
revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for 
visibility improvement and emissions reductions . . .'' \6\ In this 
instance, NDEP presented information in the Progress Report that 
establishes that the overall lack of progress in monitored visibility 
conditions on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge is not due to a 
flaw in the SIP itself, but due in large part to extrinsic factors, as 
described below, that could not be addressed through a substantive 
revision to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \6\ 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, as explained in our proposal, the Progress Report 
demonstrates that current (i.e., 2008-2012) visibility conditions on 
the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are strongly influenced by light 
extinction due to POM, which derives primarily from natural sources, as 
well as coarse particulate mass, which partially derives from natural 
sources.\7\ POM was the largest contributor to light extinction on the 
20 percent worst days in each of the 5-year periods from the baseline 
to current time period, accounting for 35.5 to 43.0 percent of 
extinction, followed by coarse particulate mass (21.9 to 26.1 percent), 
and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0 percent). Furthermore, over the course of the 
progress period there was a significant increase in extinction from POM 
(1.1 dv) and a small increase in extinction from coarse particulate 
mass. By contrast, there were small decreases in extinction from 
sulfate and nitrate (which derive primarily from anthropogenic 
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX)).\8\ Thus, the overall lack of improvement in 
monitored visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days at 
Jarbidge is largely attributable to an increase in extinction from non-
anthropogenic pollutants, which could not be remedied by a revision to 
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 80 FR 55811.
    \8\ 80 FR 55812, Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to demonstrating the large influence of non-
anthropogenic pollutants, the Progress Report also establishes the 
significant impact of out-of-state sources on Jarbidge. In particular, 
the Progress Report refers to source apportionment modeling performed 
by the WRAP to evaluate source areas that contribute to sulfate and 
nitrate extinction on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. As noted 
in our proposal, this modeling indicated that the Outside Domain source 
category (i.e., the background concentrations of pollutants from 
international sources) was expected to contribute 43.8 percent of the 
modeled sulfate and 27.5 percent of the modeled nitrate at Jarbidge in 
2018.\9\ The WRAP source apportionment modeling also indicated that 
emissions from upwind states, particularly Idaho and Oregon, also 
contribute substantially to visibility impairment at Jarbidge. As with 
non-anthropogenic emissions, these out-of-

[[Page 37022]]

state emissions could not be directly addressed through a revision to 
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. While NDEP could potentially have 
provided notification concerning these out-of-state emissions under 40 
CFR 51.308(h)(2) and/or (h)(3), we find it was reasonable for the State 
not to have done so, given that the overall contributions of sulfate 
and nitrate on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are modest and 
have declined since the baseline period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 80 FR 55816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with regard to the modeling underlying the 2018 RPG, as 
explained in response to a similar comment below, no revision to the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is required to address the WRAP modeling 
correction noted by the commenters. For these reasons, and taking into 
consideration the large reductions in anthropogenic emissions of 
SO2 and NOX already achieved in Nevada during 
this planning period,\10\ we find that the State has adequately 
supported its determination that no further substantive revision to the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is needed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 55810 for a summary of these reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs reiterated that visibility improvement at 
Jarbidge is not consistent with NDEP's 2018 RPG for the 20 percent 
worst days.\11\ The commenters also criticized NDEP's reliance in its 
declaration on emission reductions from units that have shut down or 
converted to natural gas at the Mohave, Reid Gardner, Tracy and Fort 
Churchill generating stations because those units affect Class I 
Federal areas in other states, rather than Jarbidge. The NGOs noted 
that NDEP did not provide modeling to evaluate the impact of these 
emissions reductions on visibility at Jarbidge and asserted that data 
from the IMPROVE monitors at Jarbidge do not demonstrate a significant 
improvement in visibility on the 20 percent worst days. The comment 
concluded that, ``visibility on the 20 percent worst days at the 
Jarbidge Class I area is not improving in a manner consistent with 
Nevada's 2018 [RPG] of 11.05 [dv] for the 20 percent worst days, and . 
. . emission reductions from the Reid Gardner, Tracy, and Fort 
Churchill power plants are not likely to ensure the Jarbidge Wilderness 
achieves the 11.05 dv [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days by 2018.'' 
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 2.
    \12\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As noted previously, the EPA agrees that the Progress 
Report does not demonstrate that visibility conditions at Jarbidge will 
necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 at Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst 
days by 2018. However, there is no regulatory requirement for NDEP to 
demonstrate in the Progress Report that Nevada will meet the RPG. 
Rather, the purpose of a Progress Report is to ``evaluat[e] progress 
towards the [RPG]'' \13\ by providing specific types of data and 
analyses concerning visibility conditions and emissions and to make a 
determination of adequacy under 40 CFR 51.308(h), based on this 
information. If a state determines that the implementation plan is 
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources 
within that state, it is required to revise its SIP within one year to 
address the issue. Our proposal evaluated the Progress Report with 
respect to each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), and 
concluded that it was adequate. The NGOs' comment has not provided any 
new information or data that would change our proposed approval of the 
Progress Report as meeting these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also do not agree with the commenters that it was improper for 
the State to rely on emission reductions from power generating stations 
that are not located near Jarbidge in making its declaration. The 
Regional Haze Rule requires progress reports to include a ``summary of 
emission reductions'' and specifically refers to such reductions as a 
relevant consideration in determining whether substantive revision to 
the SIP is required.\14\ Such consideration is not limited to those 
emissions that have been demonstrated to affect in-state Class I areas. 
Rather, the Regional Haze Rule expressly requires progress reports to 
consider ``each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the 
State, which may be affected by emissions from within the State.'' \15\ 
Therefore, it was appropriate for the State to consider all emissions 
reductions within the State that could affect any in-state or out-of-
state Class I Federal area. In this case, we find that NDEP 
appropriately took into account emission reductions throughout the 
State. Thus, the comment letter does not provide any basis for us to 
change our proposed finding that the Progress Report complies with the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h) and (i) and that NDEP is not 
required to make any substantive revisions to the Nevada Regional Haze 
SIP at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) and (h)(1).
    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs' second comment contends that the 11.05 dv RPG 
for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge was based on flawed modeling 
and preliminary emissions projections for 2018, rather than later, 
updated projections. The commenters assert that the EPA is ignoring 
this issue and thereby implying that Jarbidge will be on the glide path 
``based on the emission reductions that have occurred and that will 
occur at Nevada sources in the next few years.'' The NGOs commented 
that there is ``no modeling or other data demonstrating that that the 
reduction of haze-forming pollution from these sources will provide 
sufficient and reasonable visibility improvement at Jarbidge Wilderness 
area.'' The NGOs also requested that the EPA ``not allow NDEP to rely 
on an unjustified and unsupported 2018 reasonable progress goal for the 
20% worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness.''
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the WRAP submitted 
additional information in April 2011 relevant to the modeling that 
established the 2018 RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge on the 20 percent 
worst days. However, the regulations governing the required contents 
for a Progress Report do not include reviewing and revising RPGs, and 
the NGOs have not provided any citation to such a requirement for an 
approvable Progress Report. The RPGs for Jarbidge were established in 
Nevada's Regional Haze SIP. The EPA approved the Nevada Regional Haze 
SIP in 2012, and in doing so approved the RPG of 11.05 dv on the 20 
percent worst days for Jarbidge.\16\ In our proposed approval, we noted 
that ``the EPA addressed the uncertainties associated with modeled 
projections by making the RPG an analytic tool for the purpose of 
evaluating progress, not an enforceable standard.'' \17\ We then 
concluded that the WRAP modeling correction and revisions to emissions 
projections did not require NDEP to withdraw and revise its Regional 
Haze SIP after it had already been adopted and submitted. The commenter 
has not pointed to any basis for us to reconsider this determination at 
this time. Furthermore, if NDEP had revised the RPG to 11.82 dv to 
reflect the WRAP modeling correction, the monitoring data at Jarbidge 
would be assessed relative to a lower amount of progress, so Jarbidge 
would now be closer to achieving the RPG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 76 FR 36450, 36465 (June 22, 2011) (proposed approval); 
77 FR 17334, 17339 (March 26, 2012) (final approval).
    \17\ Id. at 36464 (citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v) and 64 FR 
35733).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also agree with the commenter that there is uncertainty 
regarding what

[[Page 37023]]

the ultimate effect of recent emissions reductions on visibility 
conditions at Jarbidge will be as of 2018. However, contrary to the 
commenter's suggestion, in the context of the Progress Report, there is 
no requirement for NDEP or the EPA to conduct modeling to evaluate 
whether these emissions reductions are sufficient for Jarbidge to be on 
the glide path (i.e., to achieve natural conditions by 2064) or to meet 
the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days. Thus, we do not agree with 
the commenter that NDEP is improperly ``rely[ing]'' on the existing 
2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. Rather, in its 
Progress Report, NDEP has used this approved 2018 RPG as a benchmark 
for measuring progress that has occurred to date, as required by the 
Regional Haze Rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(g) (requiring submittal of ``a 
report . . . evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress 
goal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs' comment letter asserts that the visibility 
impact of wildfires does not exempt NDEP from adopting measures to 
address contributions from stationary and area emissions sources that 
may be affecting visibility impairment at Jarbidge.\19\ The comment 
letter claims specifically that the North Valmy Generating Station 
(NVGS) should have been evaluated to determine if reasonable progress 
controls were required because it is located 160 kilometers from 
Jarbidge and emits SO2 and NOX without modern 
pollution controls. The comment letter contrasts the emissions from 
NVGS to the projected emissions from Ely Energy Center, a proposed new 
facility that was analyzed for visibility impact but was not 
constructed. The commenters suggested that, since the Ely Energy Center 
was projected to have an impact on Jarbidge, NVGS likely also has an 
impact on Jarbidge. The comment letter faults NDEP for failing to 
require reasonable progress controls at NVGS. The NGOs also state that 
NDEP should use ``appropriate regulatory tools'' to minimize emissions 
from oil and gas development in Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA agrees that wildfire emissions do not ``exempt'' 
NDEP from requirements to address anthropogenic pollution, but we find 
that NDEP has met the applicable requirements for a Progress Report. 
Specifically, NDEP established in its Progress Report that progress 
toward achieving the RPG of 11.05 dv at Jarbidge on the 20 percent 
worst days by 2018 has not been impeded by any significant 
anthropogenic emission changes within or outside the State.\20\ NDEP 
reached this conclusion by evaluating significant emission decreases 
from stationary sources within Nevada, the effect of emissions from 
sources outside of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada's 
emissions on nearby Class I Federal areas that are outside of Nevada. 
In the Progress Report, NDEP documented a substantial reduction in 
anthropogenic emissions from stationary sources in Nevada as well as an 
improvement in visibility at Jarbidge even though BART controls and 
other state and federal measures are not yet fully implemented. NDEP 
also demonstrated that relative to contributions from Idaho, Oregon, 
and sources outside the U.S. (Outside Domain), Nevada's overall 
stationary source contribution to visibility impairment at Jarbidge is 
small on the 20 percent worst days.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report, Chapter Six--
Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress (40 CFR 
51.308(g)(5)).
    \21\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October 
2009, Chapter 4, Table 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to NVGS, we note that in the EPA's approval of the 
Nevada Regional Haze SIP, we determined that NDEP had reasonably 
weighed the cost of additional emissions controls against the potential 
benefits and concluded that additional controls were not warranted for 
non-BART sources such as NVGS during the first planning period. NDEP 
would only be required to revisit this conclusion during this first 
planning period if it had determined that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP 
``is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to 
emissions from sources within the State'' under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4). 
However, as discussed elsewhere in this document, NDEP instead made a 
well-supported declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), and the EPA is 
approving this declaration. One of the elements of the State's analysis 
supporting its negative declaration was its showing that the overall 
lack of improvement on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge has been 
largely due to non-anthropogenic pollutants and out-of-state emissions, 
rather than to emissions of SO2 and NOX from 
anthropogenic sources such as NVGS. For example, in the 2008-2012 time 
period (the most recent data provided in the Progress Report), nitrates 
and sulfates accounted for 3.5 percent and 15.1 percent of total 
extinction on the 20 percent worst days respectively.\22\ Furthermore, 
source apportionment modeling indicates that the majority of this 
extinction is from out-of-state sources, rather than in-state sources 
such as NVGS.\23\ Thus, additional emission reductions from sources 
such as NVGS would have relatively little effect on progress toward the 
RPG for the 20 percent worst days for this first planning period.\24\ 
Accordingly, NDEP is not required to re-evaluate controls on non-BART 
sources such as NVGS for the first planning period. NDEP will be 
required to evaluate such controls in developing its Regional Haze SIP 
for the next planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report Table 4-4.
    \23\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October 
2009, Chapter 4, Tables 4-5 and 4-6.
    \24\ We note that in the recent revisions to the Regional Haze 
Rule, the EPA finalized a requirement that states select the 20 
percent most impaired days, i.e., the days with the most impairment 
from anthropogenic sources, as the ``worst'' days in SIPs and in 
progress reports. See 82 FR 3103 (January 10, 2017) (codified at 40 
CFR 51.301). Thus, we expect that in the next planning period, 
anthropogenic sources such as NVGS will have a larger influence on 
the worst days at Jarbidge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs' comment letter concludes that the EPA ``must 
require NDEP to evaluate and adopt measures to ensure the Jarbidge 
Wilderness achieves reasonable progress towards the national visibility 
goal in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4) and no later than the 
revised regional haze plan due in 2018.'' Specifically, the NGOs are 
requesting that the EPA:

    (1) Find that NDEP's [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days at the 
Jarbidge Wilderness is not based on a proper modeling analysis;
    (2) Establish a more realistic RPG goal, a goal based on proper 
modeling and planned emission reduction requirements required under 
the Nevada regional haze plan and state law. A proper goal would 
show that visibility is not expected to improve at the Jarbidge 
Wilderness in a manner consistent with achieving natural background 
visibility by 2064; and
    (3) Ensure that NDEP evaluates and adopts additional measures to 
achieve reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal at 
the Jarbidge Wilderness.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 6-7.

    Response: The EPA's role is to review progress reports as they are 
submitted by the states and to either approve or disapprove the reports 
based on their compliance with the requirements of the Regional Haze 
Rule. There is no requirement or basis for the EPA to reassess or 
revise the RPGs for Jarbidge as part of our review of NDEP's Progress 
Report. Furthermore, as explained in our prior responses, nothing in 
the Regional Haze Rule requires NDEP to adopt additional reasonable 
progress measures based solely on the fact that Jarbidge will not 
necessarily meet its 2018 RPG for the worst 20 percent days

[[Page 37024]]

or based solely on the fact that Jarbidge is not on the glide path. The 
Progress Report complies with all applicable requirements and contains 
a reasoned justification for determining that the Nevada Regional Haze 
SIP is adequate without additional measures. NDEP will undertake a new 
round of planning in the next few years, at which time it will be 
required to evaluate additional control measures and set new RPGs for 
Jarbidge for the next planning period based on updated, current 
information, including new emissions inventories and modeling.

Anonymous Comments

    Comment: Two anonymous commenters requested that the EPA ``require 
the best possible reductions in air pollution from Rocky Mountain 
Power's coal plants'' via its action on Utah's Regional Haze plan.
    Response: These comments appear to be misdirected and are not 
relevant to the current rulemaking action. The EPA took final action on 
the Utah Regional Haze plan on July 5, 2016.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 81 FR 43894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the Nevada Regional Haze 
Plan 5-Year Progress Report submitted to the EPA on November 18, 2014, 
as meeting the applicable Regional Haze Rule requirements as set forth 
in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). In addition, we are re-codifying our 
prior approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP in order to correct its 
location within 40 CFR 52.1470(e). This recodification has no effect on 
the substantive content of the Nevada SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations.\27\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's 
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria 
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as 
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 10, 2017. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 24, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. Section 52.1470, paragraph (e), the table is amended by:
0
a. Removing the last entry ``Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plan (October 2009), excluding the BART determination for 
NOX at Reid Gardner Generating Station in sections 5.5.3, 
5.6.3 and 7.2, which EPA has disapproved''; and
0
b. Adding, under the heading ``Air Quality Implementation Plan for the 
State of Nevada'' two entries before the entry ``Small Business 
Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance 
Program''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  52.1470   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 37025]]



                   EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or         State       EPA approval date        Explanation
                                 nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Nevada Regional Haze State       State-wide........        11/18/09  77 FR 50936 (8/23/  Excluding Appendix A
 Implementation Plan (October                                         12).                (``Nevada BART
 2009), excluding the BART                                                                Regulation''). The
 determination for NOX at Reid                                                            Nevada BART
 Gardner Generating Station in                                                            regulation, including
 sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2,                                                           NAC 445B.029,
 which the EPA has disapproved.                                                           445B.22095, and
                                                                                          445B.22096, is listed
                                                                                          above in 40 CFR
                                                                                          52.1470(c).
Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-     State-wide........      11/18/2014  [Insert Federal     .......................
 Year Progress Report.                                                Register
                                                                      citation], 8/8/
                                                                      2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada's original
  1972 SIP, which was divided into 12 sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans,
  are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small Business Stationary Source Technical and
  Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or quasi-
  regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR
  52.1470(c).


0
3. Section 52.1488 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1488  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (g) Approval. On November 18, 2014, the Nevada Division of 
Environmental Protection submitted the ``Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-
Year Progress Report'' (``Progress Report''). The Progress Report meets 
the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.

[FR Doc. 2017-16491 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P